The Martian Constitution

[Mr. Lothario]

     I think that a big-picture debate will be highly interesting. As such, I present the Constitution of Mars, from Blue Mars, the final book in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy (which, BTW, is a fecking great series, and should be read by everybody). The Constitution was reprinted in Robinson's anthology The Martians, along with Some Worknotes and Commentary on the Constitution, by Charlotte Dorsa Brevia (a member of the Constitutional Congress in Blue Mars).

     Here's the text of the Constitution.

     There is no source on the Web for the text of the Worknotes and Commentary, so you'd better appreciate what I'm about to do. Heh. I recommend reading the Constitution in its entirety first, then referring back to its relevant sections while reading the worknotes. Discuss, gentlemen.

EDIT: D'oh! I left out one of the worknotes. 2.1.2 is now added.


     "Some Worknotes and Commentary on the Constitution, by Charlotte Dorsa Brevia"


     PREAMBLE  Though the very idea of a constitution was opposed by some, the notion of a constitution as a "structure for debate" carried the day, and the process proceeded.

1.1.2  The idea of government as jury duty has rarely been enacted, but the theoretical arguments for the idea were interesting enough to inspire the framers to try it. The possibility that any citizen can become a lawmaker has had profoundly positive psychological and social impacts, even though the actual duma in practice has not usually been the driving force in legislative matters--and, yes, sometimes has been a circus, and always has a (refreshing) feel of unprofessionalism. But combined with the economic autonomy enjoyed by the ordinary person, this tangible sensation of self-government has raised the concept of citizenship to new heights of responsibility, and given people a stronger sense of the collective that has always existed.

2.1.1  A seven-member executive council is derived from the Swiss system. The aim is to depersonalize the executive functions of government, without rendering them inoperative by giving them over to an entire congressional-sized body. Though political fighting among the council membership is inevitable, votes quickly decide arguments and then the executive branch has decided on a course of action. This is not much different than a council of advisers influencing a single executive. But it does remove the tendency to personalize politics, to demonize or valorize individuals when really, in this particular realm of social life, it is policy that matters. The method has worked well in Switzerland, where many well-educated citizens do not know who their president is, but know where they stand on all issues current in the Swiss polity. And the same has proved to be true on Mars.

2.1.2  The Australian ballot system is required so often in the constitution because the framers became convinced that it encourages "reaching to the Other" by candidates. Voters vote for at least three candidates, placing them first second third and so on, and their first choice gets more points in a weighted system. Candidates are thus encouraged to seek second- and third-place votes from voters outside their own constituency, whatever it might be. On Earth this has worked very well in fractured electorates, healing some profound divisions over time, and given the polyglot nature of Martian society, the framers decided it was appropriate for Mars as well.

3.1.3  The splitting of the global judiciary into two branches was questioned at the constitutional congress, but in the end it was decided that so many questions of environmental law lay at the heart of the Martian experience, that it deserved a special body devoted specifically to regulating that function. People at the time argued that the constitutional court was vestigial and redundant, which has not really proven to be true, as its caseload is always filled with significant problems for Martian society. People also argued that the environmental court would, because of the artificial nature of the Martian biosphere itself, become the most powerful political body on Mars. This has indeed been a much more accurate prediction, and it could be argued that Martian history since the constitution has been the story of how the environmental court has integrated its tremendous power into the rest of social life. But this is not necessarily a bad kind of history to have.

3.2.2  Legislating atmospheric pressure has made the Martian constitution the butt of many jokes, but the Grand Gesture, as it was called, to red considerations [in the books, the Reds are the political faction who oppose the terraforming of Mars --Loth], is what allowed the constitution to be completed in the first place. And it does no harm to remind people that the environment on Mars is to a certain extent a matter of human choice. This has been true on Earth as well for almost two centuries, but only since the Great Flood [a catastrophe on Earth caused by ecological collapse --Loth] has it been a truth generally acknowledged.

