Four Years of Virtual Democracy

The Confederation of Democratic Simulators (CDS) recently celebrated its fourth birthday. This makes the CDS Second Life's longest-running democratic, self-governing community. It is also one of the most long-lived of any Second Life projects, most of which do not survive a change of leadership. The founders of the CDS (or Neualtenburg as it was then known) were right in one of their reasons for choosing to use democratic structures of self-governance - it allows for continuity and persistence of the project. As one group of activists tire or move on, others are able to take their place, re-energise the project and bring in new ideas so that things don't get stale. Democracy isn't pretty but it is resilient.

I could have said that the CDS is Second Life's *only* democratic, self-governing community and that would have been true for most of its history. But the CDS has been joined by one or two more groups that have decided to run themselves along democratic lines in recent months. Cedar Island is a small SL community focussed on research and creative work. It's a beautiful place, designed by Jon Seattle with help from Moon Adamant inspired by communities of the US Pacific Northwest. Cedar Island is run by its residents using consensus decision-making. I was part of the community for a short time but didn't get to any of the monthly resident meetings where membership and community policy are decided. Cedar has been joined by a related project called Port Spinoza, also designed largely by Jon Seattle, focussed on individual and group learning in SL. Its inspiration comes from the Netherlands in the Age of Enlightenment and also uses consensus decision-making.

Other communities, also mentioned previously on this blog, have the potential to head in the direction of being democratic communities but are not there yet.

So, how is the CDS? Six months ago I was comparing it to Zimbabwe, how is it faring now? Well, things are certainly quieter than they were six months ago! The last set of elections, held in July, returned three representatives each from the Citizens' Social Democratic Faction (CSDF) and the Democratic Pragmatists' Union (DPU) and one from NuCARE to the Representative Assembly (RA) - our legislature. The RA has met approximately fortnightly since then but I think it would be fair to say that attention has shifted elsewhere; the RA is no longer 'the only game in town'. For most of the CDS's history, if you wanted to get something done you went to the RA. This was partly due to the nervousness around executive power and the unwillingness to grant any kind of power to an executive branch which could potentially be abused. The CDS didn't even have an executive branch for much of the time with executive-type powers being shared between the RA and the (old) Guild (a quasi-corporatist structure with powers over building and finance). The establishment of the Chancelry as the institution with executive power, and in particular the active stance taken by the current Chancellor, has shifted attention away from the RA. It's no longer the RA that 'gets things done' but the Chancellor and his very capable team. This has been a positive development so far. It allows those who are interested in events organisation, for example, to work with a team that can get things done and who have the legitimate authority to do so. This is not to denigrate the work of previous Chancellors who have also made their contribution, it's just clear that the institution is really showing its promise now that we have had time to get used to it.

Civil society is reasonably healthy too. The Virtus NGO which owns and operates the Monastery in Alpine Meadow sim has put forward an ambitious plan which, if successful, could lead to the purchase of our first void sim (and our fifth sim in total). There is still plenty of arguing to be done over the terms of this move (it wouldn't be the CDS if we didn't argue a lot!) but it is a sign of the health of the community that people are inspired to put time and energy into such a project. By contrast, the Sturm und Drang over the establishment of a Chamber of Commerce had not yet lead to anything actually being put in place. But that is probably because (sssh, don't tell anyone) we don't really need one! I've also heard rumours that an NGO may be forming to make more use of the Neufreistadt Church on a more regular basis. Gwyneth Llewelyn has restarted her Sunday discussion groups at the Church which is another welcome addition to the range of activities in the CDS.

So, Zimbabwe no more :) Perhaps the CDS is more like a country recovering from a period of temporary insanity? Like France after the excesses of the Revolution, the Terror and the guillotine? Or Britain after the industrial strife, power cuts and three-day working week of the 1970s? Or the Venezuelans when they wake up from the disaster of Chavez's Presidency?

This 'quiet' period is perhaps a time in which we can address some of the issues which have frustrated us in the past. Passions are cooler, tempers are less frayed and (as far as I'm aware) no one is issuing death threats against any other citizens. This is a rare occurrence; we should make the most of it. So, what are the sins crying out to heaven for vengeance? What should be top of the list?

