CHAPTER 2..... On the Nature of Paradise Change Is Not The Same Anymore A Slow Boat to Paradise?

Change Is Not The Same Anymore Paradise, it could be argued, is a place where we can be free of people who are harping at us about what paradise is and what we have to do to get there. From this perspective, paradise is a matter of personal, not consensual, definition. If there is a more desirable state of affairs than the one humanity presently enjoys, however, then surely we can agree on some of its necessary elements. One of these elements will undoubtedly be change, since change is not only sought by the human nervous system--up to a point--but is also an intrinsic and inevitable aspect of the nature of the Universe, i.e., it is not likely to go away whether we like it or not. Most governments today, just as in Catholic dominated medieval Europe or during the Confucian epoch in China, are nervously uncomfortable in the presence of change. At best they strive to co-exist with change--usually relying on denial or neglect; at worst they wage military campaigns against it. Yet change has proven to be mightier than both pen and sword, and in the end (which rarely comes) change wins out over all things--except, of course, fundamentalism. Paradise, it seems reasonable to assert, is a process within which we are free to creatively direct or adapt to change, to solve problems, and to work together peacefully. Such a process would be perhaps best approached by an authentic democracy that changes both purposefully and adaptively--or to some degree by an inauthentic democracy that allows freedom for its citizens to change it--within the constraints on life that are imposed by time and a changing environment. Paradise, I would summarize, is a purposeful, dynamic, and adaptive process of social ``self-organization'' in which each person feels at home. The utopian and religious definitions of paradise, on the other hand, are characterized by both changelessness and timelessness. Paradise on earth, whether virtual or realworld, must incorporate both time and change. The most important question now is: do we have time to change before time and change overtake and destroy us? If world-system models are accurate, and if our current rate of adaptation to changing realities remains the same, then we will probably not have enough time to take emergency action at the last minute to avert the species-threatening crises projected to occur in the 21st century. If our social systems cannot change faster than at present, however, there is nothing to do but strive to make the little changes now that could make faster change possible in the future. The Internet can be useful in helping to move those little reforms along, so that later the rising curve of social adaptation has a better chance of dampening the curves of the worst scenarios of overshoot and collapse.[Meadows et al, 1992] A Slow Boat to Paradise? How much slowness will suffice to destroy us? Roughly twenty-five to seventy-five years from now (1995) of no essential change in our policies toward use of scarce natural resources, environmental pollution, demographic explosion, soil and water deterioration, spread of nuclear and chemical or biological weapons, and the resort to fundamentalist terrorism ought to do the job rather thoroughly. Speed of adaptive change is never easy to achieve, and unfortunately--or fortunately-- even the Internet cannot be used to transform all minds instantaneously. The slow boat to paradise may well be lost at sea long before it reaches its destination. Those who choose to pursue reforms incrementally, that is, in smaller and slower steps than are proposed here, will nevertheless want to use the Internet to help find a way to organize their approach so that each step makes sense in relation to further steps. In reality as well as in the program briefly described, each reform is actually interdependent with--and mutually reinforcing of--every other reform. The full realization of each reform, in other words, is only likely to be achieved and maintained if the others are also achieved and maintained: (1) electoral reform, (2) media reform, (3) lobby reform, (4) educational reform, (5) economic/structural reform, (6) population/ecosystemic sustainability, (7) democratization of corporations. More detailed proposals for action under each of the above categories of reform are incorporated into chapters three and four. Organizations will be necessary to carry out the program. Since online organizing has to take into account real world election districts and legal entities, we will look briefly now at three jurisdictional levels of reform action: Local A local organization for democratic reform could exist solely as an independent group or as a chapter within a national or regional organization. Its purpose would be to promote democratizing action directed primarily at the local governing processes but also to increase consciousness of the structure of all systems related to human survival. To accomplish these goals most efficiently each local will need its own strategy. Nevertheless, its first steps ought to follow a general pattern of openly and clearly stating its goals and values, then beginning to attract membership. It will need a plan of action with steps and priorities specifically stated. Naturally, an early priority is the creation and strengthening of the reform organization that could promote these first, necessary changes. Generally speaking, the first reforms