3.3.1  This provision attempts to chart the difficult course between local autonomy and global justice. It is the paradox of a free and tolerant society that in order for it to work, intolerance cannot be tolerated.. The two injunctions "people can govern themselves" and "no one can oppress another person" must exist as a living contradiction or dynamic tension.
     In practice, local laws that violate the Martian spirit of justice (as detailed in the constitution) have stuck out like sore thumbs.

3.3.2  The idea that the constitution should mandate certain kinds of economies was controversial and hotly debated at the constitutional congress, but the argument that prevailed was unassailable: Economics is politics, and a just political existence, a just life, depends on a just economic system. This being the case, the framers were not free to ignore this issue, or all their efforts would have been rendered a kind of huge gesture or joke in the face of history.
     As it turns out, the establishment of a democratic participatory economy has been complicated and fraught with problems and argument, but not vicious or even particularly divisive. The old argument that "human nature" could never behave in anything but a feudal economic hierarchal manner disappeared like a mist the moment people were enfranchised in their work, and the capital created by generations of labor turned over to the ownership of the collective, and run by the people who operate it. Hierarchies still exist within each social structure, but in a context of general equality they are seen as the result of work, experience, and age rather than unearned privilege, and so they do not engender the same resentments. In other words, people are still people; argue, resent, hate, are selfish, will share only with kin or those they know, if that is what you mean by "human nature"; but are now in an economic framework where they are roughly equal to those they despise, and cannot grossly oppress or be oppressed by them, financially. This takes the sting out of anger at others, believe me. But you have to have lived under the old regime fully to feel the difference.

3.4.1  This provision provoked much hilarity during the constitutional convention, as being an afterthought body "papering over" profound contradictions in the judiciary and government as designed; it was even predicted that the whole government would eventually be run by this tacked-on reconciliation board.
     Indeed this has sometimes proved to be the case. What has to be remembered is that this is not necessarily a bad thing. The fulcrum of government should be in the courts, rather than in, say, army headquarters. I have never found the debates before the reconciliation board to be anything less than fascinating; the whole philosophy of government and human nature, squabbled over in every nit-picking bureaucratic detail. Of course you may say, But this is your job, Charlotte, you like this kind of thing. But I would reply by pointing out how many people are like me, nowadays, and very much enjoy their work; which is no longer time that you give to others to earn the money to do what you want, but actually something you have chosen because you find it interesting (if you are sensible), because you are fully involved in the results of the work, and are recompensed for it in much the same ways and to the same degree as everyone else in the world, with sufficiency at least, and usually much more: This is the situation that the society based on this constitution has managed to achieve. That's what I find so interesting about it, you see.

4.2  Again, the great paradox: intolerance of intolerance. But how else can justice be achieved?

4.4  This clause was clearly included to try to drive Martian politics down to the local and up to the global, effectively abolishing anything like the nation-states of Earth. Whether the nation-state was actually the source of Earth's terrible problems is arguable, but no one could see why there should be any nations on Mars, and so the clause passed. No one has missed the nation-state here, and indeed when you look at the word patriotism you can see that it is not a concept Mars need concern itself with.

4.5  Making war unconstitutional; this too was laughed at by many at the convention, but passed nevertheless. Perhaps you can't mandate goodness, but it may be worth trying anyway.

5.1.9  While controversial, this clause alone has been a major force in the struggle for equality and justice on Mars.

5.2.1  This practice was also taken from the Swiss, modified to demilitarize it and make it a matter of public work for the collective well-being of Martian society. The usual pattern has become six months after secondary education, three three-month sessions in the four years immediately after that, and nine more months on an occasional basis in the years after that. Thus the bulk of public service is done by the young and is part of their education. One study showed that over thirty percent of Martian couples met their partners during their public-service time, so if nothing else it works as mixer and matchmaker.

5.2.2  This clause encountered surprisingly little resistance at the convention. A no-brainer, Art called it.

6  Treatment of the land is fundamental to any government concerned with permaculture, that is, with stewardship of the biosphere for the good of future generations. Society is "a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born." (Edmund Burke.) And so we must care for the land.

7  There have been fourteen amendments passed in the twenty m-years the constitution has been law. Most reconcile contradictions embedded in the constitution, or in the local/global or tolerance situations, or refine the terraforming laws to meet current conditions.

