[governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing
Paul Lehto
lehto.paul at gmail.com
Fri Aug 20 11:24:31 EDT 2010
Whenever one does not have a distinct term of office in which one
essentially can't be removed (as with most elected representatives)
these kinds of "be careful" and "be strategic" and "don't be negative"
considerations always arise.
This is the condition of every single civil society "stakeholder"
granted some sort of voice in a process: They know full well that they
can not say everything, can't very often be negative, and they feel
they must be strategic in what they talk or complain about. It is
thus that advocating for the truth is replaced by responding to the
carrots and sticks of the powers that be, which is my interpretation
of the class of statements this quote from below is in: "it would be
a bad idea to adopt a negative tone and directly take on the actors
who are pushing for a more intergovernmental and/or NY-based
configuration."
Isn't it nearly always a bad idea to "directly take on" the powers
that be from a certain self-preservation perspective?
What if the powers that be are abusive? In that case, they will
really not appreciate a "negative" approach and do need to be
addressed most directly. To use an example by way of analogy using
something everyone can understand:
If someone puts their hand down somebody elses pocket, invading the
security of their person as well as property, and keeps fishing around
down there, is there any approach to take other than directly taking
them on and firmly requesting or demanding the full removal of their
hand from one's pocket?
Only a slavish fear of imminent harm would counsel caution or lack of
negativity in directly taking on such a person. Only a fool would
compromise such that the hand only need come half way out of the
pocket. Only the confused in this instance would get hung up on the
demand "get your hand out of my pocket right now" as being "negative."
I'm not saying now is definitely the time to be direct and negative.
But, I am saying that the assessment of the necessity of being
"negative" and "direct" has to be independent of the "threat" of IGF
non-renewal and the like, and thus independent of conflicts of
interest. Any who purport to give voice to people or to interests
are misrepresenting either the nature and certainly the extent of
their giving voice when they are being strategic.
Without this disregard of the personal or organizational costs of
speaking the truth, the decisions about what is said or not said
ultimately lack integrity -- and this is intrinsically justified by a
belief that one is under a degree of duress, such as IGF renewal.
This fear can be backwards. I was essentially an elected official for
several years, a governor of a bar association. I made a "no holds
barred" speech, calling the situation "catastrophic" and naming names.
The minutes reflect that I made "compelling" arguments on an issue
not really heard before and an effort was set up to draft a permanent
("stakeholder?") committee to forward a resolution to solve the
problem. That was done, new voices were brought in to (in effect)
study solutions to the problem I emphatically laid out. Today, it's
been addressed.
I learned from that experience and others that holding back can hurt
somebody pretty badly if they have a good faith audience who might
otherwise respond to a compelling call to justice.
Approached the other way, whatever substantive points are
"strategically" held back tend to prove that civil society does not
really represent people first and foremost. Rather, it has first and
foremost in its mind its own self-preservation and continuing access
to the apparent halls of power. That's quite human, and it may be
done sometimes for apparently noble motives like "continuing the great
and important work we have." But still a conflict of interest that
undermines civil society's claim to importance.
Wisdom, in my opinion, comes in seeing that these excuses or
considerations for not speaking truth to power are virtually always
present in some significant degree, and thus there is never a good
time to speak the uncensored truth, if one allows personal or
organizational conflicts of interest to hold sway. The challenge,
instead, is outlined in my P.S. below - to not hold back but to speak
articulately, compellingly and (usually) diplomatically. These are
the only true qualifications, and anyone can meet them at one or many
times of their life, regardless of background or education, but we
must know when to send the sober policy wonks, and the answer to that
question is surely not "always."
Paul Lehto, J.D.
P.S. There is typically always a way to diplomatically say what needs
to be said without taking away any points or any force in what one is
saying. I tried to above, as it would have been shorter and less
diplomatic to say:
"Don't be a sycophant to power, have some integrity and actually try
to give voice to all of the voices you know in the halls of power
where they aren't heard often enough, or ever. "Pulling punches" may
or may not succeed at self-preservation, but it certainly constitutes
a confllct of interest and it certainly destroys the claim that civil
society is up to the task of representing anything other than a
strategic slice of civil society."
The main text above is closest to my true intent, and it is also more
diplomatic (I trust).
On 8/20/10, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Fatimata for accepting the nomination, that's great. [...] You might want to keep Bill Drake's previous post in mind... (see below)
> Best, Ginger>
>
> Just a small suggestion—with whether and in what form the IGF will be
> renewed up in the air and a lot of back channel politics in
> intergovernmental and UN circles taking place, it would be desirable for CS
> interventions in the opening and closing sessions to be fully sensitive to
> what's going on and calibrated accordingly. Presumably it would be a bad
> idea to adopt a negative tone and directly take on the actors who are
> pushing for a more intergovernmental and/or NY-based configuration. But the
> case for retaining the core features we favor could be made in a positive
> manner that nevertheless effectively responds to the arguments for
> "improvements." Given the stakes at this particular juncture, we should be
> somewhat strategic about how we use these opportunities and perhaps even
> coordinate a bit on the message. This relates to selecting nominees as
> well—consider the panels they'll be on, the kinds of people and discussions
> (texts and subtexts) that will be involved, and optimize to these
> parameters.
>
>
> On 8/20/2010 8:45 AM, Fatimata Seye Sylla wrote:
>>
>> Hello Ginger,
>>
>> I accept Tijani's nomination!
>>
>> Best,
>> Fatimata
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, Bazlu, we would like geographic and other balance. Point noted, and
>>> nomination of Adam Peake noted.
>>>
>>> Adam, will you please post one paragraph for those who need a refresher?
>>>
>>> Will all nominators (Tijani Ben Jemaa, Tracy Hackshaw, McTim, AHM Bazlur
>>> Rahman) please check with their nominees (Mrs Fatimata Seye Sylla,
>>> Ginger/Marilia, Hartmut Glaser, Adam Peake) to make sure they are willing
>>> to speak, expect to be at the meeting, and post their one-paragraph bios?
>>> Additional nominations should do the same.
>>>
>>> Thanks! Please do not 'reply all' to this email, as I am ccing those
>>> named above.
>>>
>>> Best, Ginger
>>>
>>> On 8/19/2010 7:28 AM, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Ginger Paque,
>>>> Who will from Asia ?
>>>> I would like to propse Mr. Adam Peake from Asia.
>>>> With best regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bazlu
>>>> _______________________
>>>> AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR
>>>> Chief Executive Officer
>>>> Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
>>>> [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social
>>>> Council]
>>>> &
>>>> Head, Community Radio Academy
>>>>
>>>> House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207
>>>> Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh
>>>>
>>>> Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501
>>>> Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105
>>>> E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Ginger Paque
>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; McTim
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:41 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and
>>>>> closing
>>>>>
>>>>> Noted, McTim, thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>> Hartmut, would you please post a one-paragraph summary for those who
>>>>> are not familiar with your work? Thanks! Best, Ginger
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/19/2010 6:11 AM, McTim wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to nominate Hartmut Glaser as speaker as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>
>>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Fatimata Seye Sylla
>>
>>
>
--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI 49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-2334
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list