Thursday, September 08, 2005

Stability and Democracy Part 2.

In Part 1, the relationship between founded regions and the super-regions was explored. The idea that founded regions are the basis of the game and utilise the feeders as weapons in the great game of geopolitics was advanced by some. By others, the feeders were cited as the centre of the game, the actions of the feeders causing course changes for many of the most active regions - actions which were not necessarily reliant upon the opinions and allegiances of the top ranking founded regions.

Whilst exploring this issue, certain tangents begged to be dealt with. One such was while examining to what extent certain alliances focused upon the feeder groups. Koona, a member of Equilism, was one of the participants in this study. Since he is a member of the ADN, I asked him where he thought the focus of the ADN was, implying the thesis that since invaders were weak, all major powers would have time to focus their attentions elsewhere. In so doing I hoped to come by a hint that the ADN might fit into either of the above categories. He commented, "I think that is not a correct assumtion, there are more missions sometimes than we can handle. I wouldn't call them weak, TJR is booming. There is a major flaw within the ADN: While every ADN region has is accountable of the ADN actions, the ADN itself tries to hold no accountability for the action of it's members. An alliance of regions cannot exist like that."

In the context of the investigation, i.e., discussing to what extent the ADN might pay major attention to the feeders, Koona's answer quite clearly shows his belief that the ADN is currently focusing on invaders - but it went just that little bit further to deliver a major criticism which was later expanded upon. I have included verbatim the segment of our discussion which ensued.

ES: "I don't understand the dichotomy you imply - each ADN region bears responsibility for the actions of the ADN heirarchy itself - but surely that is correct since each region has a say in ADN actions? Each region chooses to be bound by the ADN Charter. Similarly, why should, for example, Ocean of Purity (unlikely as this is) be responsible for the actions of (e.g.) Nasicournia?"

Koona: "Because everything is considered as an independent action, and it's sweeped under the rug of "not interefering in internal politcy of member regions."

ES: "What examples are you thinking of here?"

Koona: "Latest action of Unistrut and Crazy Girl."

ES: "You think the ADN should call them to account?"

Koona: "Absolutely."

ES: "And do what? Both of them are central to the ADN - throwing them out could create a rift. Over its more powerful members, can the ADN really have even a degree of control?"

Koona: "It seems not, but it was only a minor tehnicality that they didn't violate the AOA."

ES: "What policy would you advocate?"

Koona: "At present? a formal trial, but it seems there are no grounds, or it would have happened, plus the court system has been dissolved since the martial law."

Following this outpouring of disharmony, we returned the discussion to its rightful course and I attempted to draw a line between this dissatisfaction and the lack of democracy in the ADN. Asked if he favoured democratic reform which would allow the basic membership to hold Crazygirl and Unistrut to account if it so wished, Koona was sure of his own feelings on the issue. "Absolutely," he stated, " This has to start where the ADN takes a certain responsibility of it's members actions."

In order to fully and clearly establish the link between this discussion and the relationship between the founded regions and the feeder regions, one must consider the relationship between the dissemination of information and the democracy existent in the community in question. Koona quite unequivocally stated that the ADN was most interested in invaders - but with somewhere in the region of 17 posts on the ADN forum, one must question whether Koona would be privy to any discussions of the most senior members of the ADN, and whether in the final instance he would know where their focus lay and to what extent certain characters at the ADN (or any founded region) might be playing political poker with their opposition using the feeders as stakes, something which the previously referenced 'Pure Francoist Thought' implies. I don't believe I agree with that.

In previous articles the ideology of democratic community was advanced as an NS-adapted form of Marxism. All regions have communities. Not all of these communities are democratic. The democracy of a given community is a more important difference perhaps than where the community resides - whether in a feeder or in a founded region or on a forum comprised of representatives from many regions. Democratic fellow feeling is to the use of the feeder/non-feeder division in NS what socialist internationalism is to nationalism, xenophobia and racism in RL. Therein lies the difference between my own thought and that of Unlimited et al. The other models evinced from this discussion - encapsulated in the first paragraph of Part 2 of this article - are transcended by the links different regions can form with one another not just at the elite level (founders, delegates, Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers etc) but amongst soldiers and intelligence agents and the other active members that make up the majority of NS players.

Surely feeder regions exploit just as much as they are exploited? To some eyes, it appears that the Pacific is frequently relied upon as a bulwark against the expansion of the ADN. To other eyes it appears that the turmoil in the North Pacific was the result of interference from outside the region. Yet on the obverse side of that coin, it could be said that the Pacific utilised New Sparrow and USSR and then the whole Union of Sovereigns as bulwarks against the ADN and that members of The North Pacific sought aid from outside to prevent the genuine opinions of the majority deflecting the region from the course its delegate sought.

If that is the case, that the feeders exploit and are exploited then in that respect they are no different from any other community; neither cruel or dim-witted instigators of all problems nor long suffering victims of the machinations of Macchiavellian founded regions. If that is the case then surely stability is sought best by those who support full internal democracy, where great decisions don't rely upon a whim that can bitterly divide a region - a whim that is hard to overturn without resorting to outside military aid. Such was the case with The North Pacific for sure.

That provides my synthesis. The divide is not whether or not the feeders manipulate, are manipulated, are focus for the machinations of the founded regions or are the genuine centre of the game from which all energy radiates. The true difference, the key difference, is the extent to which all of the aforementioned communities enjoy democratic control over their leaders - and it must be acknowledged that if the right person is not in the right position, it is harder for the feeders to maintain that democratic control than for any other region.


Post a Comment

<< Home