8  Passed October 11, m-year 52, by 78% to 22%. Now operating successfully for twenty one m-years. [a Martian year is 1.881 Earth-years long, or 686.565 Earth days --Loth]
     At this point I believe the constitution can be judged a success. Those who argued at the time that a constitution was itself anachronistic and unnecessary did not understand its function: not to be a static "final law" wherein all social contradiction was resolved forever, but rather to be a template to structure argument, and a spur to justice. Despite the difficulties encountered since with enacting the vaguer or more radical sections of the document, I believe it has, like its great American and Swiss predecessors, succeeded in this sense.
     The form of government mandated by this constitution can be called polyarchy; power is distributed out through a great number of institutions and individuals, in a web of checks and balances that reduces any possibilities of oppressive hierarchy. The goals of the constitution, listed in the preamble, come down to justice and peaceful dissent. Where those have been created, all else will follow.
     Of course the constitution has somewhat receded into the background now, as huge masses of legislation and informal proctice have accreted around it, regulating the day-to-day activities of most Martians. But that was the function to be begin with and not to be lamented. The constititution was, to my mind, written to give people a sense that their management of their affairs was in no way "natural" or written in stone; laws and governments have always been artificial inventions, practices, and habits. They can change, they have changed, they will change again. That being the case, there is no reason not to try to change them for the better. And that is what we did. What the result will be in the long run no one can say. But I think it has been a good beginning.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

That's a bit much for my attention span this early, but is the series of books Blue, Green, and Red Mars?  What order are they in because I have Green and Red Mars on my bookshelf upstairs that I was considering reading at some point.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Overall, it's pretty good, but has some fundamental problems.

Since a constitution is really the blueprint for the government and it's laws, it has to be clear, and have the appropriate checks and balances.  In principle, I agree with where they are going, but there can be improvements.

Low level (all these could change since they did make allowances for amendments)

1) no stipulations for the removal of elected or appointed officials. -this is a biggie.  The courts seem to have some huge powers (more then our Supreme Court), and are elected/appointed for very long terms.  If they become corrupted, the whole system can go down the crapper.

2) with the whole elected body being renewed at the same time, instead of in stages, it could lead to much wasted effort while new officials learn the ropes.

3) there should be some way to call the duma into secession when needed, not just on schedule.

4) since court reconciliation can result in a tie, there needs to be a tie breaker.

5) Article 4.3 is written wrong, or is utterly stupid.  "Citizens of each town and settlement shall be entitled to all the rights guaranteed in this constitution, and to all the rights of all the other towns and settlements"  Since 4.1 and 4.2 let each town establish their own laws, they could actually contradict each other.  So, if I am guessing correctly, they want to say that anyone within the local sphere of influence, has all the rights in that sphere.  But the way it is written, I could demand the rights in my town, just because some other town has that right.  If taken that way, the local individualism goes out the window.

Now that leads us to the High Level issues:

It really needs to be written a little more clearly.  While it should be up to being changed and amended, it should also be written simply and clearly, so there is no misunderstanding.

This is especially true in Article 5.  They really needed to lay those out more carefully, not as bullet points.  Instead of saying "Religious Freedom", they need to define what that freedom is.  Is it absolute?  As in, "The government will establish no law that infringes upon the normal religious practices of the people.  Those normal practices defined by their respective organizations."  Or, is it something less?  In either case, All of Article 5 needs to be explained (when will the minimum wage be decided and updated, and by whom?)  It's so glossed over.

Another example is the use of "Australian Ballots".  That is a short cut, and really shouldn't be used in something as important as a constitution.  

Even Higher Level:

Something that they missed here, that's missing in most constitutions.  I think there should be an explanation of each article and sub-article.  Just as a Judge explains the court decisions in the documents.  This is done for a reason, and a good one in the courts, and I think it would make things simpler for the future generations.  Too much work goes into the interpretation of our constitution and it's only 200 years old (I have a grandmother still alive that was around for the first centennial, so it really shouldn't be as hard to figure out as it seems to be).  When they say "fair minimum wage", they need to not only explain what fair is, but also what they were thinking when they put it in (much like the worknotes and commentary help to do).  I think that commentary on all items would be very beneficial in any constitution.  