to seek are: (1) electoral reform, (2) lobby reform, (3) media reform, and (4) corporate reform. Without the priority reforms a truly democratic representation in government cannot be achieved, further reforms cannot be achieved, and special interests would continue to prevent progress on the rest of the new agenda. Some progress may be possible in other arenas, such as passing some legislation to protect the environment, but that legislation is likely to be rolled back later--or blocked in the regulatory arena--if the priority reforms are not enacted and upheld. Again, the specific content of the proposed reforms in each of these priority areas can be found in the model constitution, chap ters three and four, in sections pertaining to each of the reform topics. The principle methods by which these first reforms can be pursued are: (1) education campaigns to increase voter consciousness, (2) expansion of informed membership, (3) support for electoral candidates who advocate these reforms, (4) media events and/or campaigns both online and off, (5) mass demonstrations, (6) seminars/teach-ins both online and off, (7) write-in and e-mail campaigns, (8) initiatives/referenda, (9) proposals of new laws to legislative bodies, and (10) the establishment of a fund to purchase or create new media outlets that will function to promote a carefully structured approach to reform as outlined above and in the model constitution. Usenet groups, web sites, desktop publishing equipment, and nonprofit net works such as Econet and Peacenet are natural candidates for new media and media usage. Appendix 1 lists several potentially useful Internet and World Wide Web addresses. (The listed web sites should not be regarded as endorsing any part of this manual.) Naturally, an organization promoting democratic reform will want to structure itself democratically. The model for a universal constitution, outlined in chapters three and four, or any simplified version, could be suitable for an organization whose purpose is to reform the existing political process and to move societies toward more democratic self-government. The strength of any reform organization will rest primarily in the credibility of its ideas, in the quality of its membership, its organizational rules, and in its numbers. Small groups can be formed within the organization, as described in chapter three of this manual, for the purposes of self-education in democracy and for personal development. Since the quality of an organization is often reflected in its meetings (whether virtual or real--and there should be both), these small groups ought to offer individuals experience in the conduct of effective decision-making. Toward that end the following table provides a list of guidelines for democratic meetings. Previously agreed upon methods of maintaining secure transmissions, or safe environments, are assumed when the meeting is to take place online: Ten Guidelines for Democratic Meetings 1. Democratically select, then distribute a written agenda in advance of the meeting. Clearly state the purposes or goals of the meeting, and specify the methods or rules for democratic decision-making that will be proposed--unless these are to be decided at the meeting. 2. Begin the meeting by electing a temporary Chair, a Historian, and a Parliamentarian by majority vote. 3. Propose and adopt, by majority vote, a set of rules for democratic decision-making and the procedural structure to be in effect until the end of the meeting. The rules and procedures should then be posted on a board (or in a computer file) where all can see them, or on one side of a piece of paper, or if online, in an ftp file that is made available to each person. 4. If deemed necessary after deciding the procedural rules, again elect a Chairperson, a Historian, and a Parliamentarian for the remainder of the meeting. Rotate these positions, or elect new people, in subsequent meetings. 5. The Chair should then conduct the meeting according to the agreed upon procedures--usually a simplified and/or informal version of Robert's Rules of Order that is available to everyone. The Historian will record (or save) the meeting and write a brief account of the meeting and of its historical significance in relation to the stated purposes. The Parliamentarian will adjudicate disputes that arise over procedure, and will decide procedures to ensure that the rights of minorities are protected and their views included. 6. If ten or more persons are present, form groups of 7 plus or minus 2 individuals. Prior to small group sessions, decide the time of adjournment and the time of the next meeting. If the meeting is a computer conference, specify when the conference will close and when results will be published. Generally, computer conferences should not last longer than a week or two. 7. If the agenda is still an issue, discuss the agenda as a whole group, in small groups or threads if necessary, then vote in the whole group on the agenda and on the amount of time to be devoted to each item. 8. If the meeting is live, priority items on the agenda should also be discussed both in the whole group and in small groups where each individual's opinion can be more easily elicited. 9. The meeting may be divided into separate periods (or threads in the case of a usenet format) for task groups or committees to discuss separate questions. Spokespersons from each task group may then summarize for the whole group. 