Our alleged oligarchy

[Claude Desmoulins]

In part three of his post on governance systems and the CDS, Michel makes a number of assertions. The one I'd like to take a closer look at is the assertion that there exists an oligarchy in the CDS.

Michel writes:

[quote:6cubmpux]A small fraction of our community (less than 10) makes all decisions affecting us all between elections.

While 10 per cent of a total population of millions would indeed constitute representative sample of any population, this becomes less so as one goes down in population size...[/quote:6cubmpux]

The 10 percent figure is missing the point. In any real world jurisdiction, the percentage of citizens making decisions is much lower. RL cities of hundreds of thousands are governed by city councils of five or seven persons. Furthermore, these ruling groups are by and large wealthier, better educated, and (in the US anyway) more likely to be attorneys than a representative sample of the population they represent.

Michel continues

[quote:6cubmpux] 2. The same small group of individuals tends to constitute this group.[/quote:6cubmpux]

He then goes on to name the inner circle, pointing out that only one of the ten persons he identifies entered SL after 2005. I do not have access to detailed records of who joined the SC when, but such records (election results) do exist for the RA. So I looked at the numbers. The analysis isn't perfect as there are a number of persons who have served partial terms replacing those who have resigned. With that caveat, here we go.

Over the history of our community 23 persons have been elected to the RA. 15 of those persons are currently citizens, meaning about 20% of the population has some legislative experience, or will once the incoming RA meets.

In fact, we have never had less than 40% of an incoming RA be new.

RA % of elected members who had not been previously elected
to the RA
_________________________________________________________________
2nd 100 (first elected RA)
3rd 40
4th 60
5th 80
6th 60
7th 57

Michel asserts that this ruling class excludes newer citizens.

[quote:6cubmpux]ten individuals (9 of whom were born in 2005 or earlier) [/quote:6cubmpux]

Here are the average days in SL for members elected to the RA: (Note - the provisional government, which was not elected, is by tradition considered to be the first RA)

RA Mean age when took office (in days)
---- ------
2nd 274
3rd 401
4th 490
5th 315
6th 352
7th 607

At first glance, it looks as if Michel is right. However two things need to be remembered here. First, SL is aging, too.

RA mean age age of SL (based on 1-Jun-03 release of 1.0)
--- --- ---------
2nd 274 609
3rd 401 812
4th 490 969
5th 315 1157
6th 352 1341
7th 607 1522

If we look at how fast the RA is aging vs. SL as a whole:

RA mean age age of SL (based on 1 June 2003 release of 1.0)
--- --- ---------
2nd 274 609
3rd 401 +127 812 +203
4th 490 +89 969 +157
5th 315 -175 1157 +188
6th 352 +37 1341 +184
7th 607 +252 1522 +181

Note the decrease in mean age from the fourth to fifth RA. This is in large part due to the fact that the fifth RA was the first one without a community founder as a member (community founder here being loosely defined as someone who has a street in Neufreistadt named for them). With the exception of the incoming RA, the RA has aged more slowly than SL.

Second, time in SL does not equal time in CDS. For example the incoming RA includes Moon Adamant (1053 days in SL when the new RA takes office) and Brian Livingston (1283 days). However, neither of them joined our community until mid 2006. taking their time in the CDS down to something around 500 days.

Also, when you look at our whole history, the 23 persons elected to the RA first took office an average of 335 days (11 months) after entering SL.

If you break this down by RA

RA mean SL age in days of new members
2nd 274
3rd 312
4th 344
5th 325
6th 275
7th 501 (the average of the three new members other than Brian is 240)

Looking at just the LRA

RA SL age in days of LRA at beginning of term

2nd 183
3rd 283
4th 86
5th 274
6th 458
7th 683

for an average of 328, or about the same as for new RA members as a whole. If you eliminate my multiple terms, it drops to 309.

And last, the interesting bits:

Youngest av elected to RA : Pendari Lorentz -- 80 days old when took office
Oldest av elected to RA : Brian Livingston -- 1283 days
Youngest LRA : Claude Desmoulins -- 86 days
Oldest LRA : Patroklus Murakami -- 683 days
Most times elected to RA: Gwyneth Llewelyn, Pendari Lorentz, Claude Desmoulins (3 each)
Most terms as LRA : Claude Desmoulins (3)

[michelmanen]

Claude,

Fascinating analysis - so many interesting details to know... I wasnt aware you were quite so young when elected to as LRA.. Quite 2. impressive indeed... And whatever happened to Lorenz? I'm surprised a 3-time RA member is no longer with us...

