In defence of representative democracy

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:06 am

This quote from Michel in another thread really struck me:[quote="Michel Manen":1ecg9xw8]Representative structures of governance as developed in the 16th century and adapted in patchwork manner over the next four hundred years are no longer adequate methods of governance in the 21st century. They are necessary, but not sufficient tools of collective governance and decision-making generally, and more particularly in the context of at most 76 citizens. Giving virtually unlimited legislative power to 5 or 7 people (save for 2 elections per year) is profoundly undemocratic and, as we can see in the CDS (where no other branch of government is fully functioning and capable of balancing the powers of the RA), conducive to the formation of an illegitimate, unaccountable, closed oligarchy. That is what CARE is fighting against, and why it sets more confidence and trust in a professional and accountable Guild than in the RA as currently structured, managed and run.[/quote:1ecg9xw8]Why is representative democracy no longer good enough? It's one thing to make such an unsupported assertion, it's another to back it up with some evidence. As Rudy demonstrated during his lecture series, democracy is important for spreading respect for basic human rights and preventing war and democracy is spreading across the globe. This process was accelerated by the fall of communism and there are now many more democracies in the world than there were previously - all of them representative democracies.

What is fundamentally wrong with deciding that, rather than make every decision as a collective of 76 (or 760? what about when we reach 7600?) we should elect representatives to take some of those decisions on our behalf? That's what we do in my corner of the real world - we elect 670 or so representatives to make laws on behalf of 65m people. This is not 'profoundly undemocratic', it's the essence of democracy! What is more, far from being 'unlimited' our legislature is bound by the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and monitored by another body, the Scientific Council. The executive branch also acts as a check on the power of the RA by virtue of the Chancellor's veto.

Michel claims there is an "illegitimate, unaccountable, closed oligarchy". I'd like to know who he thinks is in it and how they achieved their status in illegitimate ways. But this is like so much CARE/Michel rhetoric, vapid soundbites that evaporate on examination. It's now clear why Michel resigned from the RA, it was in order to distance himself from the 'oligarchy'; it's a bit difficult to present yourself as the plucky outsider when you're part of the machine, eh?

As for supporting the Guild rather than the RA, I expect we'd see that tune change pretty quickly if we're unlucky enough to end up with a CARE majority in the RA.

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:39 am

Pat,

I am glad that you moved this out of the Guild portion of the post.

As a CARE Chair, I find your remarks implying it being Michel only rather ["offensive" deleted and replaced with:] misguided.

And as for your characterization as "talking shops" - but I will direct you to the CARE platform for clarification. Suffice it to say, we believe in opening the RA up for citizen input wider than it is currently - to avoid proposing and passing laws in a vacuum. The "illegitimacy" stems mostly from our belief that citizens should be actively involved in the law drafting/discernment process more than they are now - especially for the larger pieces of legislation. Simple enough. You can and do disagree with this approach in principle, and that is simply a policy difference. Rhetoric from both sides stripped away.

Oh, also as you are not running against Michel - you can strip away his name.

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:13 am

Bromo

I want to like you, I look forward to working with you in the new RA but... get off your high horse! I'm criticising CARE/Michel's dismissal of representative democracy as 'not good enough'. What on earth do you find 'offensive'? That I disagree with Michel? That I take issue with his ideas? That I disagree with CARE? It's called free speech and the free exchange of ideas, get used to it.

The RA is already open to citizen input. Citizens can attend all meetings, they can propose laws (through the RA representatives), they can debate and propose ideas on these forums. There are more opportunities for citizen input in CDS law-making than there are in most real world democracies. I don't understand why you have to keep attacking the CDS as 'undemocratic' when it plainly isn't! It is, frankly, insulting to those people who have taken the time over the years and months of the CDS' existence to work on and draft laws. The CSDF proposed the idea of Commissions to enhance citizen involvement! We are in favour of more citizen involvement, not against it. Our track record demonstrates that.

None of my post was about 'the Guild thing'. If you want to debate that do it elsewhere.

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:15 am

Bromo --

Representative government in the CDS is critical. It is unrealistic to think that citizens of the CDS are even interested in the level of participation and time commitment that would be required to run the sim as one big legislature. Turnout at the debate and participation on the forums, if they show anything at at all, shows this. Many people come to the CDS because they want a way in how the sim is run -- not because they want the responsibility of actually doing it.

Further, it is simply untrue to say that CDS citizens cannot be involved in drafting and passing legislation. At the moment, any CDS citizen can draft and submit legislation to the RA. I did so before I was an RA member -- Michel did so after he resigned. That citizen also has the right to address the RA in support of the legislation. The RA has a long history of being open and warmly receptive to such citizen acts.

