Themiclesian Pledge of Allegiance
The Themiclesian Pledge of Allegiance is a political statement established by the Themiclesian parliament in 1962 to enhance civic awareness and loyalty in an age of perceived ideological threat from communist states, particularly Maverica.
Modern text
According to the Consolidated Pledges and Oaths Act amended last in 1985, the Ordinary Pledge of Allegiance is:
For the sake of the undoubted and immutable rights and liberties of citizenship, I promise to uphold the democratic and parliamentary form of government against violence and political confederacies seeking to overturn it.
肆為邦人自事並自權，翼眾權事及廷番龢事，惟彼暴于謀非厥抌，余哲。
Selection
The Liberal Party established in its manifesto for the 1959 general election that additional measures will be taken to assure "strong civic consensus" about Themiclesian political institutions as a measure against "seditious political activities". Within this plank was the proposal for a pledge of allegiance to be used in both public settings and schools as in some states in Columbia and Vinya. There was very little reaction to this policy as it was wholly overshadowed by the Liberals' commitment to doubling military budget over four years to respond to the increasingly dire situation of the Maverican federal government. As the Liberals were returned with a majority that year, it appointed a committee to consider various proposals for the pledge.
Some commentators believed that the pledge of allegiance should be similar to the oath of allegiance that aliens were required to take when they became citizens,
I, A.B., do hereby freely renounce and abjure for myself and my heirs and successors, now and forever, all allegiances and debts due to the princes and nations and submit to the laws and customs of Themiclesia and the legitimate authority whereover of the sovereign, the peers, and the people of Themiclesia in Parliament assembled, or be peril my lot.
余某于朕身于毓孫子自今向世，惟它伯王于它公邦徹服眔縣與灋，自臣邦茲震旦具服眔禦眔宜，于邦伯眔徹侯眔百姓廷番龢。朕亦則于茲，亦不作灋眔朕身，于哲。
or be modelled after the loyalty oath when ministers were sworn into the Privy Council:
I, A.B., do hereby solemnly declare that I shall be faithful and bear true allegiance to the sovereign of Themiclesia, to disclose without delay or reservation of all treasons against the sovereign, to the utmost of my abilities discharge all lawful duties according to the known laws passed by the sovereign, the peers, and the people of Themiclesia in Parliament assembled, to give true and honest counsel to the sovereign and his ministers, to uphold the secrecy of matters laid before the council as required by statute, to [...]
However, a few others pointed out that the public would not support a declaration of such gravity being used frequently and certainly not participate in something akin to a mandatory oath. The most serious objection came from the Conservative Party about the implications of a mandatory loyalty oath of any kind or degree. They held the view that loyalty oaths by private citizens were "inherently un-Themiclesia" as they seriously restricted the freedom of the mind, and loyalty should and could only "emanate from natural affection for good government, not from the fear of penalty". The Liberal goverment instructed that the declaration should be suitably solemn and inspiring, yet not given to gravity or punitiveness, or in the Liberal home secretary Edward Bing's words, "serious yet not severe."
A preliminary agreement was reached with the Conservative Party that the pledge of allegiance, the term introduced in 1960, would not be compulsory in schools. The Liberal Prime Minister further assured the public that there will never be any penalties for not taking the pledge of allegiance, nor would its recitation be a pre-requisite for any government service or office. He claimed that the pledge was only a suggestion, and the final choice whether to recite it or not would "always be a personal and free decision", but some Conservatives still believed the pledge would give employers and right-wing organizations an excuse to pester individuals who refused its recitation, even if the Government could be trusted to uphold its commitment to make the pledge a "personal and free decision".
There was also debate whether the pledge should be written in araicizing, chancery, or vernacular style. Themiclesian oaths, particularly judicial oaths, relied upon fossilized phrases that dated to Antiquity for consistent meaning, and even new kinds of oaths were usually drafted in the so-called "archaicizing" style which incorporates as many elements from ancient texts as possible. For example, the phrase prong-brak-n.rep-r′jêt-go-n.rep-prêk-sjêngh (邦伯眔徹侯眔百姓) is accepted as the phrase that refers to the composite body politic of Themiclesia, and the suffix lêng-pjar-gwar (廷番龢) refers to their guise or function as a national parliament. This language was archaicizing and not archaic, as archaic texts rarely invoked political authority this way; rather, the term was imbued with legitimacy through component words that were used in Antiquity. Though largely figurative, this association with archaic language was also used to give an air of legitimacy to political reforms that were, in reality, new.
In February 1962, the Liberals introduced the first draft to the House of Commons of the current pledge of allegiance:
In recognition of the undoubted rights and liberties of all citizens, I pledge to uphold our democratic and parliamentary constitution against violence and confederacies seeking to overturn them.
Analysis
The pledge of allegiance is commonly associated with a few stock phrases found in popular civics textbooks from around the PSW era, in which Themiclesia's government was essentially described as "democratic and parliamentary". These books were written to inculcate the superiority of the Themiclesian constitution over those of invading powers, of which Dayashina was described as stratocratic (rule by the military) and Menghe as kleptocratic (rule by embezzlers). Many civics textbooks further explained that these alternate forms of government were undesirable because they barred "the public" from political decisions, thus curtailing their natural strength and innate desires, and were doomed to fail. On the other hand, some textbooks also disparagingly characterized Marxist states as ruled by mobs that were only capable of violence and not "government"; this point then led to the superiority of the "parliamentary" form of government, which was both democratic, orderly, and peaceful. A. Gro argues:
In sum, the textbooks rewritten in the early 30s were meant to be read by a generation of soldiers, for whom, it was judged by higher powers, the knowledge and belief in the rational superiority of their nation, as well as their future share in government, was both justifiable and indispensible. There is an idealist bent to these lines: Themiclesia's political superiority was not only desirable but rational, a key belief when the material advantages of the war were certainly not on the Themiclesian side.
Though textbook-writers were careful to avoid overt contempt, they implied that, though the Mengheans and Dayashinese are many, each is weaker than the Themiclesian soldier, because only he was properly motivated by not only a strong belief in the rational superiority of his government but also by his rational self-interest. It aims to make the Themiclesian soldier sure in his stride, by portraying him as a rational actor superior to mindless drones of Menghean and Dayashinese manufacture.
The phrase "undoubted and immutable rights and liberties of citizenship" was first used in political discourse in 1825 by the Rationalist thinker and politican the Lord of Ran, who argued that the Enlightenment had established that all humans are common in their desire for freedom and equality. In his vision for Themiclesian constitutional reform, he called for official recognition for basic rights and freedoms, some of which were already recognized in part in Themiclesian law. This idea went hand-in-hand with the flourishing of political philosophy in Themiclesia seeking to address the root causes for the rise and fall of nations. In order to rationalize Themiclesian defeat in 1796, many political figures subscribed to the belief that Themiclesians were unduly oppressed, and their liberation would equal both strengthening and pacification of the people.
Historians have noted that this line of thought was heavily, if not predominantly, influenced by Whig history in Anglia and Lechernt. With or without merit, political reform in the 1830s culminating in the Revolution of 1844 was regarded as the direct product of the growth of a class of non-aristocrats who wielded influence by the power of ideas now known as the Constitutionalists. In the context of the pledge, the "rights and liberties of citizenship" is the read as the foundation upon which the democratic and parliamentary form of government was historically constructed.