10. When making decisions, specify who will carry them out and when; and how the results shall be reported, by whom, to whom, and when. A membership well practiced in the above procedures will move meetings along efficiently and decisively. National Any organization can be initiated from either the center or the periphery. Usually, but not always, local organizations will precede a national structure. A national organization dedicated to the program of democratic reforms outlined here can be chartered when enough local chapters exist. It will be important to develop newly democratic organization in a way that does not promote particular individuals, but rather, keeps the focus on the organization's goals. Strict adherence to democratic processes within the organization, frequent elections, rotating leadership, and a democratic decision-making structure based on the model constitution should help keep the organization alive and progressing. Lobby reform becomes especially important at the provincial and national levels of organization. With the lobby reforms suggested in the model constitution, only lobbyists who are democratically elected by their organizations would be allowed to lobby--and then only under a strict set of rules that would prevent campaign contributions, bribery, and unfair or ``insider'' influence (see chapter three and The Universal Model). Reform lobbyists could be elected and sent to every level of government to inform elected representatives of the ideas, policies, proposals for new laws, and the growing strength of the new, democratic reform organizations. Under the proposed new rules, however, they could only meet with elected representatives in a public forum with a variety of opposing interests present. They could also gather information about the ongoing legislative process to send back to their democratic organizations so that timely action can be taken when needed. Local and national levels can support each other in a variety of ways, and unity must evolve if reform organizations are to be strong. All of the activities at local levels should be coordinated with the national level. Joining with other democratically functioning organizations to share information, to achieve mutual support, and to establish a larger network with greater organizational strength is, of course, crucial to success. Regional (Supranational) Progressive people in neighboring countries should be approached with the idea of establishing reform organizations there, and eventually, with the goal of creating a multinational, regional organization. Regional reform organizations should also, of course, be structured on the basis of the universal model of democracy. Authoritarian or poorly developed democratic systems in neighboring countries are hazardous to their more democratic neighbors. People in countries with democratic deficits tend to need more help with democratization. Both they and their neighbors will benefit when the whole region moves toward greater, and more authentic, democracy. The new reform organizations should not rest until universal participation in regional, democratic government is achieved. The primary challenge at the regional level of organization is to create a new sense of community among human groups that have not previously seen themselves to be parts of a larger community. Where chauvinist adherence to national languages becomes a barrier, Esperanto, an easy to learn yet powerful second language for everyone, provides the fairest and most logical solution. As Reinhold Niebuhr pointed out, government is not created by fiat but rather out of a sense of community. [Walker, 1993] To achieve this regionally, a common model of democratic government is helpful, perhaps even necessary, but not sufficient. Cultural, historical, and economic integration will also be necessary. Internet-based, democratic communities that transcend geographical boundaries can certainly assist in these integrative processes and could vastly speed the development of the sense of community based on a common model of democracy. The idea of universal participation by adults in democratic self-government actually assumes the prior existence of a ``universal'' model for democracy. The abstracted idea of a universal model will, however, seem implausible to some. In fact, it can be argued, we are already evolving toward a truly universal model of democracy on a global scale. When any group begins to study existing constitutional democracies in order to find an appropriate new, constitutional structure for itself or to improve itself, for example, it invariably comes up with some combination of features from previously existing democracies. The continuation of this process over generations spontaneously leads toward an integration among existing democracies, and hence, to an increasingly universalized model of democracy. To speed progress in finding and implementing a new, multileveled system model, chapters three and four specify one model of democracy for the reader's consideration. The model is designed to facilitate the introduction of democracy into any culture, to provide guarantees for fair representation for all peoples, to enhance human health, improve economies and restore the environment, establish a minimum set of universal values and goals, and to stop the corrupting influence of special interests. Its widespread acceptance in a reasonable period of time would clearly create a foundation for world peace and prosperity by the middle of the 21st century. Next chapter...