[quote="Patroklus Murakami":24l2lr9c]
[b:24l2lr9c][i:24l2lr9c]1. Does the RA believe we need referenda for constitutional amendments?[/i:24l2lr9c][/b:24l2lr9c]
Up until now we have functioned as a representative democracy and have resisted attempts to include elements of direct democracy in our system of government. It could be argued that the introduction of referenda into that system goes against the founding spirit on which the community was based. If I understand Gwyn's (personal) opinion correctly she would prefer not to have any referenda at all.I think we need to acknowledge that many real world representative democracies employ referenda for settling some political issues, including constitutional questions. I can think of the example of the UK's referendum on continued membership of the EEC in the 1970s and the Scottish referendum on devolution of power to a Scottish Parliament more recently. So the use of referenda cannot be held to undermine representative democracy, at least in the real world.
Gwyn also pointed to referenda as a conservative influence. People dislike and distrust change, so the argument goes, and so any system that relies on popular assent in a referendum is likely to ossify and be unable to keep pace with the times. I think this is a potentially strong argument but it would mean that we don't trust our citizens to see the benefit of a change for the better. Are we really that pessimistic about the capacity of people to embrace necessary changes? Given that some citizens are complaining that the pace of constitutional reform (at least during this RA session) is too fast, wouldn't demanding popular agreement to such changes ensure that they really had popular support? Otherwise an activist RA, and a complicit or negligent SC, could lead to wholesale constitutional revision that does not command popular support.[/quote:24l2lr9c]
On this point, I see differential entrenchment as I suggested above as not only a useful compromise between the different positions, but a way to acheive the correct balance between (1) stability, and providing a potentially important check on the power of the Representative Assembly to prevent it from doing undesirable things (such as abolishing rival factions or extending its own term of office or purporting to suspend the entire constiution), and (2) the ability to adapt and change as circumstances dictate. So, the most important parts of the constitution (those that provide for regular elections, the right to join or make political factions, the right to propose legislation, and that safeguard the independence and impartiality of the judiciary for example), should be entrenched by referenda, whilst the more operational elements (those that provide for the powers of the executive, or for legislative procedure, for example) should remain in their present, lightly-entrenched state. A degree of conservatism and stability, as long as it is not so great to become an unthinking reluctance to change anything, for the sake of not changing anything, has disctinct merits, especially since what we are trying to do is carve out in the anarchic world that is SecondLife a place of law, order and stability for those who prefer their virtual worlds structured, ordered and not ever-changing.
[quote:24l2lr9c][b:24l2lr9c][i:24l2lr9c]2. Does the RA want to exercise control over how referenda are presented to the electorate?[/i:24l2lr9c][/b:24l2lr9c]
We could allow citizens to vote on each and every constitutional amendment independantly of each other. The problem is that this could lead to overlapping or contradictory amendments being passed. I know that many (including probably the majority of the RA) would prefer to give citizens the most control possible over what gets passed or not. But I haven't seen anyone say how you would address this potential problem. If you want to give citizens full control, what are you going to do if they pass contradictory amendments? For example, if they were to be presented with one of Ash's earlier drafts of the Judiciary Bill and Justice's amendments, what would you do if they passed a combination of the two and we ended up with a constitutional dog's dinner?[/quote:24l2lr9c]Probably a sensible compromise on this area is to have the Representative Assembly put one yes/no package for vote for each [i:24l2lr9c]area[/i:24l2lr9c] of change, rather than for each little question of the proposal, so, for example, there would be one vote as to whether to have a chancellor, one vote as to whether to have a professional judiciary, and so forth.
[quote:24l2lr9c][b:24l2lr9c][i:24l2lr9c]3. Should the referenda be fixed to an arbitrary timetable e.g. at election time?[/i:24l2lr9c][/b:24l2lr9c]
I've covered the arguments for and against this in previous posts. Do those who want to fix the timetable think that it would have been acceptable to wait for Jan 07 to get a Chancellor or a Judicial system? If not, we need to give the RA the choice of when to call referenda.[b:24l2lr9c][i:24l2lr9c]4. Should constitutional amendments passed by referenda take effect immediately or at the start of the next RA session?[/i:24l2lr9c][/b:24l2lr9c]
The answer depends partly on your answer to question 3. Assuming you agree with me that the RA should be able to choose when to call referenda you might still believe that they should not take effect until a new RA is installed. That way an RA cannot 'benefit' from any changes they approve.I think this is super-cautious and unnecessary. If a constitutional amendment has been passed by a 2/3 majority of our elected representatives, approved as constitutional by the SC and passed by popular vote, it should take effect immediately; it would clearly have passed with sufficient support.[/quote:24l2lr9c]
It would probably be disasterous for the constitution to force what could be extremely important and highly desirable changes to wait up to six months, and I see no reason why that should ever be necessary. What good could such delay do?
[quote:24l2lr9c][b:24l2lr9c][i:24l2lr9c]6. Should there be different levels of protection for different parts of the Constitution?[/i:24l2lr9c][/b:24l2lr9c]
I can see why this might be necessary but I suspect that agreeing the levels of entrenchment appropriate to different parts of the Constitution is a long discussion! Coming so soon on the heels of extended constitutional debate are we really up for this?[/quote:24l2lr9c]We should be careful not to avoid doing something that might give us great benefits merely because it looks like hard work. Given that differential entrenchment has the opportunity to give us a very carefully balanced constitution with just the right degree of conservatism, we should not pass up an opportunity to work on it merely because it will take some time. All good things come to those who wait (and work).