Think how much time, money and effort would be saved if things like "cruel and unusual punishment" were explained.  Stocks weren't considered cruel or unusual back in the day, but they are now.  I'd rather see the constitution or the law address these issues, then courts decide on them for us after the fact.

OK, now just the concepts:

I like looking out for the environment, and it shows a major concern of the people.  Maybe they should look a little further, making sure it covers the concerns past terra-forming.

The no lethal weapons wouldn't bother me depending on a few things.  First, define lethal weapon (is a bat, or knife a lethal weapon, if so, what about their other uses, if not, then some lethal weapons are still around, no?) - availability of various non-lethal weapons would offset those concerns as well.  Second, what about hunting?  Is there none there?  Third, are there lethal weapons in the hands of criminals?  Are they easy to get?  But, like I've said before, I have no problem with people wanting to live in a country, or planet, with no guns, it's just not where I'd live given today's world.

I'd really like to see something about term limits and campaign restrictions (funding).  History has shown us how easy it is to "buy" an election, even legally.  Be nice to see another mistake of the past rectified.

That about covers it for a start I think.  Our bet stand Loth?

[Mr. Lothario]

     In response to your objections about the document's clarity and verbal shortcuts: I agree. However, the constitution was printed in a novel, and was intended by the author to be something to spark thought and debate among the readers, rather than to be an actual constitution. So yeah, there's a fair bit missing in the verbiage, but that's for concerns of readability rather than an innate lack. Were this a real constitution, it would almost certainly have the detail we'd both like to see. Something else to consider is that the Martian constitution is based upon the Swiss and American ones, and so the readers can use those two real documents as mental models of what the fictional Martian document is intending when it says something incomplete like "religious freedom".

     In the book, the sessions, debates, committees and discussions of the constitutional congress, as well as all the lists, papers, etc. that they generate, are all recorded and preserved as a sort of afterword to the constitution for posterity and future interpretation of the document. Just as you do, I think that's a great idea. The Worknotes and Commentary is not the whole picture. : )

     And, as a last word in this post, is it just me, or is the Australian ballot system really attractive? A built-in runoff vote rather than the all-or-nothing system America uses is very appealing, and would go a long way towards rectifying some of the problems with the American election system--one of which is the concept of "wasted" votes. Third parties have a hard battle to get elected, because everybody "knows" that they aren't going to win, and so everybody doesn't vote for them because if they voted for a sure loser, their vote is wasted. The Australian system would help in that respect.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Yeah, there were just so many angles to work from, I took the shotgun approach and hit the big issues from each angle, not knowing where this conversation will go yet.  (content, structure, etc).

As for the "Australian Ballots", problem is most Americans would say we already use them, since it also just means "secret ballot with everyone qualified on it", which replaced town meetings in most of America.  I know that's not what the book is referring to, but only because I read them once upon a time (too long for me to remember much though).  But even now, I don't remember how they were used in the book to discuss them intelligently.

[Mr. Lothario]

     Bondo, sorry about not answering your question in my previous post. I was posting in a hurry and totally forgot to answer you. Anyway, yes, you're thinking of the same books. The full trilogy, in order, is Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars. Blue Mars is the one that the Constitution is reprinted from.

     Bucc, I was wondering why the Australian ballot system wasn't sparking more debate. After your post, I realized why: I'd messed up. I completely skipped over the worknote which explains the Australian system when I was transcribing the Worknotes and Commentary. So, I suck. I edited the original post to add section 2.1.2.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Cool, Perhaps after I finish working through all my James Patterson novels I'll move onto the trilogy.

Anyway, now that I actually know what you two were referring two in terms of the Australian ballot system, I certainly think that is a good idea...that way someone like me could vote for both the Green Party (my first choice) but not ignore that I'd prefer the Democratic Party to the Republican...perhaps I'd vote Socialist as my third choice...that or Libertarian, anything but Republican.

