Senya has not yet fallen!
Senya's decline in political and economic prominence has been a gradual, yet poignant shift, surprising many who had once regarded it as an economic and social powerhouse on the world stage. For decades, Senya had enjoyed a reputation as one of Micras' wealthiest and most developed nations, buoyed by an extensive, though secretive, sovereign wealth fund that funded a range of infrastructure projects and social programs. These assets allowed Senya to maintain an enviable standard of living, invest in cutting-edge technology, and wield considerable influence in international alliances. However, this golden era began to wane in the 1730s, as the nation's political and economic stability showed signs of unraveling.
The term "Senya has not yet fallen!" is often used in Senyan sources for this period as a means of expressing the nation's resilience against a complete societal collapse.
Background
Senya's standing within the Xäiville Convention had began over the course of the 1720s and 1730s. Once a leading force within the Convention, Senya had played a key role in setting policy and mediating disputes. However, over the years, other states, most notably Hurmu, began to eclipse Senya's influence. Hurmu's growing economic and diplomatic clout, coupled with Senya's diminishing resources, meant that the balance of power shifted away from Senya, sidelining its traditional leadership role and contributing to a sense of national malaise. Compounding these external challenges were significant internal political upheavals. Prime Minister Linda Angelton won a controversial third consecutive term in office in 1730, despite the nation's constitutionally enshrined two-term limit. Her election was widely criticized as undermining democratic norms, with opposition groups accusing her administration of eroding constitutional safeguards to maintain power. This period marked the beginning of a broader weakening of Senya's democratic institutions, as political opposition was gradually marginalised, and legislative checks were bypassed.
In 1733, Angelton’s government became embroiled in a major scandal that exacerbated tensions within the country. The government had proposed the construction of large-scale wind farms in Mɏelveka National Park, a project aimed at bolstering the nation's energy independence. However, the project quickly became a flashpoint for controversy when the government circumvented a High Court ruling to expedite the construction. This move led to widespread protests, as many citizens viewed the government’s actions as an encroachment on both judicial independence and environmental protections. Protestors rallied under environmental and democratic banners, calling for transparency and respect for legal processes. In response to the escalating unrest, Angelton took steps to quell public dissatisfaction. She granted greater autonomy to Senya's territories, an attempt to pacify regional leaders and address calls for decentralisation. Additionally, she dismissed Energy Minister Morgan Fallowgrave, who was widely seen as the architect of the Mɏelveka wind farm initiative, in an effort to appease the public. While these measures helped to stem the protests, they did little to address the underlying issues of democratic backsliding and governance concerns.
Despite surviving this wave of protests, Angelton's government faced lingering anti-government sentiment. The backlash from the Mɏelveka scandal left a lasting impact on the administration's credibility, exposing deep-seated discontent with what many viewed as an increasingly unaccountable ruling elite. This period of internal strife and declining international influence has cast a long shadow over Senya’s future, with questions arising about its ability to reclaim its former status or adapt to a new era defined by regional power shifts and domestic reform demands.
Regional demands for greater autonomy had become a significant issue across Senya as diverse communities sought increased control over their own affairs and the preservation of their cultural identities. Lamantia, an autonomous region with a distinct cultural heritage and a predominantly Lamantian-speaking population, had called for a substantial redistribution of tax revenue, arguing for the retention of a larger share of locally generated funds. Lamantians also sought legislative authority over key policy areas, including language rights, transportation, energy, and education, viewing these as essential to safeguarding their cultural heritage and economic interests.
Similarly, politicians in Tiana had issued similar demands. Tiana’s leaders had expressed frustration with what they perceived as a central government that was unresponsive to the island's distinct needs. They argued that without regional jurisdiction over critical sectors, they lacked the ability to implement policies aligned with Tiana’s cultural and economic priorities, which often diverged from those of mainland Senya.
In Northern Senya, calls for greater regional autonomy had also gained traction. This area, home to a variety of linguistic communities, including speakers of Martino and the Northern Senyan dialect, felt increasingly marginalised by the central government, citing inadequate support and recognition for their languages and cultural practices. Among ethnic Martinos and Krasnocorians, the sense of disenfranchisement ran especially deep. Members of these communities alleged that they had faced discrimination from the Senyan government, with many reporting experiences of institutionalised racism.
Issues
Across the country, there were many areas of contention that had helped contribute to the sense of decline.
