Al Andalus

[Jamie Palisades]

I have started a conversation within CDS about whether it's possible that CDS would join in some way, physically, in governmental reach, or both, with the Al-Andalus estate region, which of course was originally founded by CDS people, ans continues to have a lot of overlapping citizens with CDS.

However, CDS and AA are two independent organizations, each with its own rules, community and needs. Personally, I'd like to see it happen. I am not yet sure if its feasible. But it's time for CDS to discuss it. Here's the initial information I provided to the RA today: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2176

I will post more here fairly soon, as there are additional details that we will need to develop, to pursue this.

To be clear, I have a strong expectation that this proposal will be explored in an atmosphere of good listening and mutual respect. It appeared to me, at the time, that AA did NOT become part of CDS originally, at least in part BECAUSE some relevant government and political interactions in CDS, at that time, were fractious and ad hominem. That didn't make us look like an attractive home. So they went their own way. I think we have matured significantly. While there is no guarantee, I believe we probably can do this ... if we can rise to the occasion.

Regards JP

[Patroklus Murakami]

Thanks to Jamie for posting this information in a public forum and for the commitment to post further details as these develop. This is indeed a 'humdinger', as Justice put it yesterday

I agree with the need for good listening (to everybody, including those who ask difficult questions) and mutual respect (again to everybody, not just those who agree with us) but I hope that means that CDS citizens can still ask questions and seek clarification from those involved in any discussions?

It would be helpful to know what discussions have already taken place. I assume this idea hasn't come totally out of the blue so what were the origins of this discussion? Is there a spokesperson for AA? Who has been approached from the CDS government?

I understand that any discussions will have been preliminary but it would also be good to know why the discussion is taking place and why now. Al Andalus has had an independant existence from the CDS for about a year now although, as Jamie points out, there is a degree of overlap between the two groups. I'm not clear why AA would be interested in joining the CDS (or merger or some other form of association). We need to know what's in it for AA and what's in it for the CDS. It may well be that there are benefits to both communities from a closer association, and like Jamie I am hopeful about the possibilities, but it really depends on the terms. And I completely agree with Jamie about not acting like a colonising conquistador; if AA has recently developed its own democratic traditions which differ from ours then perhaps these should be left to develop separately? That would encourage diversity of different forms of self-governing communities in Second Life. I'm struggling to see what benefits AA might derive from this. The 'why' isn't clear to me at all. I'm assuming that the impetus is from AA though. Is that correct?

Jamie mentioned at the RA meeting that "we would need to make our local governance methods more attractive to be attractive to them" which suggests that some thought has been given to constitutional reform in the CDS to enable this to happen. Again, it would be good to know what has been discussed or thought about. It wasn't clear to me at the RA meeting whether this was Jamie 'thinking aloud' or whether there had been some discussion of options. Since there are many ways in which closer association/a merger/joining could take place it's important to keep all options in mind without plumping for one too early. If the proponents of this idea (whatever that turns out to be!) drop hints that it's about federalism and local government then that just encourages the old familiar battle-lines to be drawn. To be clear, I'm sure that change will be necessary in both the CDS and AA for any 'adjoinment' (nice word btw ) to be successful. I'm not opposed to constitutional change per se but it needs to be good in and of itself and not just as a means to an end.

I also want to make it clear that I speak for myself alone, not for the CSDF. We're not a monolithic, democratic-centralist Trotskyite organisation (I've been in them, they're very different from the CSDF and very unpleasant) and we will have different perspectives on this. So, if this is seen as being 'negative' (though I can't for the life of me see why asking questions is so often seen this way) then it reflects on me solely. The CSDF has actually done a lot of thinking on the subject of how we might incorporate existing communities into the CDS while respecting their origins; Moon has done a lot thinking on the subject of 'Burghs' which I confess I don't completely understand but which may well form a useful framework for considering this issue in the next phase.

Lastly, can I also make a plea that, as well as good listening and mutual respect, we don't try to impose our own interpretation of history to serve the needs of the present? My understanding of the reasons why AA did not become part of the CDS originally differs considerably from Jamie's but, you know what, it's ancient history now and we have all moved on. I'm prepared to let that one go, but let's not characterise the past as 'CDS-bad and fractious/AA-sweetness and light' because that just makes the parties involved want to defend their record and then we get into a fight about 'what really happened'. We can avoid provoking those fights by not making sweeping statements apportioning blame in the first place.

[Justice Soothsayer]

"Adjoinment" is indeed a very interesting word. It might mean "making two separate territories contiguous on the SL grid" to enable one to walk/drive/fly from one to the other, which might be a good way to start down a path towards other meanings of the word.

