The Declaration of Independence, written some 230 years ago, stands as one of the most articulate and well-conceived examples of prose ever written in the English language. It formed the cornerstone of what was to become The Constitution of the United States of America. The notion of having that written Constitution is a very sound one. In the United Kingdom, there is no such Constitution, but nevertheless there is a body of law that dates back to the Magna Carta. Both social systems (the USA and UK) have developed a very sound basis for their law and it is predicated on rules.

All of the rules of law in the USA are subordinate to the Constitution and may be argued to be invalid if unconstitutional. If laws are declared unconstitutional, then they will be negated and removed from statute. Nevertheless, until they are declared unconstitutional, they must be obeyed. Similarly in the UK, laws are subject to challenge, and if a challenge is successful the law so challenged will be negated and removed from statute. It is the power of law, or adherence to rules, that makes nations like the USA and UK respected entities in a world that too commonly sees rule of law being discarded by dictators for expediency.

Superficially, the blind acceptance of law can often frustrate. We know that criminals walk free from law courts because legal procedures were not properly followed, even though we may feel certain of the guilt of the criminal. We know that some laws are unjust because they have been expressed poorly. We know that some are anachronistic and are due for revision. Nevertheless, we follow our rules strictly and faithfully while concurrently seeking reform.

I wonder why Mensa does less. Certainly in American and UK Mensa, rules have been set aside recently to enable expediency.

In UK Mensa as in Mensa International, the governing rules are embodied in the Memorandum and Articles of Association (M&A) of the companies that govern those Mensas' activities. These are created with the consent of the membership, by having motions brought before the membership and voted on democratically. Once accepted, the rules are put in place; it is to these that our elected decision-makers must adhere in the pursuit of their duties and responsibilities.

In American Mensa, a similar system prevails with ASIE rulings replacing M&A rulings; nevertheless, it is to these rules, once in place, that elected decision-makers are obliged to adhere. When instances of failure to hold fast to rules that are clearly in place are evident, then there must be a mechanism available to illustrate clearly to the membership of Mensa that their mandate has been abused and that corruption prevails.

It may seem harsh to label a simple side-step of an inconvenient rule as "corruption," yet that is what it most certainly is. When elected officials take it upon themselves to act outside of the rules structure put in place over the years by a diligent membership, then no matter how small, that aberration is a transition from democracy to totalitarianism.

There is no greater circumstance in which rules must be adhered to than one which seeks to censure, or favour, a member or collection of members of our Society. When rules govern elections to office, or removal from office or, for that matter, removal from the Society, we have an undeniable imperative to adhere strictly to both the letter and the spirit of all the rules which govern such decisions. Rules that affect the election of officials must similarly be strictly observed. In truth, all rules ought to be strictly obeyed, but to revert to the analogy of sovereign law, speeding on a highway may be considered by reasonable people to be less heinous than murder.

We can therefore acknowledge a hierarchy of the importance of rules in certain circumstances; yet we must endeavour to adhere to all of our rules as often as possible. We may well speed on the way to a hospital with an injured child, yet if we hit another child on the way, we must accept responsibility for our misdeeds. So it is with the flouting of Mensa rules. When we do it, we accept the responsibility and the consequences of doing it.

We must put into place a mechanism for the speedy alteration of flawed rules, yet whilst that is being enacted, we must adhere to the flawed rules. To do otherwise is to invite totalitarianism. We must trust that our membership will not accept proposed faulty rules. By keeping them informed of the formulation and reasons for the proposed rules, we must accept that they will provide to elected officials a mandate, that is predicated on these accepted rules. Furthermore, we must have in place an additional mechanism that enables our membership, not a handful of individuals, to make a judgment on any of our officials who choose to ignore our rules. At the present time, it appears on both sides of the Atlantic that these mechanisms are internal and self-governing.

There are many national and emerging Mensas that look to the USA and UK for the role model of how a Mensa should be. We have an opportunity to illustrate to them that it should be a society predicated on fairness, honesty and adherence to established rules in all circumstances. To provide them with less is to cheat them of their potential. Mensa International, above all other Mensas, is duty bound to adhere to this principle.

If a rule is flawed, let us amend it or discard it but, in the meantime, obey it to the best of our ability. If any person is victimised as a result of the setting aside of established rules, then let us make amends to that person and seek his forgiveness. If any should gain advantage by the setting aside of our rules, then that advantage must be removed. We are not a perfect society, but nothing prevents us from striving to be so.

—Ian Hadley