<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
Milton: <br>
But suppose we called it "popular sovereignty" and "individual rights"
instead of "multistakeholderism" - would that not allow individuals,
in various aggregations, to produce the appropriate mix of law, order,
economy and conscience? Is not the division into three estates (with
millions of individuals overlapping and participating in two or more at
the same time) artificial?<br>
<br>
Parminder:<br>
I agree with Milton's doubts whether the MS framework contributes
anything new (in a positive sense) for organising our political
systems. What does the term stakeholder groups bring in beyond what we
already know as 'interest groups', a basic and a widely used concept
of representative democracy. Unless those arguing for MS-ism as the
basic new governance form clearly articulate a response to this
question, it is difficult to go any further in this discussion. <br>
<br>
Bertrand (in response to Milton):<br>
Do you actually mean a sort of "personal sovereignty" principle, that
would enable individuals to gather in numerous human groupings,
including nations, but also business and non-profit entities ?<br>
<br>
Parminder:<br>
<br>
This brings me to the gorilla-in-the-room question of MS-ism - the role
and legitimacy of big business in political structures. <br>
<br>
It is important to discuss how, at a theoretical level, organization
into a business unit is very different from political interest based
collectives - governments, or non-gov bodies. Again, this is a
principal issue that needs to be clarified by Ms-ists. The conflation
of 'interests' and structures of business organization - especially of
the trans-global share capital based kind - with human organisations
and collectives with shared 'lifeworld' (a world that subjects may
experience together) based interests is very problematic, and requires
clarification. I had proposed a thorough analysis of the term 'stake'
and stakeholder in each context before we hurry to confer legitimate
political power in hands of any MS system. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:954259bd1003021011qb6d95e0gd3926e1fdda38d19@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Milton,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Do you actually mean a sort of "personal sovereignty" principle,
that would enable individuals to gather in numerous human groupings,
including nations, but also business and non-profit entities ? so that
the unifying governance unit becomes stakeholders of various sizes but
with equal status instead of three (or four) separate and siloed
stakeholder groups ?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>B.<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Milton L
Mueller <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
________________________________________<br>
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ocl@gih.com">ocl@gih.com</a>]<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> - governments: law and order<br>
> - business: economy and money<br>
>- civil society: conscience<br>
><br>
>Any social ecosystem requires all three to work. Take one out and
either<br>
>the system will fail, tear itself apart, or reach an untenable
extreme.<br>
>That's why I believe in multi-stakeholderism.<br>
<br>
</div>
Nice formulation, Olivier. But suppose we called it "popular
sovereignty" and "individual rights" instead of "multistakeholderism" -
would that not allow individuals, in various aggregations, to produce
the appropriate mix of law, order, economy and conscience? Is not the
division into three estates (with millions of individuals overlapping
and participating in two or more at the same time) artificial?<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--MM____________________________________________________________<br>
</font>
<div>
<div class="h5">You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
____________________<br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle<br>
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for
the Information Society<br>
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
Foreign and European Affairs<br>
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br>
<br>
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
Saint Exupéry<br>
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>