A lot of complex and interrelated issues are being raised here: culture and governance, identity and territoriality, structure of government and rights.... It feels rather like being in the Minotaur's Palace without Ariadne's thread...
As stated in another forum thread, I believe that all our communities must be brought together by a vision that goes beyond our system of governance. I tried to articulate such a vision as follows: "...fundamentally, ours must be a cohesive, transcendent vision of architecturally outstading spaces fostering the development of creative and innovative activities in the spheres of governance, commerce, the arts and spirituality, manifested practically through diverse communities in time and space which stand out as exemplary historical manifestations of this vision."
Whilst others may or may not agree with this statement, unless we all DO agree on a particular common vision, the various threads of the debate being conducted here will take us nowhere (which makes, presumably, for a very happy Minotaur...)
I think that one of the most important, of not primary purpose of an expanding, multi-themed CDS is to model how active citizen participation might look like in various cultural contexts across time and space, and how radically different systems of governance can be brought toghether for common ends. Most importantly, ours is not to replicate tired RL models upholding a congruence between state, nation and territory, or functioning on the increassingly useless spectrum going from a (classical) unitary Westiminster model of government to that of a federal state or federation. The purpose of CDS is I think, exactly that of applying some serious glasnost and perestroika to our anachronistic concepts of govenance in RL and devise new models of govenance capable of accomodating both unity AND diversity, territoriality AND non-territoriality, individual AND group rights... In doing so, we will step way from the false dychotomies inherent in any conception of governance based on models developed for territorially-defined, sovereign nation-states and develop novel structures of governance re-forming its various elements in new and creative ways more adequate for our purposes and, dare I say, pointing towards a possible re-formation of RL structures of governance which are utterly archaic and no longer by ant measure adequate four our XXIst Century world. But that is another story (..more like The 12 Tasks of Hercules...).
So, in more practical terms, I suggest we attempt to develop a "polycratic" system of governance, ie a system with multiple centers of power, based on two primary rules:
1. absolute inclusion; and
2. deep diversity.
This would imply a complex notion of citizenship, capable of acomodating CDS-wide individual rights, with non-territorially-based cultural (group) rights and territorially-based (local sim) rights. Thus, one may well be a "Roman" living in Neufreistadt, participating in the town's local governance (terrirotial level of govenance) yet partaking in the cultural activities of Romans (centered in Colonia Nova, but living throught CDS -non-territorial level of governance), whilst at the same time sharing in common with all CDS inhabitants certain -dare I say- universal rights and freedoms -"global level of governance) .
Two key principles of governance of such asystem would be that:
1. all functions of goverance would be allocated to the level at which the problems and issues underlying it can be resolved most efficiently and effectively -for example, legal issues affecting all CDS members would belong at the CDS level of governance, whilst local issues affecting only residents of Colonia Nova would be dealt with by the Roman Senate. In passing, this example illustrates my belief thst each sim should adopt its culturally-appropriate system a government: a Senate in Rome (two consuls, maybe, rather than a Princeps or emperor?!) a Chancellor-led assembly in Neufreistadt, a shura in a (possibly) future al-Andalus headed by a caliph, each trying to combine its unique historico-cultural characteristics with universal principles of active citizen participation.
So the governance corrolary to our complex nation entails a multi-level system of govenance, based on both territorial and non-territorial levels, gravitating around a common, global core which holds our universe together. This entails a fundamental, paradigmatic shift in our conception of governance; namely from a Newtonian-based "billiard table" model to an "atomic" conceptualisation where individual, autonomous electrons gravitate at different levels around a common nucleus and constitute a coherent atom with its own unique properties.
So where does this bring us in terms of our project. I would suggest as follows:
1. A "local", territorial level of goverment, for each individal sim, mirroring each sim's historical reality. All individuals residing in that sim would participate, indepentently of each individual's cultural identity (for ex., a Novan owning land in Neufreistadt is ipso facto entitled to participate in the governance of the sim);
2. A "cultural", non-territorial level of goverment, for each individual "culture", where all "Romans", living throughout CDS, could come together to decide issues affecting their socio-cultural identity. Thus, if we have more than one sim based on Roman models, all Romans living in these sims PLUS all Romans living in other, differently-themed sims, could participate;
3. A "global", CDS-wide level of government, where issues common to all individual citizens, all cultures, and all sims, can be debated and decided.
If we were to agree, as a whole, on the basic principles and conceptual outline (or something similar) mapped out above, we would then have to discuss how to "institutionalise" each level of governance. The local / territorial level is, I think, quite clear; the non-territorial / cultural level should be left open for each group to decide; the more difficult one is the global / CDS level. We would need to combine here representation by population (each sim would elect a number of representatives based on their overall population) with group representation (each socio-cultural group would elect an equal number of representatives).
Does this necessarily imply a bi-cameral level of govenance with a Chamber of Nations and Representative Assembly? Possibly, but not necessarily. A unicameral system could be envisaged just as well, provided wew can function on Habermasian principles of deliberative democracy where the best argument wins on its merits, rather than on party-political structures of having a majority imposing its will on the minority. But this remains an open debate. Personally, I think a modified unicameral parliamentarian system would be far more effective than a US-style bicameral one where the executive branch is entirely separate from the legislative branch and checks and balances lead too stagnation and pork-barrel politics.
Inasfar as the judiciary is concerned, mediation and arbitration structures should be alloted to both the local and cultural levels of government, which can be structured by its members in accordance with their historical-cultural circumstances (for example, islamic law, roman law and "bavarian" legal principles could be applied -always, of course, adapted to fundamental principles of equality, fairness, rule of law, and active citizen participation). If insufficient to resolve disputes at their own levels, matters could be taken to the DCS-wide judiciary applicable to all individuals, cultures, and sims, which Ashcroft in particular has been working hard to develop. The incentive here is, of course, for disputes to be resolved at the mediation / arbitration level in accordance with specific historico-cultural rules and avoid more formal and "universal" procedures focusing primarily on litigants as individuals rather than as members of a historico-cultural group. This being said, it is from the interaction between historico-culturally based systems of mediation and arbitration and universal, individual rights-based DDS-wide juridical system that a new, more flexible conceptualisation and practice of justice will develop, truly representative of our fundamental principles of absolute inclusion and deep diversity.
The implications that the elaboration of such a polycratic system of governance and justice in 2L would have for how we think of governance in the 21st Century RL are, I dare say, quite staggering...
