Controllable Democracy vs. Non-Cumulation of Mandates

[Robert Walpole]

I have been spending some of my SL time in the CDS since the Christmas holidays, first as visitor, then as citizen. I have met a group of people - almost all newbies - who are fun to be around, friendly, and full of great ideas and projects in creative areas such as the arts, architecture, trade and even real-world issues. I also have met another group - mostly longer-term residents - whose main interest seems to be in institutional design and party-political argument . What concerns me is that there seems to be quite a large disconnect between these two groups: the "Newbies" seems to be puzzled and, frankly, put off by the arguments taking place between "Oldies" which are based, in large part, on old animosities and rivalries between factions, while the "Oldies" seem to be largely unconcerned with the issues which interest the "Newbies" (entertainment, educational, commerce, real word issues) and tend to focus most of their time and efforts in-word and on this forum on the "political game".

This apparent disconnect between what I would call "civil society" and "governing elites" if our community would be substantially larger than the 80 odd citizens CDS now has is, I think, at the root of the current confusion and instability in our political process and our lack of regular events in our three sims. The "governing elites" side seem to think that it's not their job -or the government's - to get involved in events beyond passing generic laws, while "civil society" is disillusioned with the squabbling and in-fighting between politicians and just go on with their activities, trying to ignore the political process.

This brings me to Salzie's recent posts and a very interesting chat I recently had with her. Her points regarding the lack of a common, long-term vision for the CDS and of even basic strategic planning in the elaboration of which all citizens are involved seem to highlight the core of the problem we now face: how do move from a variety of groups, each of which focus on specific, but different objectives, to a true community where all citizens can pursue a variety of parallel, common goals?

It seems to me that what is required is a greater integration of the "political elites" and "civil society", in which citizens easily move between the two and belong to both, rather than belonging almost exclusively to one or the other. Only through such a co-mingling of individuals and the sharing of goals and perspectives can each group truly relate to the preoccupations of the other and be able to work in a cooperative and civil manner towards both sets of objectives.

So how do we get from here to there?

I am reminded of a recent commentary I read about the Chinese official media's praise of the "democracy with Russian characteristics" implemented by Putin in Russia, "where the transfer of power hinges on a "system of nomination" in which the incumbent designates a preferred successor whose electability rests upon the legacy of his predecessor. This, it is claimed, is needed to ensure policy continuity and political stability." The Chinese observers label such a system a " controllable democracy" drawing from the Chinese experience of the past twenty years and contrast it with Boris Yeltsin's system of "anarchic democracy" which, according to them, brought Russia to the edge of political and economic collapse in the 1990s.

Drawing parallels between real-life countries with hundreds of millions of people and a virtual community of less than 100 citizens is at best, tenuous. But I think that the concept of "controllable democracy" is a useful one in our context. From what I have seen over the past few months, the three key institutions of our community - the RA, the SC and the New Guild - are being run mainly by the same group of people who easily move back and forth between these three institutions. They serve a few terms in the RA, move to the SC or the Guild, then back to the RA or the Chancellorship. The current by-election illustrates this admirably: Gwyn served multiple terms in the RA and the SC, and now is standing as an RA candidate for the CSDF while still a full member of the SC; Justice finds himself in the same situation, with the exception that the two terms he served in the RA were under the DPU banner, while now he is running as a CSDF candidate. Dnate was Chancellor only last term, which Flyingroc was also an RA member and is a long-standing CDS member. The only new candidate seems to be Cindy - but no one seems to give her much chance against her four older and more experienced opponents.

What seems to be happening is that the "oldies" are increasingly concerned with the future of CDS and are trying to institute a system of "controllable democracy" designed to rescue it from itself. How else can one explain that two members of the equivalent of our community's Supreme Court, one having been elected to the RA three times and having been SC Dean for three terms, the other having been elected to the RA twice (under the banner of a different party from that of the one he is running for today) and having just been recently selected for the SC, are now running for the RA under the banner of the party whose two RA members chose to resign a few weeks ago?

