By Representative Helen Trevanyika of Wallenburg
5 October 1938
Popular Participation and Disinterest
Every Proposal begins as an idea, developed in the mind of a member nation's ambassador as a way of improving the world for all nations. While many budding authors fail to understand the conventions of World Assembly drafting and discussion, and thereby saturate the proposal list with ridiculous and poorly written documents, there are others. There are other authors, those who have worked hard and cooperated diligently with fellow Ambassadors to refine their ideas into polished, widely acceptable--and, most importantly, legal--Proposals. These are the Resolutions that have shaped our institution.
And by this pattern most member states remove themselves from the inner workings of the World Assembly, from the heated halls and spectacular speeches, and instead instruct their Ambassadors--assuming they have appointed any--to decide on Proposals that arrive at general Vote and leave all other World Assembly processes to the more dedicated Delegations of this Assembly.
And even more Members do not vote at all. Somewhere around five thousand nations tend to vote on World Assembly proposals when they reach the general Vote. Yet there are almost twenty thousand member nations, all bound to the World Assembly's various laws and Resolutions. Why do so few nations even consider participation? And what impact does this have on the operation of the World Assembly Headquarters?
As to why so few nations encourage active and contributing Ambassadors to the World Assembly, the answer is undeniable: most national governments simply consider trivial what the World Assembly does. They do not know what is legal and illegal under World Assembly law. They do not care. They are obscure by their very refusal to participate. And were one to reveal itself as a heinous violator of World Assembly law, very little would change to the vast majority of member States; after all, they never participated in the proposal process anyway.
That this lack of participation in the legislative process affects our Assembly's activity is just as undeniable. How we feel this effect, however, is ambiguous. Would these nations contribute well to the World Assembly? Or would they bog it down in countless undrafted, illegal, and ridiculous Proposals? As much our fellow Ambassadors would like to hope that a wave of new contributing Ambassadors would breathe life into a strict, the already appalling frequency of illegal Proposals suggests otherwise. Undoubtedly, we lose some good writers to the indifference of their governments toward World Assembly proceedings, but we also remain protected from scores of lazy and pointless drafts, blatantly illegal and unsalvageable. Such drafts would hold back an already slow drafting process and create even more problems with regard to keeping awful--sometimes catastrophic--Proposals from going to Vote.
The World Assembly Elite and the Age of Bitely
An elite is a "select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society". However, the connotations of a World Assembly elite often have had negative connotations, suggesting an aristocratic, self-oriented group of elect Ambassadors, plotting against the masses of silent member States. With the rise and fall of the Delegation from Bitely--and subsequent puppet Delegations clearly under this nation's influence--the World Assembly has seen the issue of elitism rise to a head. Beginning with an attempt to slander a supposedly elite member State via condemnation, the issue of Bitely's counterforce to the World Assembly "elite" culminated in an attempt to condemn the World Assembly itself. While both of these proposals--and a subsequent counteroffensive to sarcastically commend the Bitelian government--failed, the idea that an elite group controls the World Assembly has maintained itself, calling into question the character of several Ambassadors, including myself.
I believe there is an elite. There are a select few Ambassadors that frequent debates and meetings within these halls, and they undeniably hold most of the legislating power in the World Assembly. Simultaneously, this elite has not formed out of a lust for power and a desire to oppress the masses of member States, but instead out of the general trend of member nations to not participate in World Assembly affairs. Entirely by consent and indifference, the majority of World Assembly nations have surrendered control of the early stages of legislating to an elite corps, a group of Ambassadors genuinely concerned about the legality, appropriateness, and implications of every Proposal that comes across their desks. Those who control the World Assembly are a benevolent elite, an elite that encourages and fosters international goodwill and takes into account not only the rights of their own member States, but also those of the many silent member States.
And it is this silence that further encourages the development of an elite.. There is no concerted effort to remove freshman Ambassadors from these halls. I myself am relatively new to the legislative process. If there were organized efforts to restrict participation in this process, I would not have succeeded in advancing to such a status that Delegations such as those of Bitely claim me an elitist. There is no effort to discourage the involvement of other member states in the legislative process. Those that cry out against the World Assembly elite have only themselves and their lethargic comrades to blame.
And in any case, supposed--often self-appointed--counterforces to the World Assembly elite, such as the World Assembly Conservative Party, only humiliate themselves in their ridiculous claims that an elite has been responsible for the oppression and suffering of countless member States, regardless of the facts and evidence directly contrary to their claims. Their failed attempts to discredit the most dedicated of Ambassadors has left themselves discredited and cast into a fringe group. Meanwhile, the elite continues to carefully legislate, and efforts to improve the Multiverse one resolution at a time have gone well, even if recent legislation has been questionable.
Conclusion on the World Assembly Power Structure
The World Assembly needs an elite, and by luck its major legislators are largely benevolent toward the majority of World Assembly member States. There will always be opposition to new legislation--and attempts to escape compliance through loopholes, whether large, small, or nonexistent--but in the vast majority of cases, the Multiverse will continue to progress toward a better standard of living and a better standard of sapient rights.
Naturally, I and other Ambassadors would prefer to educate newly introduced member States as to the importance of thoughtful participation and discussion. Regrettably, this goal is entirely infeasible. We may count our blessings that so many governments behave well within the World Assembly, for it seems an awfully great tendency for the States of the Multiverse to behave as children. Hopefully, we can slowly incorporate more Ambassadors into this"elite", but as membership currently stands, the uneducated masses cannot be trusted with a more democratic structure.