[Jamie Palisades]

Let's see if I can answer the questions posted by Justice, my successor as LRA, and Patroklus, my predecessor as LRA. Both are CSDF faction leaders; personally I hope there'll be more opportunity to flesh out these issues in conversation with each of the factions, theirs and others, and with citizens in this Forum, between now and the next RA meeting.

My understanding of Al-Andalus' situation comes from being a resident there, one of maybe 8-10 people who have land both in CDS and AA ... and more importantly, by attending its government study commission over the last month. As I understand it, there are two core issues for Al-Andalus: (a) How its government / sim management structure will expand to meet its needs for programs and land management services, *beyond* the current informal and badly understaffed volunteer work. (b) Whether its current nonprofit owner will continue to run it. Apparently, according to that commission's review, the owner is a hastily-assembled nonprofit company created and then abandoned by the now-departed Michel Manen, and now is managed by our citizen Rose Springvale who serves as their Estate Owner, rather like Sudane Erato does for CDS. AA had some strong original theme plans, including the look & feel of an Arabic colony in Andalusia (beautifully realized -- do go look), a religious tolerance theme (also well executed, and with some impressive events), and some kind of self-governance (utterly abandoned -- thus their need for a commission).

Justice, certainly anything is a *possible* solution. I do not know whether moving the two estates physically together would be a useful, or necessary, step towards combined governance -- or a good goal of its own. But we should think about all options, so that's one I wanted to mention. It seems to work well in some other mutually-friendly estates. (Winterfell-Caledon, for example.)

Patroklus also managed to throw out some comments at yesterday's RA meeting -- I couldn't quite make out his criticisms, but apparently he thought that we've somehow failed to be transparent, or have been conducting secret negotiations with AA, or some such. Of course, that's silly. I thought we first should go LISTEN to what AA wants and needs. Any other approach would be foolish hubris. So, I've been attending the AA meetings and listening. There've been no secret plans or terms: I attended, and have asked some follow-up questions, period. As I made clear to anyone who bothered to ask. Throwing out insinuations to the contrary is the kind of old-school CDS politics that we've come a long way to mature beyond. As I imagine any government or business professional knows: in an early-stage exploratory conversation, when no commitments have been made, some degree of tact is needed, and bull-in-a-china-shop behavior is not called for. So let's focus instead on constructive discussions, and whether there is a possible positive outcome.

By the way -- is it feasible? I don't know! Specifically:
-- I don't know how much shared control the AA citizens would require. (Neither do they, yet. They are debating it.)
-- I don't know how much sharing our CDS government is capable of offering, and our citizens will accept. (That's why I am talking to the RA.)
-- And vastly more important, I don't know if the economics would work well! (I have asked for some detail. It's financial data. It's like asking people to look in their bank account. I'm not even sure AA citizens get that data right now. So I'm working through the issues, to see what I can get, and bring as information to the RA.)

These issues must be developed through collaborative discussion -- in tones that actually make people WANT to talk to us -- which we are just now beginning. As I reported to the RA, I have been told that some AA citizens, who do not include me, apparently are drafting a proposal about their possible affiliation with CDS. THAT, if we receive it, probably will answer some questions. .

In the meantime, let's attend to our own situation as a possible alliance partner. Any estate merger or combination creates power issues. Any possible new part of, or region joined to, CDS would want to understand how it will be allowed to retain its own character, and reasonably ensure its continued share of self-governance. (I respectfully suggest that "look at the RA, democracy already works perfectly here as is" is not convincing.) If we want any growth to work in CDS, we must have a GOOD answer about why joining with us is attractive. I agree that Moon's 'burghs' concept is a good direction to explore, by the way, and expect we will restart that discussion. There's other evidence available to us about what does and does not work, as well.

I have committed to bring some proposals to the RA about how to do this. No, I don't have secret plans or hints there, either. But we need some. So I am dredging through prior CDS legislative attempts, and our laws, and trying to draft some options. In a way that actually takes into account what the AA needs study meetings disclosed.

It's almost 2009. I challenge and encourage our current elected officials, as well as our citizens and larger community of friends, ALSO to leave the past behind, and let the dead bury their dead. No proposal has a right to consensus or immediate approval! Debate's fine. On objective grounds, about the merits. But it is my hope that we *may* develop a good solution, together. In a collaborative and constructive way that sheds a positive light on how self-government works. One that suggests to prospective expansion partners that we are the sort of place they'd actually like to live ... and the sort of people they'd actually like to live near.