Anyway thank you for your hard work in anaysing the age factor of our RA from its inception to today. If there is one variable that I would add to complete the picture, it is the number of SL cohort by year of birth compared to both CDS as a whole and to the LRA... This is probably impossible to do unless one has access to SL population numbers since its beginning - but I do know that SL growth really took off almost geometrically since 2006.

Two other brief comments:

1. You mention that large cities are governed by relatively few individuals. This misses the point that qround these individuals exists an entire civil service or bureaucracy, media of information, and a vast civil society network -tens of thousands of people who do take part in the process of debate, discussion, decison-making and implementation. We dont have any such networks in CDS - and the few such tools or organisations that we DO have - (website, wiki, Guild, political parties) are manned by the very same people who get elected to the RA. One determines the existence of an oligarchy not simply by examining one, central institution, but by determining the concentration of power in all society networks and how such networks interrelate.

For an apt comparison, think of analsying the concentration of power in the hands of board of directors members in a country. The two key factors would be: how many companies of a certain size one has in a country; and who sits on their board of directors. The fewer companies a country would have and the more the same people would tend to appear on various boards, the greater the concentration of power would be. It is this type of analysis that should be applied to the CDS, not simply examining one institution- the RA. And the fact is that the CDS has very few governmental, quasi-governmental, non-governmental institutions and organisations: the SC, the RA, the Guild, the political parties, its webiste, wiki and forums; and these tend to be founded, owned or ran by pretty much the same people. And that's fine if that's what we wish to be: oligarchy is by no means a pejorative word (the ancient Greeks, for example, thought oligarchic government was superior to both monarchical and democratic forms) and it certainly is not intended to diminish the huge contributions of those who are part of this group.

2. But that is not the issue. The question is, rather: how open to growth and expansion, to new citizens, to diversity, to inclusiveness, to participation are we throughout the CDS? How receptive are we to new, innovative, creative ideas, proposals, principles, experiments are we? How do we react when new organisations, but governmental and non-governmental, are created, that would diffuse or diminish existing concentrations of power?

I know it's difficult to quantify and analye all these trends. But I do know that when in a community of 76 individuals, where each and every individual could take an active part in the life of our community at one or another level, but where only about 25 (1/3) do so with any regularity; when so few organisations exist as do in CDS; and when in addition such organisations are controlled by the same small group of people --the concentration of power in the CDS is significant by any standards. This results in the corrolary fact that most other citizens (2/3) are not involved in the CDS to any significant extent. And this explains the deserted streets, empty shops, lack of commerce, arts, educational and cultural and artistic events in our community. Most our citizens are extraordinarily creative, innovative, enterprising, involved - just not in the CDS. They all "do it" somewhere else. We really should ask ourselves why that is... (Thanks to Jamie Pallisades for asking this question during the CARE pre-election meeting).

So, to conclude - if most our citizens wish to be governed by an able, competent, devoted oligarchy - that is their right. But then lets us call it for what it is, and stop pretending we are the only truly democratc community in Second Life.... because we aren't - not, a least, if one understands democracy as something more than the purely procedural act of delegating power to a small number of individuals at regular intervals of time and then disappearing into the woodwork until the next election...

More on this when I get the time to post the second part of my :"[b:24qu7iaf]What System of Governance for the CDS[/b:24qu7iaf]?"

[Dnate Mars]

In the pages and pages of writing that you have done Michel, there is one thing that you have never addressed and the is the question of why. Why are there the same names coming up over and over again? Why don't we have more people volunteering for positions and trying to run for offices? Why are there still so many people that aren't even voting?