Economy
During the 17th century, Senya’s economy underwent significant consolidation and growth, establishing itself as one of the more robust economies on Micras. This economic rise was underpinned by the creation of a sovereign wealth fund, a state-controlled investment vehicle that allocated capital into various industries across Micras, helping to ensure steady returns and long-term economic stability. The wealth fund’s activities provided Senya with a strategic advantage, allowing it to participate in and profit from industries beyond its borders. By investing in key sectors, including manufacturing, energy, and finance, Senya positioned itself as a crucial player in regional trade and development.
Senya’s economy was further bolstered by its membership in the Xäiville Convention, which it helped found in 1690. Through the Convention, Senya gained indirect access to the extensive Raspur Pact economy, facilitated by DES2RP, which allowed it to benefit from preferential trading conditions with Raspur Pact nations. This connection to a wider economic network, combined with a sovereign wealth fund that strategically invested in industries across Micras, solidified Senya’s status as a financially stable nation capable of sustaining high living standards for its population. Through these mechanisms, Senya had consistently managed to maintain a high median salary, low unemployment, and a strong safety net for its citizens. This economic strength was complemented by Senya’s partial ownership of the Apollonian Express, a critical international trade route jointly operated through Senyan Rail. This ownership stake meant that a significant share of trade passed through Senya, bringing in revenue and enabling it to function as a central trade hub. Additionally, Senya’s political stability and relative peace, in comparison to other regions of Micras, made it an attractive base for trade operations, drawing in businesses and foreign investment.
Economic migration also contributed significantly to Senya’s workforce and economic output. One notable influx occurred in the 1680s when large numbers of Krasnocorian immigrants moved to Senya following the collapse of the Krasnocorian state. These immigrants predominantly filled lower-paying, labour-intensive roles in manufacturing, a sector that saw significant growth as Senya transitioned into a key exporter of goods. The steady stream of Krasnocorian workers provided a vital labour force for Senya’s expanding economy and was instrumental in bolstering its position in international trade. Senya’s territorial expansion northwards during this period also allowed it to establish new ports, further enhancing its trade infrastructure and economic output.
However, by the 1730s, Senya’s economic trajectory began to falter, impacted primarily by broader geopolitical tensions and disruptions to global trade. A major contributing factor was the Shiro-Benacian War, which created economic instability across Micras. Trade routes were disrupted, and investment flows diminished as the conflict escalated, causing a ripple effect that gradually impacted even distant economies like Senya's. The ensuing uncertainty in international markets reduced the volume of trade, adversely affecting Senya’s income from both its trade networks and sovereign investments. In 1737, the situation further deteriorated as key Raspur Pact nations, including Nouvelle Alexandrie and Natopia, two of Senya’s largest trading partners, slipped into recession. These economies had been heavily interconnected with Senya’s through the DES2RP programme and bilateral trade, meaning their downturns had immediate repercussions for Senya’s own economy. Demand for Senyan exports, especially in the manufacturing and resource sectors, declined sharply, reducing both trade revenues and industrial productivity. The recession also revealed vulnerabilities in Senya’s economic model. While it had enjoyed substantial growth during stable times, the downturn highlighted an over-reliance on international trade and investment, particularly with Raspur Pact nations. Despite efforts to mitigate these effects through stimulus measures and attempts to diversify the economy, Senya experienced rising unemployment and a decrease in public revenues, impacting the state’s ability to maintain social services at previous levels.
Democratic backsliding
Angelton's government was viewed as having taken a sledgehammer to the constitution over the course of her second term in office. Whilst things had started well, by the end of the 1720s, it was clear that Angelton had no intention of giving way. At the time, her government was genuinely popular, but there was no clear successor within the Senyan National Party to promote to the job. Despite warnings from advisors, Angelton ran in the 1730 election as party leader, after she resigned for 3 hours as Prime Minister and party leader, before being elected again as leader, by a secret vote of National Party NDF members. Angelton's administration had taken a sledgehammer to the constitution throughout her second term in office. Despite the constitutional safeguards designed to limit any such actions, Angelton had interfered so extensively in the Senyan judicial system that the courts were rendered incapable of declaring her third attempt to retain leadership as unlawful.
Discrimination
Among Martino speakers and Krasnocorians, disenfranchisement ran especially deep, as many felt that their unique identities and needs were systematically sidelined by the Senyan government. These communities, with rich cultural traditions distinct from those of the Senyan majority, reported facing a range of discriminatory practices that appeared deeply embedded within government structures and social institutions. Many Martino speakers felt that the Senyan government had gone back on their promises that they had made upon signing the Treaty of Lükanburg, and that many of the residents of Saint Christopher's and New Aquitane felt that they had not been afforded the rights and respects promised to them upon their annexation. One prominent area of concern was language policy. Both Martinos and Krasnocorians felt that there had been limited support for their linguistic rights. Schools across Senya often only instructed in Common Tongue and Senyan, and official government communications and services were rarely translated, leaving many community members excluded from important information and public services. This lack of linguistic recognition fostered a sense of alienation, as Martino and Krasnocorian leaders argued that these language barriers placed their communities at an educational and socio-economic disadvantage.