1. Electoral Reform. The CDS has the most bizarre electoral system I have ever encountered and one which massively over-represents minority factions with little support at the expense of factions which are supported by as much as half the population. More detail on what's wrong with it and what to do with it here and here.
2. Citizenship. It used to be so simple. You owned land, you were a citizen. Each plot had one owner and that was that. Our poor Treasurer's life was immeasurably easier and we knew who was and who was not a citizen. Then, for the best of reasons, we enacted the Group Land Ownership Act to enable couples and groups to own land collectively and the huge headache began. The solutions proposed previously, such as opening up CDS citizenship to anyone prepared to pay a monthly fee, have not adequately dealt with risks such as packing the electoral rolls with alts and the lack of a 'stake' in the community that landless citizens would hold. I'm sure we can find a solution though which would be simple to administer and still secure.
   
3. Faction Size Rule. The RA in the previous session passed a very silly law which said that factions needed to have a membership made up of at least 10% of the citizens of the CDS in order to stand for election. This was a knee-jerk reaction to a rumour being spread that the CSDF was planning to split into two or three factions to maximise the number of seats it would win in the election. (This potential for manipulation of the voting system is one of the arguments for electoral reform). Once we have reformed the electoral system we should abolish this silly rule. It discriminates unfairly against smaller parties and is a completely arbitrary rule (why not 20% or 5%?)
   
4. Head of State/RL Incorporation/Non-Profit Status. There are a whole slew of issues all tangled up with each other here which we could usefully address in 'peacetime'. These would include deciding who among our elected officials represents the CDS abroad i.e. to other SL communities, to Linden Labs and even to the outside world. We have discussed this before in the context of the need for a RL Board of Directors if we were to take the step of incorporating as a non-profit organisation under a RL jurisdiction thereby getting the tier and island purchase discounts such groups are granted by the Lindens. We have always got some way along the road before deciding the issues involved are in the 'too difficult' box. Perhaps we could make better headway right now?
   

Four years on the CDS is in a fairly healthy state but, as ever in a democracy, there is stuff still to do. There are unravelled threads, incomplete projects and outstanding issues. It is messy, ragged and never complete - just like in RL.

Virtual Zimbabwe

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The CDS is slowly but surely undermining its own democratic traditions. It is now a marginal democracy where election-rigging is permitted. The CDS has fallen so far from its democratic origins that some of the people elected to the Representative Assembly do not believe that the majority have the right to make decisions; they don't believe in democracy itself. It is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'; elections take place but they are rigged in advance to support the incumbents. The opposition (who won the election) are routinely abused, personally attacked and hounded from office. Sound familiar? (This is, of course, nothing compared to the punishment meted out to the opposition in Zimbabwe. I'm drawing an analogy here, I'm saying the CDS is like a 'virtual Zimbabwe' to make a point.)

How does a virtual democracy end up taking this road? Well it begins with RA members who do not believe in democracy. At the RA meeting on 16 March 2008, representatives Beathan Vale (Simplicity Party), ThePrincess Parisi and MT Lundquist (NuCARE) indicated that they did not accept that majorities should take decisions. By a contorted twisting of logic they took the position that it is right for minorities to take decisions in defiance of majority opinion! These are people untethered from any sense of democratic politics, whose instincts are undemocratic and authoritarian. The only thing that matters to them is that they have a majority in the RA and that's all the justification they need to pass any laws they please. They have proposed and passed a number of changes to our election laws and Constitution in the run up to the by-elections due to be fought from 5-19 April which are designed to block any challenge to their domination.

There will be a by-election with voting from 19-26 April to fill two vacant seats left when Leon Ash and I resigned as members of the RA. I'm not going to rehash the reasons for our resignation and the CSDF decision not to fill the vacancies and force a by-election. Suffice it to say that after several weeks of personal attacks from ThePrincess Parisi and regular disruption of RA meetings by NuCARE and their ally Beathan Vale, I had had enough.

In the past few weeks members of the RA have either proposed or passed the following:

1. The RA has changed the election rules so that voters cannot eliminate factions they don't approve of. This means the by-election will be fought under different rules from the January election. We do not know who of the incumbent factions will be running in the by-election. We know that the DPU intend to stand and that Simplicity and NuCARE have said they won't. We shall see. The point is that the incumbents have changed the rules and this could benefit them should they choose to stand in the by-election. Sadly, the Scientific Council, the defenders of the Constitution and citizens' human rights, have chosen to allow this to happen.