I don't believe there is a lack of openness in the CDS. If that was the case they why was it so easy for you to form CARE? You served on the RA with a party that was very young. Now you have Bromo Ivory sitting on the RA. Was he even part of the CDS 6 months ago? Look at me even. I may have been part of the CDS for a long time, but I was never active. You know why? Because I didn't want to be. I didn't want to be on the RA, I didn't want to be in the SC, I wanted to just be a citizen and not have the burden of serving. I see the problem not in the system, but in the people. People don't want to give up their free time to spend serving the RA, or volunteering to teach others skills. Some are active in other parts of SL and don't have the want or the time to also spend time dealing with the CDS. They want to live in a free and fair sim, and that is all they want. People don't want to serve, and no amount of committees, meetings, or pressuring of them will make them be invovled in the government in any way, shape, or form.

[Bromo Ivory]

[quote="Dnate Mars":au3jood9]

... You know why? Because I didn't want to be. I didn't want to be on the RA, I didn't want to be in the SC, I wanted to just be a citizen and not have the burden of serving. I see the problem not in the system, but in the people. People don't want to give up their free time to spend serving the RA, or volunteering to teach others skills. Some are active in other parts of SL and don't have the want or the time to also spend time dealing with the CDS. They want to live in a free and fair sim, and that is all they want. People don't want to serve, and no amount of committees, meetings, or pressuring of them will make them be invovled in the government in any way, shape, or form.[/quote:au3jood9]

I have always found that people not willing to serve is a lack of motivation to do so - which is more or less what you experienced.

Now, it is easy to say that efforts to increase participation are "not going to work" - and for some they will never work - but can we honestly say we should not try to improve participation? I am reading a subtext that we are doing all we can presently, and no more need be done ... I hope i am misreading it because that is a rather defeatist stance.

I joined CDS because I like dthe *idea8 but was rather surprised when I met people and found everyone very active - but not in CDS.

I feel there is nothing wrong or misguided with trying to increase participation in CDS by its residents and interested non residents - and working hard to make CDS a "first choice" for activites.

And like I said - I really hope i misinterpreted your comments becasue they sure seemed to me a kind of "we're doing all we can ... this is as good as it will get."

[Ranma Tardis]

Michel does have a point. It is not as easy to be a part of the CDS government as you make it appear. One has to get elected to the RA. I found it easier in some ways to get elected to city council in Real Life.
The Science Council is a closed part of the government unless you are popular with the members of the Science Council.
As for the Guild I am not sure it is even a part of the government. Last time I applied to it never received a reply to my application.
I finally did become a member of the Guild under the original Guild master herself Kendra Bancroft.
It is so strange to go from being a citizen of Neualtenburg to Neufreistadt to CDS then returning to Neualtenburg.

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

Another reason why some people, like myself, don't want to get deeply involved in CDS governance is that the payoff is questionable. Beyond the issue of compensation (which isn't really what I'm talking about), the CDS has been more of a drama-hive than anything else. My hope for the CDS since I joined more than a year ago was that it would test and support democratic governance in virtual worlds (a truly groundbreaking endeavor, and one worthy of time) - but because of a number of factors this doesn't seem to be the major project of our community.

Themes, institutions, et al. can be had in many places in SL and other virtual worlds (Caledon, Dreamland, Gor, Star Trek, etc.) but democracy is what we have going for us that no one else does. It is, in my mind, what makes us a unique community.

[Beathan]

Michel's formulation makes two fundamental mistakes -- mischaracterising the role and function of RA members as representatives and underestimating and undervaluing citizen participation in RA government.

It is true that, as a matter of statistics, 10% of a population of 50 would not be a representative sample for population survey purposes. That is, polling a random selection of 10% of our population would not tell us much about ourselves. However, the members of the RA are not a random sample. Rather, the members of the RA represent sets of ideas which have been tested in a general election -- and the representation of those ideas in in proportion to the general popularity of the ideas in general election (in which between 60% and 70% of the citizens vote -- much closer to an appropriate sample -- especially if we consider nonvoting to be an indication on nonparticipation in our community, in which case the views of the nonvoters are not really relevant).

That is, there is a huge difference between polling and politics -- there is a huge difference between running a census and running a government. Representatives in representative government are not there as accidental representatives who, as a matter of statistics, are expected to have views that match a portion of the community. Those representatives were actually and intentionally selected by the community just because they have those views. There is nothing oligarchic about the efficient implementation of ideas through selection of a representative and delegation of the project to the representative. Crowds and mobs cannot govern -- but unions and parties can, and unions can just because they select and act through representatives at the end of the day.