Employment discrimination was another issue that deeply affected these groups. Ethnic Martinos and Krasnocorians alleged that they were systematically passed over for promotions or opportunities in both government positions and prominent industries. A study conducted by regional advocates highlighted that, despite possessing qualifications comparable to those of their Senyan peers, Martinos and Krasnocorians often found themselves relegated to lower-paying, less secure jobs, with little opportunity for advancement. Moreover, there were widespread allegations of police profiling and bias against these communities. Martino and Krasnocorian leaders cited numerous cases where their community members were subjected to heightened scrutiny and harsher penalties for minor infractions compared to ethnic Senyans. Community organisations reported that Martino and Krasnocorian dominated areas faced disproportionately frequent police patrols, leading to a pervasive sense of mistrust toward law enforcement. These practices not only eroded trust but also exacerbated feelings of marginalisation and resentment among these communities.
In civic life, Martinos and Krasnocorians faced barriers to political representation. Few representatives from these communities held positions in Senya’s central government, and those who did reported feeling constrained by institutional biases that prevented them from effectively advocating for their communities. Senya's use of proportional representation was sometimes seen as reinforcing the dominance of the Senyan majority, as political candidates from minority backgrounds struggled to secure sufficient resources or media attention to compete with their mainstream counterparts and struggled to gain promotion through Senya's mainstream political parties.
Futhermore, a growing number of Senyans began to view the Krasnocorian community pejoratively, often reducing them to negative stereotypes and reinforcing social divides. The Krasnocorians, for example, had initially been welcomed as they sought refuge and opportunity. However, as many Krasnocorians found themselves relegated to lower-paid, unskilled labour, Senyan perceptions began to shift. Economic and social anxieties, compounded by stereotypes, fostered a stigma around the Krasnocorian community. Prejudice toward Krasnocorians manifested in derogatory assumptions about their character and work ethic. Many Senyans labelled Krasnocorians as lazy and unmotivated, dismissing the socioeconomic challenges that kept the majority of this group in low-wage positions. These views overlooked the structural barriers Krasnocorians faced in accessing education and upward mobility, such as language barriers, limited networks, and a lack of vocational training opportunities within Senya. Instead, Krasnocorians were often blamed for their circumstances, further entrenching the perception that they were unwilling or unable to integrate into mainstream Senyan society.
A common stereotype was that Krasnocorians were 'quick to anger' and lacked discipline, which played into broader suspicions about their character. These assumptions, though largely unsubstantiated, had real-world consequences. For instance, Krasnocorians were often the subjects of heightened scrutiny in public spaces and workplaces, where employers sometimes hesitated to hire them due to perceived behavioural issues. This reinforced a cycle in which Krasnocorians struggled to find stable employment, which, in turn, perpetuated negative perceptions and kept many within the bounds of lower-paid work. Additionally, Krasnocorians faced accusations of failing to integrate culturally, with critics pointing to language differences, community traditions, and social practices as evidence. Senyan cultural expectations regarding language and social norms were sometimes difficult for Krasnocorians to meet, particularly as they sought to preserve their heritage within a new homeland. However, what Krasnocorians viewed as efforts to maintain cultural continuity were often interpreted by Senyans as a refusal to adapt, further isolating them from the broader society.
These negative perceptions not only affected Krasnocorians’ economic prospects but also fuelled broader social tensions. Krasnocorian leaders and community advocates worked to counteract these stereotypes, highlighting that the community was committed to contributing to Senyan society, though often lacking the resources and support to do so. Nonetheless, such efforts did little to dispel the ingrained biases held by many Senyans, who continued to view the Krasnocorians through a lens of suspicion and distrust. This atmosphere of prejudice contributed to the Krasnocorians’ collective sense of alienation and intensified their calls for greater autonomy, as they sought to reclaim dignity and agency within an environment that seemed increasingly hostile to their presence.
These layers of exclusion had compounded over generations, leading many Martinos and Krasnocorians to believe that they were not only culturally disregarded but actively marginalised within their own country. For them, the call for regional autonomy was more than a political demand; it was a bid for dignity, recognition, and an opportunity to protect their communities from the systemic inequalities they had long endured.
