This isn't the full title of the essay, but here is the introdcution. Please open or download the attached file for the rest:

Introduction

ISKCON is about to write its own constitution. What does this mean, and why is this important? Although most countries today have constitutions, some do not. Britain, for example, does not have a constitution, yet its society seems to function smoothly without one. Unlike Britain, newer countries generally cannot rely on history and a deeply entrenched culture to define themselves as coherent societies. If ISKCON feels it needs a constitution, then it is less like an old country and more like a new, emergent country.

Although some societies form their constitutions amidst peaceful circumstances, other countries must form their constitutions after a protracted, existential struggle. The United States declared independence from Britain in 1776 and fought a brutal war to remain separate; in 1787 the final draft of the U.S constitution was completed. After a protracted struggle, India likewise gained its independence from Britain in 1947; in 1949 India’s Constituent Assembly completed the draft of India’s own constitution. Only after victory is clear and final can the patriots and freedom fighters go about the business of nation-building.

Likewise, the immanent formation of ISKCON’s constitution comes at the end of a similar pattern of difference, conflict, and revolutionary victory. Understanding this chain of historic events as they have transpired within ISKCON is essential to understanding ISKCON’s emerging constitution.

Although most public discussion about ISKCON’s constitution will likely focus on the constitution’s pragmatic development, this essay will focus on ISKCON’s history of ideological struggle and the outcome of that struggle, which has made ISKCON’s constitution immanent.

See either of the attached files (Word 2003 document or PDF file) for the full essay. (UPDATE: 2/25/08, some errors in the text have been corrected.)