Second, Michel completely undervalues the role of citizens who do not hold office in the regular working of our government. We are small enough that every citizen has relatively easy access to the government. Certainly, any citizen who wishes to attend an RA meeting can do so -- and time is given for them to express their opinions to the RA. The RA listens to these opinions -- although the members of the RA ultimately exercise their own judgment, of course. There is no oligarchy of communication.

Further, citizens can propose legislation directly. Unlike most governments, an act does not have to be sponsored by a member of the RA to be considered by the RA. In the last two terms, a substantial set (maybe half, maybe a third) of the legislation was proposed by someone who was not then on the RA. This legislation also appears to be treated as well by the RA (passed as often) as legislation proposed by RA members. There is no oligarchy of ideas.

Finally, the RA has the power to delegate the consideration of an issue to a citizen commission -- and has done so. The RA is mindful that service on these commissions is toilsome and time consuming -- and that people vote for representatives to avoid such toil themselves by delegating the effort to enact a shared agenda to a single person. Therefore, such commissions should be enacted only seldom and then only when the desires and opinions of the citizenry are changing, unclear, complicated, and at cross-purposes. In my opinion, citizen commissions are best used when the RA sees that the citizenry does not, in fact, have fully developed opinions on a matter of great importance and complication -- and the commission is then used to form and gel the will of the people. These commissions, therefore, should not be used willy-nilly for all purposes. Such overuse will exhaust the citizens and will dilute the effectiveness of the commissions when they are actually necessary because the citizens have not yet formed final and coherent views on some subject matter.

However, the bottom line is that we do not have an oligarchy. We have certain citizens who have become banner-bearers for sets of ideas. We have other citizens who share those ideas, but for reasons of their own (lack of time, lack of energy, a desire to do other and better things) don't want to spend their time and energy waving the banners, even the banners they like. The result -- a system of representative democracy. There is no better crucible for ideas than a representative democracy -- in which the debate, through delegation, is not drowned out by a yelling crowd, but in the which the crowd, again through delegation, is indeed heard.

Beathan

[Dnate Mars]

[quote="Ranma Tardis":1cza9hom]Michel does have a point. It is not as easy to be a part of the CDS government as you make it appear. One has to get elected to the RA. I found it easier in some ways to get elected to city council in Real Life.
The Science Council is a closed part of the government unless you are popular with the members of the Science Council.
As for the Guild I am not sure it is even a part of the government. Last time I applied to it never received a reply to my application.
I finally did become a member of the Guild under the original Guild master herself Kendra Bancroft.
It is so strange to go from being a citizen of Neualtenburg to Neufreistadt to CDS then returning to Neualtenburg.[/quote:1cza9hom]

Well, the Guild that you applied to no longer exists. The new guild that we have is all about openness. As long as you meet the minimum requirements you are in. But then the guild is not part of the government.

People that want to be part of the government, but aren't, why? Is it really too hard to be part of the government? Or is there something else stopping you?

[Dnate Mars]

[quote="Bromo Ivory":3en172a3][quote="Dnate Mars":3en172a3]

... You know why? Because I didn't want to be. I didn't want to be on the RA, I didn't want to be in the SC, I wanted to just be a citizen and not have the burden of serving. I see the problem not in the system, but in the people. People don't want to give up their free time to spend serving the RA, or volunteering to teach others skills. Some are active in other parts of SL and don't have the want or the time to also spend time dealing with the CDS. They want to live in a free and fair sim, and that is all they want. People don't want to serve, and no amount of committees, meetings, or pressuring of them will make them be invovled in the government in any way, shape, or form.[/quote:3en172a3]

I have always found that people not willing to serve is a lack of motivation to do so - which is more or less what you experienced.

Now, it is easy to say that efforts to increase participation are "not going to work" - and for some they will never work - but can we honestly say we should not try to improve participation? I am reading a subtext that we are doing all we can presently, and no more need be done ... I hope i am misreading it because that is a rather defeatist stance.

I joined CDS because I like dthe *idea8 but was rather surprised when I met people and found everyone very active - but not in CDS.

I feel there is nothing wrong or misguided with trying to increase participation in CDS by its residents and interested non residents - and working hard to make CDS a "first choice" for activites.