Although commendable in itself, such easy movement from one key institution of the CDS to another is not unlike Vladimir Putin's forecast move from the role of Prime Minister of Russia (under Yeltsin) to that of President, and soon again to that of Prime Minister and possibly back again to being President in the not too-distant future. While respectful of the letter of the Russian constitution, such position-swapping ensures that the same person is in charge in Russia at all times and controls the Russian democratic experiment so as to avoid any future "back-sliding" into Yeltsin's "anarchic democracy".

At an even deeper level, there seems to be a tacit acknowledgment that the CDS continues to exist and expand despite its government, and not because of it, because it has been quietly managed financially and guided by Sudane. Everyone seems to rely on the fact that, whatever may happen on the political scene, Sudane will always be there as a "failsafe" and keep the CDS afloat and heading in the right direction.

I have only respect for the time and effort invested in CDS by Gwyn, and Justice, and Sudane, and other long-standing citizens who have been managing our community's affairs almost from its inception; but this system of controllable democracy is as far from being a truly democratic experiment in virtual government as Russia's "democracy with Russian characteristics" currently taking shape under Putin in the real world. The creation and maintenance of an "inner circle" who leads and manages the CDS politically and financially while at the same time carrying out its more creative activities outside it, does nothing to narrow the gap between "newbies" and "oldies" I tried to describe previously. As long as this situation continues, the divide between the CDS "political elite" constituted mostly of older citizens and its "civil society" made up in large part of newbies will continue to deepen. Enthusiastic people who fall in love with our sims will continue to join, then grow disillusioned with our democratic model and constant sniping at each other and leave, only to be replaced by new waves of new citizens who will go though the same process. Meanwhile, the same group of older citizens will continue to move from one position to the other to ensure that the CDS stays on the right track. There is nothing wrong with that, of course - as long we recognise it for being the system of "controllable democracy" it truly is and stop portraying it as 'the first truly democratic community in SL" - which, with all due respect, it is not (in my opinion at least).

I now believe that, if we are to narrow the gap between our civil society and our governing elites, and if we are to truly run a bold democratic experiment in SL, a greater rotation must exist between the mainly newbies'-composed CDS civil society and its political-managerial class composed mainly of older, more established citizens. This will undoubtedly be a riskier proposition - but also engender a much more democratic community where citizens will work together and create a true sense of community, vision, shared goals and common purpose.

Therefore, I wil submit to the RA the following Bill:

Non-Cumulation of Mandates Act

1. No citizen shall occupy an office in the Representative Assembly, Scientific Council, New Guild, as Chancellor or as Estate Owner for more than two terms in total.

2. All citizens who occupy an office in the Representative Assembly, Scientific Council, New Guild, as Chancellor or as Estate Owner must spend at least one "cool-off term" before taking a seat in another of the offices named above from the one they currently occupy.

3. This Act shall enter into force immediately upon ratification by the Representative Assembly.

I look forward to reading your comments and suggestions regarding my proposed bill both here, on the forums, and in-world.

[Beathan]

RW --

Very astute post. I will ponder it more at length. However, I have two initial concerns. First, the SC should be treated differently. It is the arm of government dedicated to preserving the intent of the founders in our project and to preventing that project from being taken over by new and incompatible ideas and agendas. As such, it is fundamentally conservative -- and should not be subject to any term-limit-type limitations.

Second, the first term of your proposal seems to limit citizens to holding 2 terms of office, total. Once two terms have been served -- that's it, they are done, no further offices can be held. This is far too radical and extreme -- as well as being unworkable in a community as small as we are. I expect that this is an accident of drafting, and that you intended the far less extreme limitation of restricting service to two consecutive terms, with a one-term lay-off.

Beathan

[Publius Crabgrass]

I've been away from the Forum for some time, but am moved to comment by Robert Walpole's suggestion. I am vehemently against term limits, except those imposed by the voters. If the voters don't want someone to continue, well then by all means vote them out. And I say that as one who served a portion of one term on the RA before RL commitments sucked up all available time.

I'm not at all troubled by the "oldtimers" trying to rescue the current RA from the recent chaos, though Simplicity's Jamie seems to be doing quite well all on his own in improving the tone of things. In fact, I am heartened by this development, as it speaks well of our community that people have a long-term commitment to it and are willing to step up when needed. Moreover, from my POV, Cindy has an excellent chance of being elected to the RA, since she is the sole candidate from a faction that seems to be able to turn out its voters.

