To the Members of Congress of Liberland, the Senate of Liberland, and President Vít Jedlička,
I am writing as a citizen and candidate who came to Liberland in good faith because of the vision that was presented to the world, a republic grounded in liberty, voluntary participation, limited government, decentralization, merit, and the rule of law. I have spoken publicly about the widening gap between that promise and the institutional reality we now live under, and I want to address that gap directly in light of Congress Resolution CON-RES-2025-01, dated 22.12.2024.
This resolution is not merely a technical response to a technology and governance crisis. It is a constitutional admission about what Liberland currently is. The resolution “acknowledges its role as an advisory body within a Presidential system of governance.” That sentence is not incidental. It defines the practical hierarchy of authority and responsibility in a way that contradicts the political story many citizens were asked to believe for years.
If Congress is advisory by acknowledged design, then Congress cannot plausibly be held responsible for the absence of a ratified constitution after more than a decade, the absence of a coherent body of law, the lack of enforceable legislative structure, the recurring institutional stagnation, or the failure to establish stable governance norms. Advisory bodies can recommend. They cannot govern. They cannot implement. They cannot compel. They cannot be used as a substitute for a functioning legislature, nor can they be blamed as though they are one.
This is why the meaning of this resolution extends beyond the immediate subject matter. The resolution asserts binding force for its decisions, including removal from office, restoration of governance parameters, judicial reforms, security control of the SUDO account, management of Merits, and restoration of presidential voting powers, and it also describes the mechanism of blockchain referendum and code change to enact certain parts. On one hand, it presents Congress acting in a manner consistent with a legislature attempting to direct state affairs. On the other hand, it simultaneously states that Congress is advisory within a presidential system. Those two ideas can coexist only if we are prepared to say clearly what “advisory” means in practice, what powers Congress does and does not truly hold, and who is accountable when those recommendations are ignored, delayed, or reversed.
This letter is therefore a request for clarity, not a rhetorical exercise.
If Liberland is, in practice, a presidential system in which Congress is advisory, then the public narrative needs to be corrected, and the civic expectations placed on elections need to be recalibrated accordingly. Elections for an advisory body can be meaningful if they are presented honestly as advisory elections, with defined channels through which advice becomes policy, defined requirements for executive response, and transparent rules for what happens when advice is declined. Elections become performative when they are used to project legitimacy while authority remains unconstrained.
If Liberland is intended to be a republic with a meaningful legislature, then the resolution’s framing must be treated as a temporary, emergency-era statement that requires immediate repair through constitutional ratification, explicit separation of powers, and a legislative process that produces enforceable law rather than discretionary guidance.
This matters because Liberland has repeatedly spoken the language of libertarian governance, decentralization, and rule of law, while operating with unclear authority lines, inconsistent institutional participation, and public discussions of punishment and exclusion without a stable legal code. The core libertarian promise was not simply “less government.” It was constrained government, predictable government, transparent government, and consent based on knowable rules. The resolution’s acknowledgement of advisory status, in combination with ongoing public messaging about what “Congress has done” or “failed to do,” risks turning Congress into a convenient shield, blamed when things go wrong and celebrated when things go right, regardless of whether it had binding authority in either direction.
I also want to address the deeper philosophical conflict this document surfaces. A libertarian, merit-oriented republic requires that power be limited by design, dispersed by structure, and accountable through procedures that apply equally. A system that concentrates authority in a single office and treats representative institutions as advisory risks drifting into rule by discretion, where legitimacy flows downward from executive preference rather than upward from law and consent. Whether one prefers that model or not, it is not the same model that many of us were promised, and it cannot be reconciled through slogans. It can only be reconciled through either structural reform or explicit honesty about what the state is.
I am asking Congress, the Senate, and the President to state plainly, in a public and durable form, what the governing system is right now, what it is intended to become, and what the timeline and mechanism are for closing the gap between those two realities. I am also asking for a commitment that public accountability aligns with actual authority. If the presidency retains final decision-making power in practice, then responsibility for outcomes must be owned at that level. If Congress is to be responsible, then Congress must be empowered with clear legislative authority, a functional process, and enforceable outputs.
My own candidacy and platform are grounded in specific reforms: a mandatory structural framework for legislation, a constitution that is concise and understandable and submitted to the people for a vote, a merit system where influence reflects ongoing contribution rather than permanent entrenchment, transparent public accounting, and institutional accountability including scrutiny of lifetime roles. These reforms only make sense inside a system that takes lawmaking seriously. They cannot be implemented meaningfully in a system where representative bodies are advisory and executive discretion is dominant.
This letter is offered in the spirit of seriousness, not hostility. Liberland’s reputation is built on the claim that it is an alternative to old political failure modes, not a reproduction of them under new branding. The resolution you have released forces an unavoidable question into the open: are we building a libertarian republic, or are we maintaining a presidential system where institutions exist primarily to advise and legitimize decisions made elsewhere.
I ask you to answer that question directly, and to align our structures, our messaging, and our accountability accordingly.
Respectfully,
Steve Wollett