Regards JP

[Sonja Strom]

Although I do not know if I am in favour of the CDS making a partnership with Al-Andalus, I think it is an interesting possibility to consider. A lot of work has been put into the Al-Andalus project, and the buildings there are beautiful. As Jamie pointed out, some prominent CDS citizens are also prominent citizens of Al-Andalus, so there are existing personal and philosophical ties.

One aspect of trying to do this that might be of interest would be to experiment with a very large and important question in the world at the moment: Is it possible for Western Democracy and Sharia Law (Islamic Law) to function together at the same time, or are they fundamentally incompatible systems? By its nature such an experiment would be incomplete, taking place within the virtual world of Second Life, yet it could still be interesting. If we were able to find a solution to this question that worked for us, perhaps others could learn from our structures and our example. If despite our best efforts we were never able to do so, that could also be of interest. Maybe Draxtor could follow our progress.

This is assuming, of course, that the CDS actually is trying to be a Democracy.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Jamie

I deliberately did not make any reference to our interaction at the RA in my post above in the interests of being constructive and focussing on the issue. I wasn't making any insinuations or slurs at the meeting, just saying that we need some facts before we can make a judgement and we need transparency over who has said what to who and when. My questions were taken to be something else which is why I wrote a very carefully-worded, constructive post to put my questions in context. I find it's often easier to express yourself better in a considered forum post than in an inworld meeting where the speaker's intentions can often be misinterpreted in the heat of the moment.

Having spoken to Rose inworld about the recent history of AA (which I was not aware of) and their discussions about governance I feel I have a much better understanding of where they are coming from. So, by all means let us continue the dialogue both inworld and on these forums. And yes, let's keep it open, collaborative and constructive.

You and I should talk inworld rather than have a spat on the forums so let's do that soon and clear the air?

-----------------------------------------
Sonja

I think Al Andalus has abandoned the idea of Sharia Law. That was the most controversial aspect of the project, certainly to the external world. As Rose posted elsewhere "While the original proposal was to conduct the sims pursuant to authentic Islamic Law, that part of the project has not developed. So we rely on the basic principles as originally expounded in our covenants: community self-governance, active citizen participation, equality, dignity, social justice, democracy and human rights". Those basic principles are ones we subscribe to as a community so I think there is a great deal of common interest here.

[Jamie Palisades]

My understanding of the Shari'a business is the same as Pat's. Personally I find it pleasing to see AA evolving to more of an explicit religious diversity and tolerance concept. That idea was always somewhere in the original concept, as described to me -- look at the AA sim map -- and in the historical precedents of Muslim Andalusia -- but is being made more explicit now.

I am not always sure how to process the idea that we have in world conversations "live", with one tone or character, followed by long Forum posts of another. Frankly that's a concept that I have struggled with, for the length of my residence in CDS. To me these forums are a vehicle for public postings, records, Q&A, and development of policy issues in writing. But I'm still pretty much going to deal with in-world behaviors and actions based on what I experience in-world.

I'm happy to talk to you at any time, Pat, and you can tell me that somewhere other than a web page. Regards JP

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

As a long-term promoter of expansion, as well as of inclusion of all groups and people interested in democracy and self-governance, I can only be very happy by the mere possibility of meeting with the AA citizens and discuss how we possibly could work together.

Whatever the outcome might be! The worst case scenario: after a few rounds of discussion we figure out that there is no way we can grow together. That's fine — at the very least, both will have heard the arguments why that won't work, and hopefully learned something new about that. I remain an optimist, though; I can't fail to remember our dear beloved former citizen, Rudy Ruml, and his excellent seminars on the "democratic peace" theory: communities (and nations) that embrace democracy, no matter how different, tend to grow together. This is hardly surprising, since no matter how different their backgrounds and culture might be, they will have at least one common point to work from: a groundwork, a framework embodied in the spirit of "letting the people decide what's best for them". At the very very least, both the CDS and AA (as well as many other communities in SL!) have that much in common.

As an European, I'm naturally biased; living in an age where I can see with my very own eyes countries so different like Sweden, the UK, Italy, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Israel, all with completely different cultures, but all planning to be part of a "larger democracy", I can only see the good points of "democracies managing to work together". If RL countries are able to do that, with all the complexities of managing centuries-old cultures and traditions, I have no doubt that SL micronations will do it even better — they are so much younger, and we have very few of the RL problems in SL (like health care or providing education for children). They are also far smaller — it's far easier to get a hundred people to agree to something than half a billion. In that regard, I'm quite confident that we can overcome obstacles far more easier.