The SC has turned into a sort of House of Lords where ex-MPs go, but I'm not sure that is such a bad thing. It might even be useful.

BTW, the other Robert Walpole served as Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1721 to 1742, unencumbered by term limits.

[Robert Walpole]

Beathan,

Thank you for your constructive comments. As I mentioned in my original post, what I submitted was a draft bill, open to comments and amendments capable of improving it to better accomplish its aims.

The first point you make, regarding the SC, is well-taken. However, if you think it should function not unlike the US Supreme Court, with no term limits at all for its members, then such a privilege should also entail greater duties. If one is, in effect, a member for life of our community's guiding organisation and the ultimate arbiter of our disputes, then its members must set themselves above any conflict of interest, real of apparent. I do not see how a life member of the SC can at the same time remain a member of such organisations as political factions or the New Guild and still exercise one's functions as SC Member in a manner which not only is entirely impartial, but is seen and acceped asa such by all CDS citizens, irrespective of the side they may take at one time or another in any given dispute. Nor do I see how such a life-long member could be allowed to resign one's position as SC member and return to the political fray, even after a cool-off period, without casting a shadow on the impartiality of the rulings and decisions this person issued while an SC Member.

In short, I could agree with your point about not imposing any term limits at all on members of the SC, provided each of them would be required to resign permanently from key organisations such as factions and the New Guild, and would be precluded from ever resigning their new position in order to re-join such organisations and stand for any of CDS' elected offices or major administrative ones.

The second point you make, regarding the intent of the term limits wording, maintains that the bill as drafted would limit a person who served two consecutive terms in an office from ever serving again: "no further offices can be held". That is not what the bill actually says. An individual may serve two terms (consecutive or not) in the RA, two as Chancellor, two as New Guild Secretary, two more as Guild Faculty Chair, another two as EO, and as many terms as he or she may wish as PIO or (accepting your proposed amendment) as SC Member. if this bill is truly to accomplish its aim to allow as great an intermingling as possible between "oldies" and "newbies" and between the CDS "civil Society" and its "governing elites", such limitations are essential. Otherwise, we will end up with a professional governing elite who, because of its prestige and achievements, will always tend to dominate the political process and wish to intervene each time events would unfold in direction other than the one they deem appropriate for our community -in other words a "controllable democracy" where conservative impulses would dominate and change, evolution, creativity would have a hard time piercing through. This is exactly the situation we find ourselves now, in my opinion.

Therefore, I would agree to your amendment regarding the SC provided you would accept the provisos I mentioned above, and would not change the two-term limit on any ONE of the other key CDS offices (RA, New Guild, Chancellorship, Estate Owner).

Thank you again for your thoughtful input and suggestions.

[Sonja Strom]

There is a lot here to consider and talk about. Some of it I find very true.

One thing I would like to bring up is, in at least the two most recent elections new citizens were elected to the RA. Three I can think of right away were ThePrincess Parisi (CARE), MT Lundquist (NuCARE), and Bjerkel Eerie (CSDF). To speak about my own faction, for the previous RA the DPU had no candidates at all willing to make that time-commitment, and for the current RA I was the only DPU member willing to do so. This means that potentially 3 new citizens could have run as DPU candidates for the last RA, and 2 new citizens could have run as DPU candidates for the current RA, although none chose to do so. Overall I believe this indicates no strong institutional bias against new citizens and that it is possible for a new citizen to move quickly into a leadership position if that is what they want. Of course the term "quickly" is relative depending on perspective, but in my view being able to run in the next normally scheduled election is not bad. I do think factions and voters sometimes prefer candidates who have more experience, which tends to favor old-timers (and I believe this is happening for the upcoming by-election). To the extent this is true it does give long-time CDS citizens an advantage in gaining any leadership role.

An idea I have been considering (and one I know has been talked about in the past) is the possibility of creating a second legislative body. RL examples of such a system would be: House of Representatives/Senate in the United States, House of Commons/House of Lords in the UK, Nationalrat/Ständerat in Switzerland, etc. Doing that might allow each legislative body to be smaller than the whole yet at the same time allow more citizens to participate in legislation, helping to solve communication problems such as those talked about here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... =30#p10225
It might also allow better inclusion of both the "creativity" of the "Newbies" and the "stability" of the "Oldies," to the benefit of everyone.