2. The RA has raised the minimum faction size from 3 to 10% of the population which means the bar has been raised so that the minimum faction size is now 7. (I can't find a link to this on the CDS Forums page so this may have been decided by the RA without any public debate at all.) There's been a ridiculous smoke screen raised around this one. The change has allegedly been made to prevent the CSDF from splitting into two or three 'micro-factions' and gaming the electoral system which favours smaller parties. There is no CSDF plan to do this; it's an invented rumour to build support for this anti-democratic change. What it does though is prevent any new factions from forming on the same basis as the ones that fought the election in January. The incumbent factions only needed three members then, so why should the bar be raised now? There were, apparently, rumours that other people were going to start up a new faction to run in the by-election hence the need to raise the bar and prevent them from being able to stand; the Beathan/NuCARE coalition currently running the RA will brook no opposition. Again, the SC has failed to prevent this and has consequently failed in its duty to protect the Constitution and the founding documents and the human rights of CDS citizens. This is clearly an abuse of the powers of the RA. By sanctioning this change the SC has given carte blanche to the RA to rig this by-election and future elections. Now that they've been given their head I shudder to think what oppressive laws this Unrepresentative Assembly will come up with.

3. The RA seriously considered changing the Constitution to eliminate the two vacant seats the CSDF won in the January election 'for the time being' to pretend that there were 5 and not 7 seats. This would have made it easier for the Rump Assembly to achieve a quorum at meetings and pass further constitutional amendments. This would have completely ignored the January election result and disenfranchised the voters who chose the CSDF in the January elections. Fortunately the RA did not pass this outrageous proposal (I've christened it the 'Zimbabwe proposal') but it indicates the complete lack of democratic temperament in some members of the RA.

4. At the RA meeting on 24 March, ThePrincess Parisi proposed that the CSDF be prevented from participating in the by-elections. The argument is that, if the CSDF has candidates, they should take up the vacant seats and not force a by-election by refusing to sit in the RA. If the CSDF does not have candidates, they can't stand in the by-election. What this position fails to appreciate is that boycotting a parliament, on principle, is a perfectly legitimate political tactic. It is for the citizens to pass judgement on the CSDFs electoral tactic, not our opponents in the RA. This was the most outrageous proposal of all. Fortunately, most members of the RA can see that this is totally out of order and the proposal did not find support.

This Unrepresentative Assembly is out of control. They are passing legislation on a whim and most of it never appeared in their election manifestos. They claim to 'fear the CSDF' despite the fact that we resigned our seats and gave up any power we had. They have moved to rig the by-elections in such a way that the CSDF, and any other opposition, will be disadvantaged. The Scientific Council has, inexplicably, allowed this to happen. In the face of legislative tyranny we have a toothless judiciary incapable of defending the citizens' rights.

The only hope now is that the by-elections will return two representatives who will oppose the tyranny of the minorities and resist the undermining of our democracy. It's vital that all CDS citizens turn out to vote between 19 and 26 April and deliver a firm message in Defence of Democracy.

The Extropians' Delayed Democracy

The Extropians are one of Second Life's newer communities and have been one of the fastest growing. They launched with their first sim, Extropia Core, in November 2007 and have since expanded to six with more in the pipeline. The Extropians are united by a belief in a positive future and excited by transhumanist concepts such as the Singularity and the potential for technology to extend and enhance our lives. Prokofy Neva, droll as ever, has labelled them "the brain-uploaders". Extropia launched with an Avatar Bill of Rights, a Covenant and the promise of elections and a 'limited constitutional democracy'. It hasn't gone quite like that though and I don't think we can say that the Extropians have joined the community of democratic virtual micronations, at least not yet. But the reasons why they have not taken this path are fascinating in themselves and present questions that the Confederation of Democratic Simulators (CDS) and others need to consider.