Then again, that's what you'd expected to hear from someone who full embraces "communities joining together and growing stronger that way" — which is one of my personal goals in SL. It's true I tend to overlook the bad side of things, and just look upon the good ones — as a true optimist, I'm far more excited about the good news, than worry about the bad ones. That attitude has its problems, certainly, but it works for me

So I obviously welcome a transparent and open discussion about the possibility of creating a "greater union" between Al-Andalus and the CDS, whatever form that might take. I can imagine that the questions Jamie asked (e.g. regarding financial issues for instance) require to be clarified first, well before there is even something remotely resembling a "proposal" or even a "draft document for a proposal". There are certainly even more questions that we're not even aware of at this stage. And there is a group of CDS citizens — and possibly AA citizens too — that oppose growth and favour a happy little community of close friends (or at least peaceful acquaintances) and are reluctant to see any change at all, even a change that might be for the best.

If I may be so bold, I'd like to suggest the following approach to tackle this, subject to a lot of reviews (of course) and public discussion:

• First, establish embassies between AA and the CDS. We have long discussed the "embassy" issue. It doesn't need to be a physical embassy, but I was more thinking along the lines of Middle Age and Rennaisance embassies: a delegation of people (not buildings!) that have the Government's support to open negotiations. As Jamie and Rose are both citizens of the CDS and the AA, it feels only natural to ask them if they'd like this official task. Both are also part of the CDS's Executive, so that will lend them some power. We'd expect a group of AA citizens, similarly empowered, to act as their "embassy" as well. As said, this doesn't really require "nice cutie buildings" at all, just an exchange of credentials

• The next step, from our side, is very likely two-fold: open up a forum discussion ("public consultation") so that we can get a feeling of what our citizens think about the issue: gather the pros and cons of a possible "greater union", and what kinds of steps people would be comfortable with if we go that route. And hear what fundamental changes would be required — both at the CDS and the AA — to enable that route to be a valid one

• Finally, pass a bill at the RA to create a Commission to gather all the scattered feedback and prepare a document for analysis by the RA to consider a "greater union" with AA. This document would probably list required changes until something like that becomes possible.

• The "required changes" are, in my mind, the ones that will raise more discussion. For instance, if the CDS is a secular organisation with tolerance of religion and total and clear separation of State and Church(es), how can the CDS accept in its bosom a community where "God's Voice" has a stake? Clearly this will require some thinking. Also, it will definitely push the issue about "local rule" (ie. a sort of "federalism") in spite of the tiny sizes of both communities. More public debate will be required for this, and if the proposed changes are too radical, I'm pretty sure that we'll have no option but to call for some referenda to make sure the CDS is going ahead implementing what the citizens really wish. AA very likely will have to do the same, of course

• Implementing those changes will take time in both cases — there is no question about it. So I'm pretty sure we're not talking about "let's join AA and CDS before Christmas and celebrate with a ball at the Schloß — or at the Sultana's Palace". I expect this discussion to take us at the very least another term, if not two!

But in an case I'm totally in favour of starting the discussions now

[Claude Desmoulins]

I want to just throw some things out here.

While the AA-CDS dual citizens have a distinct advantage in knowing both "cultures", it may be unfair to place them in a position with an embassy where it might become unclear whose interests they're representing or supposed to represent. I absolutely agree that it's a good idea to begin a structured consultation between the communities.

I can imagine a myriad of directions this could end up going, but I'm almost hesitant to list them, for fear that such a list would somehow bound the discussion. At some point we will need those boundaries, but we ought try not to impose them before we have to, especially as both communities are still talking about their goals and objectives for this process, whatever it ends up being.

[Jamie Palisades]

I've tried to open, define, and bring to CDS a possibility :) May or may not work. But that's my job.
My advice to the RA is not to smother it with overlarded process and formalism at the outset. That's not their job, as I understood it when I was doing it.
Everything Arria said in her earlier 'graveyard' post, today, about enthusiasm being smothed by naysayers? Applies here. Everything I said about needing to work with our laws? Also applies. But especially the part about doing it with open handed spirit, not ego. Problem-solving orientation, not power plays, grabby hands and the glee of battle. Too early to say, in this case.
I'll hold my detailed response to Gwyn's many proposals for a few hours, and give it some thought before posting further.
Regards JP

[symokurka]

Talking as a citizen i must say i like indeed the idea of merging in CDS not only AA but any other existing, good quality, interesting active Sims or group of Sims. The only condition is that new Sims joining should be reasonably tier-wealthy, as we know the real financial problem in SL is running costs.

I find the idea of merging absolutely compatible with the GMP strong concept of "clusters of sims". Political, cultural, economic diversity are a strength, not a weakness, though we possibly have to move towards a new "confederate" constitution. While we should be easily able to manage territorial diversity...