[Beathan]

RW --

I disagree with term limits as you propose for several reasons. First, the various offices involve different skill sets. I see no reason not to allow citizens with recognized ability in the various skillsets to serve more than two terms in offices for which they are well-suited. For that reason, I think that a "two consecutive terms" limit is better than a "two term" limit. (Parenthetically, I tend to agree with the views expressed by Publius in general -- but I am willing to experiment with a 2 in, 1 out proposal.)

Further, I think that, in addition to the SC, the New Guild should probably not be included. The New Guild, unlike the old Artisan Collective, is a Non-Governmental Organization. There has been a lot of controversy about the New Guild's role in our community and its apparent government-like function as the sole source for expansions. This led CARE, under Michel Manen, to attempt to strip it of its NGO status and treat it as an arm of government. This attack failed. I think that my private development proposal would solve the problems properly recognized but improperly addressed in MM's attack on the New Guild. That is, the private development proposal would remove the New Guild from its position as bureaucratic bottleneck to expansion, and would treat it as one NGO among (hopefully) many involved in development in and expansion of the CDS.

Beathan

[Robert Walpole]

Beathan,

I see your points and am willing to compromise on the issues you raise. Would you be willing to re-draft the bill in a manner acceptable to you and agree to be its RA Representative Sponsor at the next RA meeting?

Thank you for your valuable input.

[Beathan]

Robert --

There are also technical problems to putting a term limit on the office of "Estate Owner" -- which is largely a ministerial office more like civil service than like political office. I think that the PIO should not also be considered a civil service position, rather than a political office.

Thus, I would propose:

No citizen shall serve longer than two consecutive terms in any of the following offices: Member of the RA, Chancellorship, Member of the Architectural Control Department (ACD) (if any); Member of the Chamber of Commerce (if any); or Marshall of the Peace.

Beathan

[Robert Walpole]

Beatthan,

That is fine as far as it goes. it does not address, however, the problem of running for one office while sitting as an active member of another. I would suggest that there should also be a cooling off period of one term there between sitting in one branch of government and standing as candidate in another.

Finally, this does not address the SC issue. If SC members have no term limits at all, given the importance of the SC in the overall institutional structure of the CDS, do you really think they should be allowed to run for another office while a) still members of the SC or b) even after resigning from the SC?

To be fully consistent, I would suggest that any SC member wishing to stand for any office other than the SC should first resign the SC position and then take a "cool-off" term before doing so.

So, I would agree to your proposal and add the following,:

1. No citizen shall serve longer than two consecutive terms in any of the following offices: Member of the RA, Chancellorship, Member of the Architectural Control Department (ACD) (if any); Member of the Chamber of Commerce (if any); or Marshall of the Peace.

2. Members of the RA, SC, Chancellorship, Members of the Architectural Control Department (ACD) (if any); Members of the Chamber of Commerce (if any); or Marshalls of the Peace may not stand for another office enumerated above while sitting in one such office or in the term immediately following their departure from such office.

3. This Act shall enter into force immediately after being assented to by the RA.

[Beathan]

RW --

Works for me mostly. I can propose it -- or you can do so yourself by putting the text on a notecard and sending it to Jamie inworld.

However, I do have two problems. First, if the Act were to go into effect immediately, it would have the effect of disqualifying both CSDF candidates after the time for CSDF candidacy announcements has passed. I don't think that is a good thing. So I would delay effect until the end of this RA term. I would also clarify that all terms are to run consecutively with the RA. I would also clarify paragraph two to state "enumerated in paragraph 1" rather than "enumerated above" to make clear that citizens can move directly onto the SC.

Beathan

[Flyingroc Chung]

I do not believe that the RA systematically discourages new folk from participating. As Sonja points out, we have new folk elected into the RA quite often. There is an old post by Claude on this...

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 220&p=7617

I think we *do* give newbies who want to run for office a fair chance at it, at the RA level.

