Claude,
There are two sets of issues that deeply trouble me in the way the CDS is currently governed; the first is procedural; the second substantive. The combination of these issues, culminating in last week's frontal attack against me personally as well as against basic principles of openness and inclusivity by projected citizenship legislation prompted CARE's (and my) decision to withdraw from the RA.
Since then, I was asked both in-world and on the forums if CARE (and I) would reconsider this decision, and I stated that we would do so if the RA would be willing to take concrete steps before the next election to deal with these two sets of issues. These are not ultimatums, as some have characterized it; the RA is free to do as it chooses. CARE (and I) have simply decided that without such action being taken, we could no longer justify remaining engaged in a process of governance which is neither open, nor democratic, nor inclusive, nor participative, nor even respecting basic norms of civility. The entire idea of SL is not to blindly duplicate RL political structures, warts and failures included, but attempt to improve and innovate upon failed systems of governance and develop new possibilities and alternatives in an environment in which such social experiments are incomparably less costly that in RL. From such experiments we may hopefully learn and adapt our failing RL institutions to the requirements of the (RL) world we live in. This is clearly not happening in CDS, where democracy is limited to a vote every six months, where separation of powers and the rule of law are virtually non-existent, where all levers of decision-making are concentrated in the hands of at most 10 per cent of the CDS population between elections (and pretty much the same 10 per cent irrespective of elections).
Given this state of affairs, and the RA's clear desire to continue pretty much along the same lines, as evidenced by the latest citizenship amendments, which ignore my (and others') previous suggestions to fundamentally rethink our idea of citizenship in order to become a more open, innovative, and welcoming community (as opposed to losing in rapid succession valuable citizens such as Ashcroft, Oni, Ben, Ranma, Carolyn, Diane, Dave Attenborough, TOP, and address the fact that we currently have a majority of our citizens barely involved in the day-to-day life of CDS); as well as by the refusal to engage in a rethinking of our scientific and judicial branches despite the fact that most of the high-quality publicity CDS has got so far (BBC, ABA) has to do exactly with the fact that (supposedly) we have our own judiciary branch based in principles of judicial independence and the rule of law; and finally by the utterly uncivil and downright insulting tone used by some public officials towards other officials (and me personally) and even some citizens (which also contributed to the departure of some of the citizens named above), CARE and I simply have no incentive, motivation, and indeed justification to remain engaged in a process which not only fails along so many fronts important to us, but is actually led by officials vehemently opposed to any substantial movement in that direction, some of whom even find it appropriate to employ invective and insult to bludgeon anyone suggesting or attempting to act otherwise.
So, to return to the two sets of issues mentioned above:
1. I strongly believe that 2 of the fundamental reasons why so few people seem to want to occupy our official positions in the CDS is that, for the most part and most of the time, they feel disempowered and disenfranchised by a representative system of governance where all decision-making power is concentrated in the hands of the same small group, and that these members can do and legislate exactly as they wish between elections;
CARE (and I) therefore suggest that we open up the legislative process as widely as possible on the 4 topics I mentioned by:
a) drawing up a brief and clear note on each topic, outlining the main issues and possible alternatives available; then asking our citizens for their own preferences in each case and allowing them to comment at length on each;
b) mailing these notes to our entire citizen body, setting up specific forum threads for each issue, and in-world consultation times for those citizens wishing to comment in public;
c) appointing a "rapporteur" on each issue whose job it would be to summarize the popular feedback on each issue and present the information to the RA;
d) based on such citizen feedback and active participation, the RA as a whole would draft legislation it would be willing to pass before the next election.
Please note that CARE (and I) propose an open, collaborative, inclusive, democratic legislative process which is much more appropriate for a small community of less than 100 people that that of delegating virtually dictatorial powers to 5 individual members of the RA whose only checks are elections every six months -and Gwyn (currently cumulating in her sole hands all powers of the scientific and judiciary branches). Such a process would, I believe, re-energize our citizen body, attract new ones, and transform our system of governance into a much more open democratic, participatory, innovative and creative process than is now the case;
2. The 4 substantive issues i raised ( and not for the first time, both in-world and on forums to various degrees) are so fundamental to the CDS's future welfare and prosperity that we need to act on them before the next elections. We are now 1/2 way though our term and despite CARE's (and my) attempts to deal with at least 2 (citizenship and institutional reform) immediately after the election, the RA has not yet taken any truly meaningful action on them and shows no intention to do so in the near future. In fact, with the citizenship amendments currently being considered, we are in danger of sliding backwards, not forwards.
Please note that CARE (and I) are not asking for a specific outcome or substantive legislation content and wording; rather, we wish for the process outlined above for each of the main topics be set in motion and that legislation based on such process be introduced in the RA and voted on before the start of the next election cycle.
Should the RA be willing to engage in such a process on the 4 topics outlined on the forums and commit to introducing and voting on such legislation within the time-frame mentioned, CARE (and I) are willing to resume our participation in the CDS system of governance generally and in the RA specifically.
Michel Manen
