on
the very eve of the inauguration of the first session of the MicroParliament, I have examined some of the issues facing micronationalism today. What follows is my attempt to dispassionately present the issues as they appear to me, without taking sides.
at
present, I see three major foci of discussion: Monarchy vs. Democracy, Derivatism vs. Modelism, and the issue of whether to impose limits on "unmannerly" behaviour.
Monarchy vs. Democracy
This issue has caused a great deal of acrimony within the micronational community recently, with heated debates on several discussion groups.
On the one hand, the democrats maintain that the only proper form of government is democracy, and that handing over the reins of government to one individual amounts to dictatorship, and is a violation of human rights.
On the other hand, the monarchists maintain that the human rights of the citizens in the monarchic micronations have not been violated, because they have freely chosen to subject themselves to this form of government, and because they have the right to leave at any time.
Both sides have a point, and both sides are burdened with their share of strident partisans, seemingly unwilling or unable to debate the issue without flying into a passion of vilification and opprobrium.
As one of the major issues of contention of the macronational world as well as the world of micronationalism, this issue bears careful watching. A lot of passions are involved, particularly among those whose macronational upbringing engenders an unquestioning belief in democracy.
The MicroParliament as currently constituted contains a faction, the Free Democratic Faction, which argues for the abolition of undemocratic forms of government in the micronational community, and there seems little doubt that the debate on this issue will be hot and heavy.
|
Derivatism vs. Modelism
These two terms are specific to micronationalism, and should be explained:
Derivatism maintains that a micronation should strive to be "real", eschewing the use of phantasy in the form or fake geography, bogus history, "paper dolls" (non-existent persons listed as citizens), or other elements of surrealism.
The opposite of Derivatism is Modelism, which holds that micronations should be "model states", not unlike "model railroads". Modelists argue that the micronational community can never be serious (whatever "serious" is taken to mean), and that fantasy has a place in it. Not surprisingly, most of the supporters for Modelism come from nations that have a strong RPG (Role-Playing Game) element in them.
At present, the Modelists are well-represented in the MicroParliament. Their faction, the Micronations as Models Minority, is opposed by the small faction in spe, the United Derivatist Faction.
However, there is reason to believe that the Modelists are not as dominant as they might seem - many of the members of the other factions hold Derivatist sympathies, and can be expected to vote that way in a crunch.
Too, the Modelists are hampered by the fact that the notorious Matt Dabrowski, the enfant terrible of micronationalism, has recently taken over the faction. The original faction leader, King Shawn of Triparia, left the faction and joined the FDF, possibly because the MMM was the subject of a takeover move by a multitude of new MPs from Reunion (a nation well-known for being extremely Modelist in nature).
|
The issue of manners
The first of the factions to be formed, and one of the largest, is the Society for the Promotion of Mannerly Conduct. The SPMC is formed around a "single-plank" platform, namely a concern for the preservation of manners in the interaction between the micronations.
The SPMC are expected to present a proposal at the MicroParliament session for the adoption of some form general convention, signatories to which would pledge themselves to regulating the behaviour of their citizens when communicating intermicronationally.
Opponents to the SPMC's plans say that this would constitute a gross violation of the rights of free speech of the individual citizens. Ridicule has been heaped on the proposal, chiefly from extremists among the pro-Democracy wing, who seem to believe that the proposal is aimed at themselves personally.
A public response from the SPMC has not yet been given, but such a document would necessarily apply only to signatory nations, and would likely only place limits upon the free speech of public officials within the signatory nations.
It is difficult to predict whether this issue will provoke hot debate, or whether it will be a non-issue. Many of the nations represented in the SPMC are already in the process of issuing legislation and signing treaties limiting certain specific cases of bad behaviour, and it is possible that the issue will prove less "hot" than it was originally considered to be.
|
of
course, these three issues are unlikely to be the only matters facing the MicroParliament. The committees, soon to be formed, will discuss such heady questions as the future of micronationalism in the 21st century, the relationship with macronations, and whether or not micronations are even worth the effort.
july
promises to be an interesting month.
|