[Robert Walpole]

Beathan,

I agree with all your suggestions except the coming into force of the act. If we agree that there is a conflict of interest in sitting members of the key CDS offices of state running for another branch while still in office, and that a one-term "cool-off period" is appropriate, then on what grounds is an exception justifiable for these by-elections? CSDF could easily nominate two other candidates to replace Gwyn and Justice. This would preserve two outstanding citizens with substantial experience in governing the CDS where they belong, in the SC, and allow two other CSDF candidates to run for the RA, whose candidacies would not be shadowed by any issues of conflict of interest. Since voting in the CDS is a party-vote rather than a vote for individuals, this will bring little if any change in the dynamics of the by-elections: those citizens who want to vote for the CSDF and its platform will be able to do so regardless of who the CSDF candidates are; actually, this would encourage those who might hesitate to vote for the CSDF because of possible conflicts of interest to do so without any second thoughts.

Thank you for all your input and suggestions. I will submit the following Second Draft to the LRA:

Limitation of Terms Act (Second Draft)

1. No citizen shall serve longer than two consecutive terms in any of the following offices: Member of the RA, Chancellorship, Member of the Architectural Control Department (ACD) (if any); Member of the Chamber of Commerce (if any); or Marshall of the Peace.

2. Members of the RA, SC, Chancellorship, Members of the Architectural Control Department (ACD) (if any); Members of the Chamber of Commerce (if any); or Marshalls of the Peace may not stand for another office enumerated in Paragraph 1 while sitting in one such office or in the term immediately following their departure from such office.

3. All terms referred in this Act shall run concurrently with the terms of the Representative Assembly.

4. This Act shall enter into force immediately after being assented to by the RA.

Flyingroc and Sonja,

I never suggested that the CDS does not offer enough opportunities for newer CDS citizens to run for office and be elected. What I did say is that newer citizens are turned off by continuing arguments and disputes among older members because of past animosities and faction rivalries, and by the type of "controllable democracy" which forced a newly-elected RA member such as Bjerkel to resign from the RA, caused her replacement to walk out of an RA seession and then resign his seat, caused the previous LRA to resign because other RA members weren't allowing him to exercise his LRA functions as he understood them, all of which resulted in a crisis perceived to be of such magnitude by older CDS citizens that two sitting members of the SC decided to run for the two vacant CSDF seats despite obvious conflicts of interest in doing so.

The bill I am proposing, as crafted with Beathan, attempts to eliminate the more glaring temptations of engaging in a "controllable democracy" by more experienced CDS citizens by requiring what Beathan calls a "2 on, 1 off" terms of office schedule for key CDS offices of state, and a 1-term "cool-off period" between sitting in one office and standing as a candidate for another - thereby addressing the more blatant apparent and real conflicts of interest which might otherwise arise.

Publius,

Sir John Plumb, the ultimate authority on the United Kingdom's first Prime Minister, assessed his tenure and legacy in the following terms in an article published in Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Although Walpole rejected the title of prime minister, which he regarded as a term of abuse, his control of the treasury, his management of the Commons, and the confidence that he enjoyed of the two sovereigns whom he served demonstrated the kind of leadership that was required to give stability and order to 18th-century politics. He used his power to maintain the supremacy of the Whig Party, as he understood it, and his prime concern was to forestall the machinations of the Jacobites, which he took very seriously, by securing the Hanoverian succession. He thought that this could best be achieved by prosperity and low taxation, which in turn depended on peace and on freedom from foreign entanglements. In order to achieve strong support for this policy he created as many obligations as possible among the politically powerful groups in the country. The Jacobite rebellion in 1745 demonstrated both the reality of his fears and the success of his policy.

The influence of Walpole's long ministry on the structure of 18th-century politics was profound. The Tory Party, split as it was between Hanoverians and Jacobites, faded into insignificance, and to be a Whig became a necessity for the politically ambitious. The struggle for power ceased to be a conflict between two parties and became a battle fought between divergent groups, personalities, and policies within the Whig Party itself, in order to gain the support of the court on the one hand and the independent country gentlemen in Parliament on the other. The frank realism that Walpole had used in all appointments to office, as well as the violent, prejudiced, and often exaggerated criticism to which this gave rise, did much to bring the institutions of government into disrepute and to strengthen the early growth of urban radicalism, particularly in the City of London. On the other hand, Walpole's ministry had little influence on constitutional development: many generations were to pass before any minister wielded power comparable to his. Like his master, George II, he disliked cabinet government and used it as sparingly as possible. He showed what could be done within the accepted conventions of the constitution; he never attempted to change them."

