Recently the Daily Micronational sat down with Mcarthian President Kit McCarthy, who recently published the first officially codified document containing Mcarthian constitutional policy, foreign affairs policy, legislation, legislative procedure, executive policy, and every other conceivable affair relating to the running of the Mcarthian government and the functioning of Mcarthian society as a whole. Today we discussed with him this unprecedented Mcarthian legal document, his connection to controversial Cinnamon Creek General Secretary Dallin Langford, and his opinion on the MicroWiki community, among other topics.
Daily Micronational: Recently you came out with the Maelternt, an extremely long, complex legal document that, for the first time, enshrined in codified law the policies, legislation, judicial procedure, foreign affairs policy and every other conceivable government, bureaucratic and executive affair of the Republic of Mcarthia. What, may I ask, spurred you to finally take this step?
President McCarthy: I was embarrassed. The ‘Republic’ of Mcarthia was to all intents and purposes an anarchy. We had a Constitution…but it was completely ignored. We had no laws. We had no provision for a court system.Add that to the fact I personally was developing a great interest in legal systems, it seemed like an obvious step, and what’s more, I thoroughly enjoyed writing it.
I wish for Mcarthia as a nation to have a more prominent role in the international stage, and this seemed impossible without a functioning system of government. My attention was also raised the need for a Court system over Eden vs. Langford. Despite my offers of the Mcarthian Legal system, at that time, it didn’t exist.A little while previously – January, I think – I tried to do something similar. I invited new citizens to a constitutional convention, and all might have been good. Except, in the end, nothing came out of it. That was a disappointment, but the new Maelternt makes up for it.
DM: You mention the Eden v Langford situation, which we’ll go onto in just a moment, but first I’d like to ask about a specific part of the Maelternt, referring to your position within the executive. While, in general, according to the document, the President is re-elected regularly, you in particular are able to hold permanent control over the presidency. Do you think people will have concerns about this, considering the potential for corruption inherent to such a system, and if so, what would your response be?
KM: The Maelternt is unashamedly corrupt and undemocratic. The President has the power to do whatever he wants, has complete control currently over the judiciary, and can hire and fire the government more or less at will. Why won’t this happen? Two reasons: as Beacon City Prince James Frisch put it, it would be a bit boring, and secondly, if people don’t like what I was doing, they’d just leave. It’s in the interests of the President to keep the system fair. The reason the Maelternt is like this is two-fold. Firstly, at risk of sounding rather selfish, Mcarthia is mine, and I do want to be able to protect my creation. As a mainly simulationist micronation, it is more a piece of intellectual property than a sovereign nation. Secondly, I have had some horrible experiences in over-inflated, over-democratic organisations. Organisations and governments run a risk in micronationalism of being so democratic they can’t get anything done, let alone enjoy the hobby of micronationalism. I wanted to avoid this, because for me, micronationalism is really just a hobby. I freely admit the Maelternt is dodgy, but I would reassure you that I don’t intend to exploit it. That would, I feel, kind of defeat the point.
DM: The Major Executive of the Universal Triumvirate recently expressed, in a very roundabout way, concern with a particular section of the Maelternt; specifically the article that makes you eternal President of the country. How would you respond to the concerns of him or anyone else on this issue?
KM: I would be selfish, and say that Mcarthia was mine. As I’ve said, Mcarthia is much more a piece of intellectual property than anything else, and actually, I want to keep it. Citizenship is not compulsory, so if people don’t like that fact, they don’t have to join. I would also say that the terms ‘President’ and ‘Republic’ are slight misnomers. In a way, we’re much more similar to a monarchy than a true Republic. Furthermore, as I’ve also said, it is very much in the interests of the President to run a fair nation. People don’t have to be active in micronationalism, so if you want a nation to be a success, don’t be a tyrannical dictator.
DM: Excellent point. Let’s change tack here, then, for a moment, and talk about another country – specifically the Democratic Republic of Cinnamon Creek, who are currently holding their General Secretary elections. Currently Libertarian-Conservative Party incumbent Dallin Langford is leading considerably in the polls, with civil rights candidate Bella Topgrove trailing in a not very close second. As an external observer and honorary citizen of the DRCC, how do you see the election panning out?
KM: Dallin Langford will win. He has been, for all his faults, an excellent General-Secretary, and founders of micronations tend to retain control. He is the only one who has proven himself, while the others haven’t appeared to the general community, and citizens are familiar with him. I suspect things will waver a little bit, and Langford’s lead might slip for a bit, but I’m fairly sure he’s going to end up back in office.
DM: In despite of the idea he is an excellent General Secretary, he has – and I’m sure he would admit – a less than excellent international record, having been sued twice in the last four months and barely evading civil action a third time, not to mention having his bank account seized by the Financial Conduct Authority and Micronational Dollar Institute. Given that, is there genuinely, in your estimation, no chance that a third-party candidate could appeal to this fact and do well in the general election?
KM: Dallin Langford has not had an easy time recently. He is been involved in several high profile legal cases, and his been accused of espionage and dishonesty on more than one occasion. However, he has, generally speaking, managed to pull himself back from these events. Another candidate could try and use this, but they would still have to combat the fact that he is perhaps the people’s favourite, and the founder of the nation.
DM: The polls do seem to be bearing out your theory, in any case. While we’re on the subject of Mr. Langford, let’s talk about the Eden v Langford case that you were indirectly involved in. This was arguably the closest the General Secretary has come to a period of elongated litigation, with the UT case resolved via plea bargain and a speedy acquittal delivered in his Loquntian case. What would you say was your role in the tableaux that was that particular situation?
KM: Well, as you’ve said, I was not directly involved in the case. I suppose I was involved in three different ways. As editor of themicronational, I was responsible for compiling a live article, which covered the situation as it unfolded. This was, I’m told, used quite widely as an information source as the case began. I was also responsible for informally advising Mr Eden, as I have done so in the past. This also led to me offering the use of the new Mcarthian Courts in the case. Lastly, I was also involved in a resulting argument against the Universal Triumvirate’s Major Executive Lancelot Rice, as I felt that he was afterwards interfering unduly in the affairs of the DRCC.
DM: How would you have justified the usage of the Mcarthian justice system in this instance?
KM: Quite simply because it was an international case, and if Mcarthia could have helped, it would have had a duty to do so. There did appear to be a need for an unbiased adjudicator in the case, and so I offered the use of the courts.
DM: Could Mcarthia be an unbiased adjudicator, however? You did publicly state your support for the Eden side of the dispute, and have recently given him a high-up position in your cabinet.
KM: If I was the Judge, no, but there were other candidates for Judge who had not declared support either way.
DM: Fair enough. Well, we’re almost out of time either way, so let me close with one final question, and I’ll try and be as open-ended as I can: you mentioned in the Ragged Flagon earlier today that the community lacked a project, a focal point, to bring it back into activity. What in your eyes would such a focal point look like?
KM: It could be almost anything. An organisation is the obvious candidate, but it could just as easily be an international incident. On the other hand, it would be good if it were a little long lasting. I have recently, in an interview with the Austenasian Times, expressed my feelings that fear of YAMOs prevent the community from innovating. If an organisation turns into YAMO, so what? I think (again, as mentioned in this article) that there is a case for a new version of the GUM. Sure, it might not last, but that’s not to say we shouldn’t try. Who knows what will actually happen, but I think some kind of happenings is vital to the long term survival of the community.
DM: Thank you very much for your time.