[BeefyFigure]

These novels you are talking about sound interesting.  Do any of you think they would be suited for someone aged fifteen?

[tasty]

I like many of the ideas in this constitution which in many ways draws on traditional liberalism, but I am confused by others and also by your responses to them.

Here are things I like:

1. The Australian ballot system: I believe that instant runoff is the best possible thing that could happen to democracy.

2. The focus on environmentalism: I don't understand how people can simply ignore current environmental problems.

3. The intolerance of intolerance: The example of anti-women and anti-homosexual ravings by religious zealots comes to mind. These are not legitimate belief systems in my mind because they directly conflict with natural law.

4. The fact that economic as well as physical domination of one another is taken into account.

5. The right to 50% of the economic benefit of one's work. This seems pretty socialistic, but only if it is computed the way I think it would. If so, the salaries of management would go waaaaaay down. I also like that one can have meaningful management over their own work.

Here are things I dislike:

1. The fact that Duma members are randomly picked from a lottery: The federalist side in me says that to legislate one should have a very high level of intelligence. Although this is not a belief that necessarily is ever manifested in our democracy, I still think that ideally it should be taken into account. Intellectual weakness also makes a leadership board more subjective to domination by one member.

2. There seems to be too much federal power: Too many appointments and whatnot. Power should be decentralized a bit.

3. Justice for those who offend these laws does not seem to be included.

This seems like a pretty good system??I am frankly quite surprised that some people (cough cough BUCC cough) didn't criticize some of the points which seem rather anti-capitalist.

Also as a response to what bucc said about cruel and unusual punishment: I think constitutional law has to be general rather than specific because of how societal standards change. I mean, 50 years ago we were putting must people to death with gas chambers and firing squads. Constitutions are simply too difficult to change to go around changing them all the time so they conform to societal progression.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Also as a response to what bucc said about cruel and unusual punishment: I think constitutional law has to be general rather than specific because of how societal standards change. I mean, 50 years ago we were putting must people to death with gas chambers and firing squads. Constitutions are simply too difficult to change to go around changing them all the time so they conform to societal progression.

Amendments.  I would much rather have it clear, and make a conscious decision to change it, then spend the time, money and effort, year after year, arguing over the meaning of it.  

I'll give you another example.  The right to bear arms in our own constitution.  How many people argue today over what that really means, where that line is drawn.  How much better would it be if they had made it more clear and defined.  Even if they had said "all weapons, to be sure the people have more power then the government".  At least that would be very clear, and we could then not have waste time arguing what is and isn't covered, and just vote and amend it to the standards that society has today.  It would help both sides.  No nickel and dime bullshit over a grey area, just make an honest and up front decision on what the law today should be, weighed against the known concerns of the past.  

This seems like a pretty good system??I am frankly quite surprised that some people (cough cough BUCC cough) didn't criticize some of the points which seem rather anti-capitalist.

Heh, because I think you color it too much with your own views for what is said.  You'll see what I mean in a few lines.  (you just assume which ways formulas will go).

As for the rest of your points.

Australian Ballots - I agree, but only if there really aren't any political parties as they exist in America today.  Otherwise, I can see them not making enough difference.

50% of income - That was at LEAST 50%, and it could be a bit socialistic, in a graduated formula, however, in either case, it doesn't have anything to do with lowering salaries.  Management could still make 1000000 and pay 50% while a janitor could make 100 and pay nothing.  You could get the graduated tax, but not salary control that you seem to be talking about.

I like the Duma being a lottery.  Give voice and responsibility to everyone.  And considering their duties, I don't see where they need any special requirements, other then being of the people.  It's not like they are making the laws, eh?  You need to look at their responsibilities.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Just curious...why is it that many Americans value the right to bear arms, but don't feel other countries should have that right.

Just as our right is to prevent our government from tyranny, shouldn't other nations be able to have weapons to prevent international tyranny (like for example what the US is doing).

[kami]

Bondo, I guess the argument against that would be that international and national concerns are... different. This is not my opinion however.