I think that the current system can and should be tinkered with -- by adding initiative and referenda, which have proven iRL to be compatible with and enhance representative government (as well as providing a check on legislative power in a representative government). However, we don't need to (and most citizens don't appear to want to) move to radical direct democracy.

It it squeaks, oil it -- don't junk-can it.

Beathan

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:27 pm

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":2w9tm5nx]Bromo

I want to like you, I look forward to working with you in the new RA but... get off your high horse! I'm criticising CARE/Michel's dismissal of representative democracy as 'not good enough'. What on earth do you find 'offensive'? That I disagree with Michel? That I take issue with his ideas? That I disagree with CARE? It's called free speech and the free exchange of ideas, get used to it.

The RA is already open to citizen input. Citizens can attend all meetings, they can propose laws (through the RA representatives), they can debate and propose ideas on these forums. There are more opportunities for citizen input in CDS law-making than there are in most real world democracies. I don't understand why you have to keep attacking the CDS as 'undemocratic' when it plainly isn't! It is, frankly, insulting to those people who have taken the time over the years and months of the CDS' existence to work on and draft laws. The CSDF proposed the idea of Commissions to enhance citizen involvement! We are in favour of more citizen involvement, not against it. Our track record demonstrates that.

None of my post was about 'the Guild thing'. If you want to debate that do it elsewhere.[/quote:2w9tm5nx]

OK, Pat - I removed the Guild portion of the post, and may or may not post it up elsewhere...

And yes, I am hopeful we can work together - the real hope is that for the legislation, we could use the Mizou style of commission to get wider citizen inputs than we have done so -

We also would like to explore and propose more direct RA elections - from my own observations of the Forums, the "politics of personality" are in full force - since many I have talked to expressed the desire to pick their specific RA person without me prompting! (Look at how even you are campaigning more against Michel than CARE for an example! )

And of course this is a departure form business as ususal - we would like to use the Mizou-style commission in order to vet these ideas out and have the best possible legislation!

Oh, also I would prefer if you would refer to CARE and just CARE - please don't ignore Mizou and me as the other Chairs in the faction. Michel isn't running for RA - so you won't be dealing with him in the RA!

But, OK - /me dismounts high horse. LOL! Thanks for the reality check!

(First election, and all!)

Flyingroc Chung · Post by **Flyingroc Chung** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:46 pm

For the record, I like the current system of voting factions, rather than people. That the politics of personality is in full force does not necessarily mean that it is actually desirable.

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:48 pm

Bromo --

It is true that Michel is not running for RA. However, he is a candidate. Michel is running for Chancellor. Because the Chancellor is selected by the RA -- a vote for CARE in the RA election is a vote for Michel for Chancellor. Thus, Michel is the elephant in the room -- and it makes no sense to not talk about him.

Also, first let me say that I like Mizou. In fact, Mizou is possibly my favorite person in all SL. She is helping me tremendously on several projects which I would not even be able to approach without her.

However, you are claiming credit for CARE where none is due when you speak of the "Mizou commission" or "a commission on the Mizou model."

Here is what happened. The RA has the power to create citizen commissions, and has frequently done so. That power -- and those commissions -- predate CARE.

The last RA created two such commissions, each chaired by an RA member. The first of these -- the Statutory reorganization commission -- was initially and ably chaired by Publius. When he resigned as SP RA member and I joined the RA, I volunteered to replace Publius on the commission (although I have not done half so well or made the same rate of progress that he had).

One of the first things the RA did when I was on it was to create a citizenship commission. I had advocated that from the start. Michel resigned from the RA soon after I joined (coincidence, I think). Upon resigning, Michel proposed legislation (for the first time). That legislation would have created four additional commissions.

Mizou replaced Michel on the RA. Her first session with the RA, the RA reviewed the legislation and decided to implement the citizenship commission, but not the others. The citizenship commission passed, in modified form, because it was something the SP and the CSDF had also both advocated. The other commissions did not pass because they were terrible ideas.

Mizou then volunteered/was drafted to head the citizenship commission.

Beathan

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:55 pm

Hi Beathen -

Comissions weren't invented in CDS either!

I really liked Mizou's non confontational manner of gathering citizenship data - and this is the model CARE wants to use. Hence me calling it "Mizou Style" is just that - a nice non confrontational gathering - the one I attended was in a park in Colonia Nova - and it was a great thing. This is not like Al Gore claiming to have invented the internet - but trying to explain in clear words what flavor of comission we'd really really like to do to implement the agenda.

And of course - Michel is standing for Chancellor - though there is a lot more to the race than just Michel - which was my point.

Hope that clears it up a bit!

[quote="Beathan":vb9b45bv]Bromo --