This frank and critical evaluation of Walpole's long tenure can hardly be regarded as an invitation for the CDS to follow this model of government, or as an argument against any terms of office at all. In any case, Beathan's suggestions have eliminated any permanent term limits and replaced them with his "2 on, 1 off" proposal, combined with a "cool-off term" for those who wish to move from one key CDS branch of state to another in order to avoid any real or perceived conflicts of interest.

[cleopatraxigalia]

The point i think isnt that there are no new ppl getting involved...........its about the conflict of jumping offices............SC..* make a rule about RA* ....get a seat ont he RA.. then.. pass rules about the SC and amend that............then go back to the SC next term and be there..

thats my concern more than being just too long in RA or SC.. its jumping from one type of office to another

...................................for example if we have an issue now with RA electinos that need SC oversight..............we have not enough unbiased SC members to rule. Imo

[Sonja Strom]

What I did say is that newer citizens are turned off by continuing arguments and disputes among older members because of past animosities and faction rivalries, and by the type of "controllable democracy" which forced a newly-elected RA member such as Bjerkel to resign from the RA, caused her replacement to walk out of an RA seession and then resign his seat, caused the previous LRA to resign because other RA members weren't allowing him to exercise his LRA functions as he understood them, all of which resulted in a crisis perceived to be of such magnitude by older CDS citizens that two sitting members of the SC decided to run for the two vacant CSDF seats despite obvious conflicts of interest in doing so.

Perhaps I should make it clear that I have not reached a strong decision about this proposal. So, anything I say about it at this point is no more than thinking and commentary.

The view quoted above is different from my own, however. In my view, the concept that anyone was forced to resign from the RA is highly debatable. However, even if one actually sees that as being the whole truth, the citizens most often receiving criticism for being responsible for this pressure are ThePrincess and MT, both citizens who joined the RA as CDS “Newbies”. Those who supposedly were forced to resign were CDS “Oldies,” except for Bjerkel, who as I understand it resigned because she found her opinions to be inconsistent with a majority of the faction for which she was a Representative.

As to whether this is of no or little importance: my feeling is, if term limits are to be introduced based on the concept that “Oldies” keep “Newbies” from being able to participate in the government, then I think it is worthwhile to look at whether or not this is actually the case.

In general I am against anything that would limit volunteers’ ability to participate in our virtual community, especially if their ability to do so would be based on a democratic vote of the citizens.

There have been many interesting points made in this thread, however, and I will continue to think about them.

[Robert Walpole]

Hi Sonja,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I agree with them and would like to just clarify my thoughts so that there is no misunderstanding as to the reasons and effects of my proposed bill:

The view quoted above is different from my own, however. In my view, the concept that anyone was forced to resign from the RA is highly debatable. However, even if one actually sees that as being the whole truth, the citizens most often receiving criticism for being responsible for this pressure are ThePrincess and MT, both citizens who joined the RA as CDS “Newbies”. Those who supposedly were forced to resign were both CDS “Oldies.”

I agree with you that whether or not anyone was forced to resign from the RA is a matter of perspective. What is not in question are the facts: Bjerkel resigned from the RA after being elected to the RA soon after joining CDS because pressure was put on her for not following CSDF instructions on voting matters. Leon, her replacement, resigned because of the arguments and personal attacks in the RA. Pat resigned because he felt he was being insulted and not let to do his job. Then Brian, the new LRA, quit too - and only he knows the mix of RL reasons and SL political infighting which pushed him to do so. Of course there may be other perspectives on why they all resigned. But they still did, and now we are forced to have mid-term by-elections. My argument was that such squabbles, fights and arguments in the RA turn off new people who join the CDS and look forward to participating in a positive democratic experiment. They then either leave CDS or choose to pretty much ignore our politics and focus on their own activities - building their homes, running their shops or businesses - in CDS or outside it, and so on. This is the kind of disconnect I am referring to between older and newer citizens - not that any new citizens are prevented from taking part in our political system or standing for the RA. So it is not just what happens in the RA that is at issue, but the effect the RA atmosphere has on our new citizens. This atmosphere, in my opinion, is a major reason for the disconnect between those (mostly older citizens) who choose to focus on CDS politics and those (mostly new citizens) who give up on our system of government and engage in other, more constructive activities or leave CDS altogether.

