<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Avri<br>
<br>
I think this is an important discussion, and thanks for engaging in it.<br>
<br>
<blockquote>"I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and
more leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the
condemnation of the multistakeholder model
"<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
My despair with so many leaders in civil society undermining and
bypassing institutional (and not anarchist) democratic forms,
especially in the IG space is perhaps prior, as often articulated in
this list.<br>
<br>
Yes, any democracy has to have a consitutional framework, and though 1
person 1 vote is basic and the most sacrosanct principle, it is only
the start and any real democracy consists of numerous institutional
supra-structures built over this basic norm. <br>
<br>
We all agree that an elected government, even democratically elected
one, cannot claim complete right and legitimacy over what is public
interest. I proposed, as many others do, that we use the concept of
'deepening democracy' the subject of UNDP's 2002 Human Development
Report 'Deepening democracy in a fragmented world'. I argued how this
concept seeks to include as many voices as possible with the aim to
make democracy a way of life, but is quite mindful of relative power
between different actors that 'participate' in its processes. This
later issue is what principally distinguishes practises of 'deepening
democracy (which are very well established) from those of
multistakeholderism.<br>
<br>
So, my direct question to you is ' what is your problem with preaching
and practising 'deepening democracy' rather than multistakeholderism.<br>
<br>
You say that without an 'informed polity' democracy is dead. Very
certainly so. And I dont believe multistakeholderism is what is needed
for an 'informed polity'. The concept of 'public sphere' as basic to
democracy is well known, well theorised as well as practised. That is
what is needed for an 'informed polity'. (And there is a lot of
literature on how the Internet may be having both a positive and a
negative impact on the democratic public sphere.)<br>
<br>
Again, the question is, what is so new and unique now that we should
supplant the known and practised ideas of 'deepening democracy' and
'public sphere' for this new thing, multistakeholderism (MSism), when,
as I showed with examples in an earlier email, in practice Msism has
mostly only succeeded in giving political space and respectability to
mega-corporates.<br>
<br>
Discussing about what may be really new today, I thing the most
important new factor is that the economy is globalised and polity still
national, which means that global megacorporates are largely
unregulated and will keep increasing their power at the expense of
public interest. This is what is new, which gives us even more reason
to look at existing democratic practises like the above mentioned ones,
rather than try out new 'suspect' ones which in fact helps spread the
malaise of unbridled corporate power even more. <br>
<br>
As for your concerns about governments forcing the uniquely global
Internet into national borders, I am very concerned about it. But I am
as concerned about Internet being forced by mega digital corporates
(see net neutrality debate) into new borders of class. I cherished the
possibility of an undivided global world through the Internet, but 'my
uptopianism' even more saw a hope and vision of a class-less world
through the Internet.<br>
<br>
Why some kind of borders bother us more than other kinds? <br>
<br>
Depending on which kind of borders bother us more, the principal
adversary of our advocacy efforts would change.<br>
<br>
You said,<br>
<br>
"..... people undercutting the very modality that gives them a seat at
the international, regional and nation tables where policy is discuss
and made is unfathomable to me.
"<br>
<br>
The political economy question is, which 'people' who are 'them' or
rather 'we'. If we think through political economy lenses these things
may not be as unfanthomable.<br>
<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Monday 16 August 2010 01:49 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of the multistakeholder model. To see and hear people undercutting the very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to me.
Some people argue that the multistakeholder model is in contravention to democracy. i see it as one way of democracy.
Democracy in the simplest form that so many argue for, only works when it is done within a constitution framework of some sort (does not need to be a Constitution, could be a set of Basic Laws or some other instrument) that defines the constraints on absolute democracy and that guarantees the fundamental rights of people.
Democracy in its simplest form means 1 person 1 vote and majority wins. But we have seen time and time again the basic majorities are hungry to remove the rights, and more, of minorities - they do it all the time. We have also seen time and time again that a democracy without an informed polity does not remain a democracy for long but devolves in a dictatorship of personality.
Multistakeholderism is a fundamentally democratic form that functions in environments where there is no overarching constitutional instrument. It is something that allows any person in the world, or group of people, to have a say and a seat at the table. Sometimes it sounds like people confuse multistakeholder with multishareholder. The multistakeholder model allow everyone to get involved in discussing and creating policy whether they have a financial stake or not, and whether they are part of some organized group or not. Yes, outreach and capacity must be done to reach the number of people who can participate, but that does not dismiss the participation of those who have made it to the table and continue to do outreach and capacity building to bring in others.
Brand me a techno-utopian but I proudly believe the Internet is fundamentally different from any other social structure the world as ever seen in many respects, a fundamental one being its capacity to be global and borderless - though governments are working very hard to force it into borders and way too many people are helping them. To give up that uniqueness and cast it in the restrictive forms of telecommunications is frightening to me. The Internet is also the first time creating a global multistakeholder modality has even been possible. The utopian, and philosophical technologist, in me still hopes that the world can learn something new about governance from the Internet as opposed to allowing the wretched history of current governance models to overtake it and destroy it.
a.____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>