[Ranma Tardis]

I HATE this idea! Why do the two communities have to be put tougher? The EU example is a bad one and comparing real life communities and second life ones does not always work. I do not wish to be in a community that practices Sharia Law or Islamic Law. As an American citizen and Japanese resident, I believe it the right of each citizen and resident to practice their own religion as long as it does not impose itself on others. These two are well know for imposing themselves and making people conform to it or face punishment. I do not believe in a state sponsored religion. I have been in the Middle East and respected it while there but my life preferences are different. I would never choose to live there by choice.
What is my religion? The answer is it is a PRIVATE thing and not be discussed now or in the future.
You can call me all of the bad words and tell people that you not only have to be respectful of other religions but accept it, then practice it then give up on your own morals and religion. This view is not TOLERANCE but forcing oneself on others!
I do not understand why growth is so important. Why does it have to be done?

[Timo Gufler]

I HATE this idea! Why do the two communities have to be put tougher? The EU example is a bad one and comparing real life communities and second life ones does not always work. I do not wish to be in a community that practices Sharia Law or Islamic Law. As an American citizen and Japanese resident, I believe it the right of each citizen and resident to practice their own religion as long as it does not impose itself on others. These two are well know for imposing themselves and making people conform to it or face punishment. I do not believe in a state sponsored religion.

I quite strongly agree with Ranma. Keeping state and religion separate is very important from view-point of freedom. There are so many bad examples in RL history. Merging Islamic and Western goverments would not be fruitful.

[Rose Springvale]

Ranma and Timo,

I wonder where you go the idea that Al Andalus was a) run as an islamic state, or b) was a religious sim. Neither of these are true. It is simply a democracy. It is architecturally based on 13th century Granada, Spain. It was founded on the ideals of peaceful coexistence of different cultures. In operation, we embrace that concept. Not islamic law, nor judeo-christian law, but the principles of democracy outlined in this thread.

Please come and visit the sims. We've invited you many times, and i've yet to see either of you at an event, taking a tour or talking with the residents. I challenge you to meet the people, and before you jump to conclusions, find out if the people you talk to actually own property or run a business in any of the Andalus sims. Find out the truth before you condemn an idea about which you are badly misinformed.

We will welcome you, and i assure you, no one cares if you have religion or what it is. This is frankly one of the best experiments going on in Second Life right now, and I personally believe it would be a great step forward for both sims.

Rose, acting Estate Owner of the Al Andalus sims.

[Sonja Strom]

There has been a misunderstanding. So far as I know, not anybody has suggested the CDS adopt Sharia (Islamic) Law across all of its sims.

There has been a possibility discussed of the CDS working together with Al Andalus. This could start with some sort of alliance, and perhaps the AA sims could at some point join the Confederation of Democratic Sims.

When this topic came up, I remembered an original concept of Al Andalus was for it to see how and if Sharia Law could work for a community in Second Life, and I thought that was a binding principle of the project. My reaction to the concept of working with AA, posted above, was that it seemed to me like it could be an interesting experiment for us to see if sims that had Sharia Law could function with a system designed as a Western Democracy, and we could try to make that work out. Maybe our experiment could be of some interest in the RL world, and perhaps even be an influence on it. If only one RL life were saved, that would be worth it to me. Just to make this very clear, I never said I thought the other CDS sims should adopt Sharia Law.

However, all of my thinking about this was erroneous, as I had been mistaken about Al Andalus using Sharia Law! This was pointed out by Patroklus in the post he made immediately following mine. It has been made even more clear by Rose's post above this one. Although originally there might have been such a concept, Al Andalus does not practice Sharia Law. It is a multi-cultural, democratic community. Insofar as there is a religious aspect to AA, this is only from people in the community wanting to teach tolerance between religious groups.

It seems to me that Al Andalus is not very different from the CDS, except for the cultural style of its theme. Over the past two months I have attended a few meetings there, and they reminded me a lot meetings in the CDS sims.

It is true that if eventually the AA sims were to join the CDS, they would be adding a new cultural theme to it. While in general I would rather have the CDS grow by expanding its existing themes than by adding new ones, additional themes are already being considered for the CDS. One example of this is the Nea Hora concept of a Greek theme, which I support.

Whether or not growth is desirable for the CDS is a debatable concept. I am not in favor of growth only to have growth, and I believe any expansion of the CDS should happen only after careful consideration. Personally I think it would be good for the RA to consult the citizens on growth of the CDS by placing referendum questions on the ballot. I believe this is an important enough issue to want confirmation of the citizens' wishes, especially as growth is favored in the platforms of all the factions. This said, I do believe careful growth can bring benefits to the community.

In general I would say that an eventual joining of the AA sims with the CDS (should they want to join us) would be good for our community if we made sure it was before it happened.