As to whether this is of no or little importance: my feeling is, if term limits are to be introduced based on the concept that “Oldies” keep “Newbies” from being able to participate in the government, then I think it is worthwhile to look at whether or not this is actually the case.

I do not think that my proposed bill - or any one single bill - could effectively address what Jamie calls the "civility" problem we have in CDS politics. As others have noted, since the resignation of the CSDF RA members Jamie has done an excellent job as LRA and the overall discourse in the RA has improved a lot (somewhat less here, on the forums).

My draft bill proposes to accomplish two aims to address the problem of "controllable democracy" which I explained above and which has to do with (necessarily) older citizens being elected again and again to the same positions or switching from one key CDS office to another. When the same people keep running for political office with no interruption, they become part of a permanent political group who only comes to CDS for the politics, and have little or no time to actually spend time and develop our community: its events, its commerce, its human side of community building. When most of one's SL time is spent in three-hour meetings or in regular readings and posts on these forums, little time is left for socialising, networking,befriending, creating together with the newer CDS citizens. Almost every single event, meeting, party, get-together, discussion I have participated in in the CDS was almost exclusively with newer citizens. I have not met most of the older CDS members - and those I have, only briefly in RA or Guild meetings. By adopting Beathan's proposal of a "2 on, one off" term schedule, combined with a "cooling off" period of one term before one stands down from one office and run for office for another key CDS branch, we would give older, more experienced CDs citizens some "time off" official duties and the opportunity to meet and socialise with our newer citizens, and so contribute to what I think remains the biggest current need of CDS: true community building and creation of stronger bonds among all citizens, and especially among older and younger ones.

The second aim of my draft bill is to prevent glaring conflicts of interest where older citizens move too often and too quickly from one CDS office to another to ensure that their "vision" of CDS is not endangered, or to deal with what they perceive as emergencies in our political system. The current by-elections are a case in point, Gwyn and Justice, sitting mebmers of the SC, both having served multiple terms as both RA and SC members, decide to run for the RA while still active SC members, in order to ensure that CDS won't run off its tracks in a "wrong" direction. I argue that not only is such a 'controllable democracy", where the same people keep being elected again and again to one or the other of the key CDS offices without any breaks, not a desirable development for our community, for reasons I already discussed in this thread, but that being allowed to run for one such office while still being a sitting member of another such office or immediately after ending one's mandate, creates obvious conflicts of interest, both real and perceived, for these individuals and undermines the confidence all our citizens (but especially the newer ones) may have in our political institutions and processes. This problem is also addressed by my draft bill, which incorporates Beathan's suggestions.

In general I am against anything that would limit volunteers’ ability to participate in our virtual community, especially if their ability to do so would be based on a democratic vote of the citizens.

I totally agree with you. No volunteer should be limited from participating in our community. To the contrary. They should be encouraged to do it and recognised for their time and efforts. But there are various types of involvement, and all are necessary for our community to prosper. Politics and elections are some such activities. So are guild meetings. But so are parties at our friends' houses, having fun at dances, showing up for lectures and presentations, or simply meeting, chatting and sharing one's ideas and experiences with other CDS citizens. Far from wanting to limit our citizens' ability to participate in our community, my draft bill encourages exactly such participation on a variety of activities, where newer and older citizens can meet, interact, have fun in each other's company and not separately, with most older citizens engaged in divisive and uncivil politics, while most newer citizens give up on such politics and spend most of their time on their own, mostly private, creative activities. My proposal would allow everyone to intermingle more and participate in diverse ways to building our community, while at the same time removing two major sources of conflict of interest: uninterrupted membership in key CDS political institutions for long periods of time, and jumping directly from one CDS office to the other, with no break periods in-between.

I therefore totally agree with the points you raise, Sonja, and I hope to have shown you that your arguments only support my draft bill, not oppose it. I would very much like to have your support on this bill at the next RA meeting, especially since we are both DPU members who have the same vision and goals for the CDS and its community.

Thank you for your careful comments and for taing the time to read my replies!