<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thanks for this perspicacity.<br>
<br>
Yes, there is a paradox of participation, i.e. by participating one
can legitimise what one intends to oppose. That in of itself is not
a reason not to participate. <br>
<br>
The issue is that one can be so radical as to be irrelevant, and so
reformist as to not even be incrementalist. And these all depend on
fine judgement of the range of possibility that fora have within
them. So there is no formulae for this.<br>
<br>
The key issue for me would be a culture of meaningful respect for
diversity in these movements/processes. What we had in the swings of
the pendulum on this list tends toward more rich country/market
orientation views IMHO without adequate cognition of the need for
diversity. This convergence implies a homogenising effect.<br>
<br>
So it is different strokes for different folks, with some engaging
and others commenting from afar. All should be tenable, and
governance structures should encourage diverging views with an
emphasis on fairness. Like it will not do to have bankers in charge
of government rules on finance, a similar approach needs to be
appreciated in the IG processes. But this rather obvious point is
one that Parminder and others even struggle with here. <br>
<br>
Diversity on views is important in this context, and should be
encouraged rather than discouraged.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2012/04/07 01:30 PM, John Curran wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:FD44D5E3-E107-4404-A42D-2CCE199EE1BC@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>On Apr 7, 2012, at 4:42 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br>
</font> But there is a good core of people here that
question the dominant debates (and most importantly the <i>framing</i>
of debates) that ensures that these (?pseudo-) liberals do
not hold the monopoly on the debates. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>Questioning the framing of the dominant debates is fine
academic exercise. </div>
<div>Deciding not to participate in them on principle is more
interesting question,</div>
<div>along the lines of MLK's ‘If you confront a man who has been
cruelly misusing</div>
<div>you, and say “Punish me, if you will; I do not deserve it,
but I will accept it, </div>
<div>so that the world will know I am right and you are wrong,”
then you wield a </div>
<div>powerful and just weapon.’ The assumption being, of
course, that the </div>
<div>world even notices your decision not to participate at all in
these debates...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Disclaimer: My views alone. Warning - the consumption of
raw or underprepared </div>
<div>viewpoints may significantly increase your risk of mental
health illness.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>