Titles and their roles in propaganda

Brief thoughts from Emizerri Tannurai

Titles and institutional names serve as the first line of propaganda within the government. Terms such as Grand Councillor, General Director, Assembly President, National Directorate and Common Assembly, among others, serve as the first means for an individual to understand the role of a government role or body. These are very important, because it serves as a form of engagement for someone who may otherwise be non-political. These titles and names were carefully selected, with many of them chosen by myself, Emizerri.

Names changes, such as the Realm of Easway into the Common Union of Easway represent ideological agendas. Realm was seen as too monarchical and even medieval by some, so we carefully decided for it to be Common Union. Common as in of the collective people and union as in a federation of different groups of people, united in purpose. We could have chosen something such as Republic of Easway, but we didn't as 1) that would be so boring and played out but 2) it wouldn't reflect the true character of the Easwegian nationstate. 
Our formerly most prominent socialist office, Gaia Gribbeneach, proposed the term Commonwealth, but I found that to be too much associated with Britain and its realms. Yes, names immediately have preset associations and conceptions that come with them. Why do you think the 2022 referendum to change the name of the head of state to Chancellor failed?

Now that I have outlined this, perhaps you can understand why it is both important to carefully select your titles and names for reasons of identity and association, but also why you should have something more inspiring than 'department head' for example. These should lie to the descriptions of the titles.

Nevertheless, I oppose the growing Wikipediaisation of how officials and bodies are described within our Co-operative Government. All too often, far too much focus is put on what a person in power or an organisation is, rather than what they do. You can see this in America, but they do it with Acts. They'll say 'Biden passed the following Acts...' without taking time to actually explain what the policies are. So cold and off-the-mark, and they wonder why people are confused at what they've achieved and look elsewhere. It's too cold, it's too vague.

So, I request that our government and our united front Easwegian Dawn takes a look at this, and adjusts how we write our documents. This perhaps could be a focus of our Ombudsman (Teireet) who has previous experience in style and has made previous attempts to standardise the way in which we use language within official documents.