I'll confess I have a soft spot for the Extropians. I like their positive attitude towards the future and the possibilities that it holds. It's refreshing to meet people who think that things will actually be better in the future and who reject the dystopian projections of much sci-fi. They're also a refreshing antidote to the apocalyptic environmentalists who tell us that the planet is going to burn if we don't all adopt a hair-shirt lifestyle, right now! I've recently read Michio Kaku's "Parallel Worlds" on the back of his BBC 4 programme "Visions of the Future" and I find his enthusiasm for technology and the potential benefits to humans to be very infectious. So, I was intrigued to see that the Extropians would be forming themselves along democratic lines. This was especially interesting to me, as a citizen of the CDS, because it appeared that the Extropians had never heard of us! I'd always imagined that other democratic communities would come out of splits within the CDS; to find a new one emerging with no knowledge of our past was pretty exciting.

Their original plan was that each sim would elect a 'Node' who would primarily have dispute-resolution powers. I was never entirely clear what else the nodes would do or what their relationship to the Board of Directors would be but, it seemed like a start and the beginnings of a form of government that could evolve in a more democratic and participatory direction. But the Extropians have not taken this path, the nodes won't be elected any time soon and 'benign dictatorship' - the dominant model of government in Second Life - seems to be the result that the community has asked for.

I spoke to Sophrosyne Stenvaag, creator of Extropia Core,  Director of Marketing & External Relations/ Acting Director of Citizen Relations who told me that the fact that there were problems with their planned model emerged at their first Town Hall meeting. The vast majority of residents wanted the unelected Board to get on with making decisions and expanding the sims and did not want to put time and energy into elections etc. One or two residents disagreed and wanted there to be a formal, legalistic democratic structure; they ended up leaving the project, the only departures so far.

I think it's fascinating that democracy ended up detracting from the Extropians' mission and was ultimately rejected by the community, at least for the time being. The majority felt that a political process, and the consequent division into factions and an adversarial format for decision-making, would be fatal at this early stage in their development. The Extropians have understood, perhaps subconsciously, that they need to consolidate their 'civil society' institutions first and truly build a community before they entertain the trappings of a formal political process which will necessarily involve division and some disagreement.

Extropian civil society is certainly quite well-developed. Sophrosyne's Saturday Salons have attracted a number of stimulating speakers and a substantial audience. Last Sunday's lecture on Religion, Spirituality and the Avatar with guest speaker Robert Geraci/Soren Ferlinghetti managed to be both self-referential in the way that many SL events are while also connecting to a real life 'big picture' issue - religion - and intelligently examined the potential for cultural exchange in both directions. A science fiction book club is about to get off the ground. Civil rights are protected to some extent by the Charter of Civil Rights (which acknowledges its debt to Desmond Shang's Caledon).

I think this raises some interesting questions for those of us who are committed to democratic self-government in virtual worlds. Is democracy invariably 'a good thing' or is it possible that it is more appropriate at a later stage in community development rather than at the very start? If so, how does one make the transition from benign dictatorship to genuine democracy? Do communities need democratic self-government to fulfill their purpose or does it sometimes get in the way? Is it important to develop a thriving civil society first and then make the transition to democracy? I can see why this latter approach would make sense. A community that has learned to work together and play together without the disputes involved in 'politics' is one which is more likely to have high levels of trust among the participants. Trust is vital if people are to work together and yet it is such a fragile commodity in a virtual world where pseudonymous avatars meet on the internet - you may well not be who you say you are and 'you' may be several people who all pretend to be different.

It also confirms for me that, within the context of Second Life, there's a question mark over democracy as the ends rather than the means. In the CDS we have tended to see democracy as our purpose rather than as a means for making decisions and resolving conflicts. That has meant that we have occasionally been 'Democracy Sim' - a special type of role-play sim where (some) residents play at being legislators and debate the ideal Constitution. Over two years of active participation in the CDS political process I have observed far more energy being put into this kind of discussion than into expanding the CDS territory or taking the community forward in other ways.

Other communities have adopted a different path with democracy clearly identified as the process rather than the goal. In future articles I want to explore their experiences and draw lessons from them. In particular I want to consider the Cedar Island community, which has used a form of consensus decision-making to guide its development, and the academic and government entrants to Second Life such as SciLands, which use a democratic board structure to govern themselves.