And like I said - I really hope i misinterpreted your comments becasue they sure seemed to me a kind of "we're doing all we can ... this is as good as it will get."[/quote:3en172a3]

You are, I am not saying that trying a new approach is a bad thing. I am saying that just quoting numbers is not the whole story. I didn't want to be a part of the CDS government for a number of reasons. I didn't have the time, the desire, or the feel that I needed too. I would vote for people that would do that job for me. I found people that believed the way that I did and I voted them to do my bidding.

[michelmanen]

What changed?

[Dnate Mars]

My RL and SL existence.

Plus, I think that Claude not running anymore, the lack of the DPU holding any offices, and an internal need for change.

[michelmanen]

Super! Good luck! Great to see you taking a more active part in our system of governance.

[Ranma Tardis]

[quote="Dnate Mars":2lwf992w] Well, the Guild that you applied to no longer exists. The new guild that we have is all about openness. As long as you meet the minimum requirements you are in. But then the guild is not part of the government.

People that want to be part of the government, but aren't, why? Is it really too hard to be part of the government? Or is there something else stopping you?[/quote:2lwf992w]

Then there are only two parts of the government the RA and the SC.
I fought against destroying the Guild and lost, I fought to get rid of white lists and lost, and come to think of it I lost all of my fights.
I have more real influence in Caledon than ever had in the CDS. I get to chat with Desmond and he listens to me. You claim that citizens can try to convince the RA. What is the difference really in pragmatic terms?
As I have said before the CDS is much more like a homeowners group than a government.
So other than proposing laws that the head of the RA and simply ignore, try and convince RA members to support them and vote in a strange election process, what power do the CDS citizens process?

[Bromo Ivory]

[quote="Ranma Tardis":21e4rd2x]
Then there are only two parts of the government the RA and the SC.
I fought against destroying the Guild and lost, I fought to get rid of white lists and lost, and come to think of it I lost all of my fights.
I have more real influence in Caledon than ever had in the CDS. I get to chat with Desmond and he listens to me. You claim that citizens can try to convince the RA. What is the difference really in pragmatic terms?
As I have said before the CDS is much more like a homeowners group than a government.
So other than proposing laws that the head of the RA and simply ignore, try and convince RA members to support them and vote in a strange election process, what power do the CDS citizens process?[/quote:21e4rd2x]

Right now - the citizens get to :

1. choose the Party rank to determine the party makeup of the RA.
1A. If you belong to a political faction, you get the chance to rank members of the party that have agreed to serve as well.
2. Anyone can propose legislation to the RA. They have been , in my experience, pretty good about bringing it up in the RA meetings.
2A. You can come to the RA meeting and participate in the discussion at any time, just not vote.
3. Rest of it would be to ask the Chancellor and/or RA representative directly to do something or advocate something for you.

I would love to see more ways of direct participation available - but I think the above pretty much lists what are the current citizen inputs.

[Ranma Tardis]

[quote="Bromo Ivory":sksg0edt]
Right now - the citizens get to :

1. choose the Party rank to determine the party makeup of the RA. [/quote:sksg0edt]
Like the DPU? I use to be in the DPU but they did not get a chance, now did they?

[quote="Bromo Ivory":sksg0edt]1A. If you belong to a political faction, you get the chance to rank members of the party that have agreed to serve as well. [/quote:sksg0edt] Like the DPU???

[quote="Bromo Ivory":sksg0edt] 2. Anyone can propose legislation to the RA. They have been , in my experience, pretty good about bringing it up in the RA meetings.[/quote:sksg0edt]

So true but that does not mean it will ever see the light of day on the agenda.

[quote="Bromo Ivory":sksg0edt] 2A. You can come to the RA meeting and participate in the discussion at any time, just not vote.[/quote:sksg0edt]
Last time I attended a session the RA members spoke first and the citizens got a small chance to speak after them. I felt like a unwelcome guest.

[quote="Bromo Ivory":sksg0edt] 3. Rest of it would be to ask the Chancellor and/or RA representative directly to do something or advocate something for you.[/quote:sksg0edt]

So in the end a citizen is really powerless and depending on the goodwill of both the elected and unelected.

[quote="Bromo Ivory":sksg0edt] I would love to see more ways of direct participation available - but I think the above pretty much lists what are the current citizen inputs.[/quote:sksg0edt]

At this time other than vote and chat with the RA members there is no way to get involved.