National Power Party: Difference between revisions

| style="font-size: 10.2pt; background: #fcfcfc; text-align: center;" colspan=2 | '''National Power Party'''<br>'''''Plaiduv Ğudra'ārá'''''  

| '''Federal Caucus''' || ''non-inscrit''  

The '''National Power Party''' (Coscivian: ''Plaiduv Ğudra'ārá'') is a {{wp|liberalism|liberal}} unitary political party in the [[Kiravian Federacy]]. Originating in [[Æonara]] under the [[Kiravian Remnant]], the correspondence committees that would form the skeleton of the NPP were made up of dissidents from the [[United Allegiance Society]] who had become critical of the conservatising [[Renaissance Party]] and the Remnant's political establishment generally, and who desired more substantive progress toward political liberalisation. The organisation operated legally but underground and under close state surveillance until the death of Prime Executive [[Séan Kæśek|Kæśek]] in 1962, after which it came aboveground as the National Power Party and sought membership in the [[National Reunification Front]], which it was denied. Although permitted to exist as part of {{wp|civil society}}, the NPP could not contest elections until 1976. In the truly multiparty elections of that year, the NPP emerged as the largest party in the [[Federal Stanora|Stanora]] outside the NRF, in part because the established authorities preferred the NPP over the other leading opposition group, the Democratic Movement Party, and worked actively to shift opposition voters from the DMP to NPP. The NPP went through a period of irrelevancy after [[Kiravian Reunification]]; however, during this time it underwent a generational change in leadership and adopted a new platform. Following the collapse of the Kiravian Green Party and its Third Front alliance, the rejuvenated NPP was able to gather liberal voters previously attached to the Greens, enabling the Party to regain its national profile.

===Platform===

====National Liberalism or Liberal Nationalism====

The NPP's conception of Nationhood is entirely {{wp|civic nationalism|civic}} in nature. In the words of an influential founding member, Brigadier Rulon Æselméir, "the Kiravian Nation is not a proposition nor an ideal, but a factual reality. The most self-deluded sophist cannot deny that there exists a definite spatial realm and living population - a Kiravia and its Kiravians - constituted and bound to one another by historical and institutional processes and material relations, both those currently prevailing and the legacies of those past. The Kiravian Nation persists in spite of its [[Kiravian Sunderance|present political schism]], and the ill effects of the Nation's unnatural rending are not only deeply felt but concretely measurable." The Party's founders rejected the meta-ethnic [[Coscivian nationalism]] of the UAS: in their view, ethnic minorities formed part of the Nationality and deserved equality, whereas Coscivian populations long outside the modern Kiravian state (e.g. Mainland Coscivians, Hekuvian Coscivians) were plainly foreigners.<ref>The position of independent South Cronan settler societies in relation to the Kiravian Nation was debated within the proto-NPP correspondence committees. Developing new arguments in service of old Pan-Coscivian visions, many claimed that the fission of the Cape Coscivians, Paulastrans, and Tierradorian Coscivians from the Kiravian Nation was not yet complete, and felt that some form of reunification among them would be desirable. Others disagreed, arguing that by the standards used to define the Kiravian Nation, the South Cronan diaspora had already definitively gone their own ways. The former camp became ascendant well before the Party came aboveground, and their position became the party line.</ref> Similarly, they rejected {{wp|territorial nationalism}} and {{wp|irredentism}} (e.g. with respect to [[Wintergen]]). Though significantly indebted to the "civilisational" narratives employed by both the Renaissance Party and the Kirosocialists that defined Kiravia as a {{wp|Civilization state|civilisation-state}}, the NPP departed from this also. Their ideologists credited the Coscivian peoples and Coscivian civilisation as central and indispensible to building the Kiravian Nation but refused, on classical Restarkist grounds, to identify any tradition, norm, or institution as essential to the National character. Indeed, the early members criticised state-sponsored projects of the time that aimed to articulate authentically and distinctively Coscivian answers to modern issues (e.g. [[Coscivian complementarism]]) and the use of these (allegedly ahistorical and contrived) ideas as bases for public policy. They argued that the survival, growth, and vitality of the Nation was not dependent on the persistence of any arbitrarily "indigenous" more to the exclusion of "imported" mores, pointing to navigation, stock-raising, Christianity, and [some Caphirian thing] as cultural imports that had strengthened National life. Thus, the relationship of Coscivian civilisation to the Kiravian Nation in NPP Thought was "foundational but not fundamental", and "Coscivianness" was not a valid obstacle to reform.<ref>Their avowed openness to [[Occident]]al influence and independence from Coscivian tradition nonwithstanding, the NPP's theory of the Nation subsists entirely within the framework of Shaftonic process philosophy. This is even more apparent in the 'empire-becoming-nation' thesis developed my M.N. Velestin as a party cadre and later expanded upon by him in academia.</ref> Nationalism in the NPP formulation is therefore supposèd to be culturally and demographically inclusive and and open to reform and the full exercise of democracy.<ref>The NPP and NTP share a similar concept of what the Nation ''is'', though the NTP's version is more 'closed' and authoritarian.</ref>

Based on its conception of the Kiravian Nation, the NPP ardently supported national reunification. Its approach to reunification was more flexible than that of the Renaissance Party and its satellites who, until the 1960s, would accept nothing less than dissolution of the Kiravian Union and resumption of full authority over the Mainland by their own government. From its beginnings, the NPP was much more open to a diplomatic solution and to compromise with the KU. The Party justified its loyalty to the Remnant with the assessment that the Remnant was committed to reunification and seemingly (from 1945) to democratisation as well, rather than any appeal to legitimacy. It was thus willing to consider alternative scenarios, such as One Nation Two Systems, the [[Popular Sovereignty Federation]], or formation of an entirely new, unified state. The NPP's commitment to reunification distinguished it from the other 1976-1985 liberal opposition party, the DMP, attracting tactical support from the establishment.  

The NPP usually defines its nationalism in opposition to corporatism, parochialism, and imperialism; however, it also supports national sovereignty and has in the past defended the nation-state as morally superior to supranationalism, one-world government, and even liberal post-nationalism. While it has softened with respect to the latter since the 2010s and is now welcoming towards internationalism in matters such as human rights protection, in economic matters it continues to assert a preference for {{wp|Impossible trinity|independent monetary policy and fixed exchange rates over free movement of capital}}.  

====Society & Culture====

====Economic and Fiscal Policy====

====Constitutional Reform====

====Miscellaneous====

*{{wp|Urbanism}} and {{wp|cyclism}}.

===Electoral Showings===