I also wish the Extropians well. It would be great to see them evolve democratic institutions when they feel ready for them and to see what a future-focussed, ultra-modern democratic process could look like. It could be an opportunity to rethink the democratic process using the tools available to the 21st century rather than the 18th century and innovate in ways not considered before.

An Evolutionary Experiment

My summer reading last year was Eric Beinhocker's 'The Origin of Wealth'. It's probably the best non-fiction book I've read in several years. I was really struck by his description of Microsoft's strategy in the OS wars of 1987 and wondered how that same approach could be adapted to the formation of democratic, self-governing communities in virtual worlds such as 'Second Life'.

Beinhocker takes us back to a time when Microsoft's continued dominance of the PC operating system market was far from assured. In 1987 MS-DOS was coming to the end of its useful life and Microsoft faced competition from other operating systems and the potential to fail if it's preferred solution - Windows - did not find traction in the marketplace. IBM was developing its own multi-tasking operating system OS/2, AT&T was leading a consortium including Sun Microsystems and Xerox to develop Unix, Apple was also a threat and maintaining a reputation for innovation. What Microsoft did was to invest in six possible futures simultaneously. Firstly, they continued to develop MS-DOS; with a large installed customer base and the potential to make incremental improvements it was possible that users might prefer to stick with the operating system they knew and were most familiar with. Secondly, they worked with IBM in a joint venture to develop OS/2 - 'if you can't beat them, join them'. Third, they held discussions with the various companies developing Unix to consider joint working. Fourth, they bought a major stake in Santa Cruz Systems, the major seller of Unix systems on the PC. Fifth, they built themselves a major Macintosh application development division outstripping Apple as the major developer of software for the Macintosh. Sixth, Microsoft made a major investment in the development of Windows.

Beinhocker sees the economy as a 'complex adaptive system' akin to the brain, the internet or an ecosystem. In such a system evolution is the driving force for adaptation and change. If we think of the operating system marketplace as just such an evolutionary system, we can see that Microsoft was experimenting with a number of designs to prepare for what would be the best fit in the marketplace. This feedback from the system informed the process of selection so that projects could be upgraded, wound down or ended. Once it became clear that the Windows strategy had the lead, Microsoft could divert investment to the successful project. Having a portfolio of strategies operating at once meant that they could quickly switch horses depending on which outcome was working best.

One problem we have had in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators (CDS) is that, for most of our history, we have been the only democratic, self-governing community in Second Life. As a result we tend to attract all or most of the people who would be interested in developing systems of democratic self-government. There are many different ways we could organise ourselves and so this leads to endless debates as the parliamentarians argue their case against the presidentials; the strict separation of powers crowd battle with those who favour cabinet-style government; the direct democrats argue for referenda against those who support representative democracy; the federalists battle the republicans. The Constitution we have ended up with is a bit of mish-mash - the result of many compromises between these different camps. The history of constitutional development in the CDS has largely been driven by compromises between competing visions of what democracy in virtual worlds should look like. But perhaps there is another way, an evolutionary way to test these ideas?

What if a rich benefactor set out to test competing ideas by establishing six new democratic, self-governing communities in Second Life? Each one could adopt a different democratic model as its template. We could have a "direct democracy" sim where all decisions are taken by weekly vote at a meeting where all citizens may participate and make proposals. There could be a "presidential" sim where a strong executive and strict separation of powers prevails. We could try out a "constitutional monarchy" with a figurehead monarch and decision-making politicians. Another sim might have an elected "tribal council" which exercises all legislative, executive and judicial functions. We could vary the executive configurations to try a three-person "triumvir" instead of a single-person presidency. We could try small legislatures v. larger ones. I'm sure there are many more than six possible variations but six would be a reasonable number to test a variety of quite different systems. Once established, the six communities would be set running and the business of elections and running the governments set in train.

How would we measure success though? One way would be to permit the communities to expand and bring in new citizens. The most successful model would be the community that expanded the most. Or we could permit the citizens in these six communities to 'vote with their feet' by allowing them to move from one community to another at intervals; the successful models would thrive and the unsuccessful ones decline.

But is expansion or contraction by itself a sufficient metric? Perhaps success could be measured by assessing citizens' quality of life according to a number of measures? We could use a version of the United Nations Development Program's Human Development Index adapted for our virtual world. A successful community, by this measure, would be one in which citizens' satisfaction, government approval and involvement and activism rates were high.