[Mr. Lothario]

     I like the Australian ballot system, as I said earlier, because it would give third-party candidates a fighting chance. I know die-hard Libertarians and Greens who don't even consider voting for their own party's candidates because they know that the candidate has no chance to win, and therefore a vote for them would be totally wasted. For these Libertarians and Greens I speak of to be able to vote for their candidate as a first choice, then the least-offensive Donkey or Elephant as a second choice, would mean a lot, both psychologically to the voters and politically to the candidates.

     I'm all in favor of a lottery election system for some political seats. Remember, anyone who wants power is the least appropriate person to have it. Farming it out randomly allows the legislature to have an honest-to-god voice of the common man, which would generally be a good thing, and as was stated in the Worknotes, gives a psychological boost to the citizens. Don't underestimate the power of self-governance (even in a limited fashion like the duma).

     Tasty, regarding your third "dislike" point, note in section 5.1 of the constitution, points 5 and 6. They grant the right to legal counsel, timely trial, habeus corpus, and freedom from unreasonable search or seizure, double jeopardy, or involuntary self-incrimination. Those are the same justice-ensuring rights that are granted to Americans by our constitution, so it seems to me that the Martian document pretty much has all the bases covered in that respect.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Just curious...why is it that many Americans value the right to bear arms, but don't feel other countries should have that right.

I'm guessing that this idea came from my post, since you chose to post it here, but for the life of me, I have no idea where you draw that conclusion from.

My whole point about the right to bear arms and other countries has always been, let them live their lives as they wish, and not tell me how to live mine.  I'm glad there are countries out there that have gun control, if that's what makes their people happy.  

I don't think they should or shouldn't, what I think is they should make their own decision.  I can't speak for anyone else, but I also never heard anyone that was pro-firearms here be against them elsewhere.

So I have no idea where you got that idea from.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bucc, I'm thinking more along the lines of why do we hold the right to bear arms so dear, yet in the news we are telling Iraq, Iran, North Korea that they shouldn't/don't have the right to bear arms.

I mean, we claim that they shouldn't have them because they could pose a threat or could give it to terrorists who would use them to harm.  But isn't that true of guns in the US.  The guns pose a threat (real or imaginary) and could be given to criminals who would use them for harm.  If we are going to reason that we need an armed populace, then the world needs armed nations.  If we feel the world doesn't need armed nations, then neither should the American public be armed.  It is a contradiction of logic to support the right in one case and deny the right in another.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

And all that has what to do with this thread Bondo?  I really am not seeing how this relates.  Start a new thread maybe?

If we feel the world doesn't need armed nations, then neither should the American public be armed.  It is a contradiction of logic to support the right in one case and deny the right in another.

Wrong on both counts.  First, you are comparing apples to oranges (hand guns to nukes), Second, it is not a contradiction of logic when there are many different premises in the different arguments.  Since you ignore the premises, I can see why you wouldn't understand that.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Way to spin so as not to provide a real reply Bucc.

As for what this has to do with the thread?  We are discussion the part of the Constitution that outlaws weapons...sort of.  You know, not everything has to remain perfectly on topic, there can be variations within the topic during the course of a thread.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Way to spin so as not to provide a real reply Bucc.

As for what this has to do with the thread?  We are discussion the part of the Constitution that outlaws weapons...sort of.  You know, not everything has to remain perfectly on topic, there can be variations within the topic during the course of a thread.

Asshole, I didn't spin anything, I said start a new topic.  I'll still correct your flawed logic there too.

You're comments have nothing to do with this thread, not at all.  When I asked you made it clear that you were talking about US vs Iraq, Iran and N. Korea.  I didn't hear any comment about this constitution anywhere in that.

So, take that bullshit about spin, add it to the fact that we know you don't actually want to read all of this, or the link, and start a new thread about how the US doesn't want those countries to arm, or about the American right to bear arms, or about the fact that you show all the early symptoms of a future pedophile.  You have said what, one thing about the actual constitution so far?  In five posts?

[BeefyFigure]

Why hasn't anyone answered my fucking question?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Well, the books as you can tell from this thread have pretty thick political and other such commentary.  But I don't see why a 15 year old couldn't handle it, even if they won't necessarily get everything.