Clearly any such experiment would not be entirely free of bias or ethical objections. Each community would have to have different people involved (and that could be a difficult rule to keep given the ease with which alts are created). It might be that one community just gelled better and got on better than another because of the interaction between the different personalities. The islands may have different natural resources due to geography, location and public infrastructure (unless they were all clones of each other and co-located to remove those variables). One could also object to the experiment on ethical grounds - is it really acceptable to treat Second Life residents like lab rats and devise an interesting cage for them to run around in? On the other hand, if SL residents are willing to participate is there really a problem? The opportunity to live in a self-governing democracy is arguably one that many would take given the option.

I hope and anticipate that further democratic communities will emerge on the grid in a more organic fashion in the future so perhaps my artificially-constructed social experiment will not be necessary. I should have thought though that Second Life would provide exactly the kind of space in which to conduct such social experiments at minimal cost providing ethical standards were maintained. If there are any political studies departments out there willing to sponsor, I'm prepared to take a year's sabbatical from my paid job to get this off the ground! :) (But I won't hold my breath waiting to hear from someone).

What's wrong with democracy?

I started this blog about two years ago with the intention of reporting on Neualtenburg (since renamed Neufreistadt as part of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators or CDS), Second Life's only democratic, self-governing community at the time. Since then I've been more of a participant than a participant observer, helping to found the Citizens' Social Democratic Faction and serving as a member of the government first on the Scientific Council and latterly as an elected member of the Representative Assembly and more recently Leader of the RA. But I have been observing all the time I've been active in the CDS and wondering 'Why has no one else followed our lead? Why are there no other democratic communities in Second Life?'

There are a couple in the pipeline- both the Al-Andalus Project and the Metaverse Republic are designing elaborate constitutional edifices to support democratic communities. We will see how they fare; I think it must be good to have more than one democratic experiment to observe so, from an academic perspective if no other, these are welcome developments. The Extropians have also founded their own democratic community which has expanded rapidly over the past six months.

But what can we learn from the CDS? I think there are four main reasons why people look at the CDS experiment and think 'not for me'.

1) It all takes too much time. If I were to calculate the hours spent running the CDS machinery of government well, it would come to a grand total exceeding the net worth of our property if it were represented by billable hours! I've been using 'toggl' to record how much time I spend on CDS business each week; it averages ten hours/week. I'm not complaining, when I took on the role as LRA I expected it would involve a time commitment and I cut back on WoW and my other games to compensate. But even if we assume that the other RA members, SC members and Chancellor have far less onerous commitments (and that's a big assumption) then we're still left with 50 or more working hours a week just to run the government. I doubt whether the overhead in other sims run along 'normal' SL lines is quite so high.

2) Recycling old debates. This is the 'CDS disease'. Every new set of citizens wants to remodel the Constitution according to their preferences/prejudices (and there's nothing wrong with that) but it means that debates over separation of powers, parliamentary v. presidential systems etc are continually returned to with different cast members involved. The 'oldbies' i.e. anyone who's been in the CDS longer than six months, will be familiar with this phenomenon; we've all nodded sagely from time to time and said 'Aah yes, I remember when we discussed this last year. Here's the forum thread, we're treading the same ground again.' This tends to infuriate the newer members raising the issue because for them it is a new discussion! This is one of the many potential fractures between newer and older members of the community.

This iterative approach is not necessarily a problem provided we learn from previous debates and don't spend too much time restating old positions. In a democracy we should be able to return to issues when the citizens want to see them addressed and we should be free to change our collective mind as a community and reverse a chosen course or embark on one that had previously been rejected. But it gives the impression that the CDS goes round in circles and lacks a clear sense of direction. Indeed, despite several attempts to get people to think about the issue, the CDS has never decided what it is for, beyond being an experiment in democracy.

3) It gets nasty. When people are compared to Mao, Stalin and Ceacescu over a dispute in a virtual world we have left the realms of rational debate. Now, we are all guilty of hyperbole from time to time but Mao? Really, there has to be a limit. There are different appetites for 'robust' debate and different conceptions (possibly with a cultural basis) of what is 'rude' when having a disagreement. So it's inevitable that people will fall out from time to time. In addition, the anonymity that an online environment provides allows people to be much more cutting than they might be face to face in the real world. I've noticed a change over time though as people become more invested in their avatar and their reputation; people (well, *some* people) take more care in expressing disagreement and don't see every political dispute as a fight to the death. A more stable environment, same people, fewer newcomers would probably lead to more civility.. but at the expense of innovation and new blood. I think there's also the question of the type of people a democratic community attracts. For the most part the CDS attracts people who are committed to making democracy work but it has weak defences against borderline personalities who can create a great deal of disruption and are difficult to challenge effectively. This is a subject I'll return to at greater length another time - the CDS has a number of 'exiles' who, at one time or other, attempted to impose their vision on an unwilling community.

4) Democracy becomes the end and not the means. The most active members of the community will tend to be the ones staffing the institutions needed to run a democratic, self-governing community in a virtual world. The CDS is occasionally accused of 'role playing' democracy by outsiders, and we sometimes worry that these criticisms may have some truth to them. It's not hard to see why given the enormous amount of effort put into running the machinery of government compared to, for example, building and maintaining our environment and working together on collaborative projects. I've previously argued that what we need is an 'enabling' RA which sets out to provide the necessary support so that our citizens can launch such creative projects. I think we are often too focussed on the RA as a community when really it ought to take second place to a thriving civil society where the real life of the community, the fun stuff, happens.

So where does that leave the CDS? In the words of the saying, "I wouldn't start from here if I were you!" Ideally, the CDS would reform itself to reduce the democratic overhead and enable civil society to flourish; cast some decisions in tablets of stone (if only to declare that referenda, or a directly-elected presidential Chancellor for example, are never going to be enacted so we can stop wasting energy arguing for/against them); find ways to minimise the disruptive potential of borderline personalities and obsessive monomaniacs; and decide what it is for, apart from just being a democratic, self-governing community. I'm not hopeful about the chances though. The recent discussion over how to recognise the contribution of volunteers to the CDS project has revealed the diversity of opinion that exists within the CDS over a relatively uncontroversial aspect of community life. The opinions expressed include those at one extreme who believe "virtue is it's own reward" or "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" versus those who would erect statues in honour of the CDS 'great and the good'. The chances of much more substantial reforms, along the lines sketched out at the start of this paragraph, are frankly nil in my opinion.

But I do believe that the CDS will persist, and grow, and continue to evolve. It will do so as it has done so previously - slowly, with a great deal of noisy debate, some lobbing of verbal hand grenades and some spectacular departures of prominent citizens (which will continue to be quickly forgotten).

I hope that more democratic communities will be founded in Second Life and begin to offer a real choice; people will be able to vote with their feet and choose which kind(s) of democratic community they wish to live in. At some point, the CDS could split with a disgruntled minority setting out to found a new community. All of these developments will probably be positive for the CDS as a whole - friendly competition will drive innovation and challenge the accepted norms. The CDS has recovered from splits and acrimony in the past. It has a long future of further squabbling to look forward to!

A Return to Blogging

This blog has taken a bit of a back seat in recent years. I found the Confederation of Democratic Simulators (then named Neualtenburg), Second Life's oldest democracy and, without really intending to, got thoroughly involved in the politics of the community. Now that I've resigned as Leader of the Representative Assembly (the CDS legislature) after two years serving on one or other of the CDS' organs of government, I have a little more time on my hands to put some of my thoughts into better order and present them here. I think that the CDS experiment tells us a lot about the issues thrown up by virtual democracy and I hope to record my observations, based on two years of participant-observation, here.

One point to note in this short return to blogging is that the CDS is no longer the only democracy in Second Life. In recent months new democratic communities have emerged. The Extropians only opened their first sim in November 2007 but have recently expanded to six. Al-andalus is opening as a democratic community 'based on authentic Islamic principles' this weekend (8 March 2008). The Metaverse Republic project has yet to launch its system for inworld courts backed up by a parliamentary democracy but, when it gets off the ground, may be another one to add to the mix. All of these projects deserve greater description and scrutiny. There are disagreements, for example, over how democratic they really are and their claims need to independently assessed. I'll add my take on these projects and hope to add to the discussion.