<!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 text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
On Monday 09 April 2012 07:48 AM, parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F8246F2.2070204@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
The original issue in this discussion was whether conflict of interest
is an important principle to ensure and fight for with regard to public
policy and governance systems. MS-ism (multistakeholderism) seeks to
avoid this question - and that is what I see in John Curran's response,
diverting the issue towards a 'we should participate in any case'
discussion.</font></blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Not to look like myself
avoiding the participation question;<br>
<br>
It is a normal neolib response to claims by the marginalised regarding
participation, distribution etc to put the 'responsibility' on the
marginalised themselves, like the oft used concept of 'individual
responsibility'. </font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">(See
the health cover debates in the US for instance.)<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">So the theory and its
practical manifestations are quite coherent :). <br>
<br>
It is not that those in the civil society raising questions of
propriety in our governance/ policy systems have necessarily been
lazily waffling around and not doing what they need to. One would need
to examine the conditions and resources of the progressive civil
society that seeks to stand up against the most powerful before
sanctimoniously telling them to work better and harder and not be a cry
baby.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font><br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F8246F2.2070204@itforchange.net" type="cite"><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> This avoidance is because</font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> MS-ism at its heart is based on
an inversion of the long held sacrosanct democratic principle</font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> that if one has a clear private
interest in an outcome of a policy/ governance system, he/she should
not be a part of the 'high echelons' of the system. A stakeholder
after all is basically one with direct 'narrow' private interest or
stake in a policy outcome. There is no attempt at achieving of a
higher, no doubt politically constructed, public interest. MSism seeks
a patch work of accommodating private interests, with the involved
actors at the policy table legitimately pursuing their narrow private
interests. Obviously, the most powerful are most able to be present</font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> and drive their agenda</font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> (there being no 'conflict of
interest' related norm) ...... Additionally, MSism, by its convenient
ploy of the 'need for consensus', also by its very nature lead to
status quoist, conservative politics. <br>
<br>
Traditional democratic norms and systems</font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> were built</font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">, for instance, to keep powerful
businesses from directly shaping political decisions. That of course is
seen as 'the' problem by neolibs. MS-ism as a political system is their
clever answer to the problem. In order to co-opt civil society, and
overall present a more acceptable image, MSism seeks to take up the
vocabulary, and outwardly the concerns, of the long standing demand and
struggles for participatory democracy, deepening democracy etc.... Some
civil society people have considered it a useful tactical move to go
along with this much more powerful global move towards MS-ism
(especially when participatory/ deepening democracy etc have not had
that much success). <br>
<br>
My view is that at this junction we need to review - is it that we were
able to co-opt the power of the global capital to open up more
participatory space, or, whether, we have got co-opted in the big
business and neolib plan to supplant democracy. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font><br>
On Sunday 08 April 2012 09:09 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:D2510542-65BB-4475-BDA1-6E81F917A63E@acm.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 7 Apr 2012, at 16:22, Lee W McKnight wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">My 2 cents is the general principles/objectives being pushed by the ITU's Broadband Commission are not bad, but the fact of the matter is it more a classic high-level talkathon opportunity than anything else. Submitting docs to them is likely not worth the time it would as Michael suggests. And for CS, certainly not worth the bother of trying to shape/steer at this late date when the dye is cast.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I am not sure I understand why submitting existing docs, by someone who knew what to submit, was not worth the bother.
On the topic of participating or not. I think that is the wrong question.
If the topic is important and the venue relevant, CS should participate.
The fact of whether we are included at the table or not, would seem to dictate tactics as opposed to participation. There are different ways by which CS makes it views heard, when it has a seat at the table or when it is forced to stand outside the door making itself heard. And if CS is being excluded from this table, and we thinking there is any chance they are going to do something harmful to the public good, then we should be screaming our heads off outside the door and should gear up a campaign to do so.
One of the disadvantages of the multistakeholder model (i bet some of you thought i never saw a disadvantage to the model) is that when we are not included we just sort of whinge and sputter. We have lost some of the anger that made CS a force at WSIS and this is partly because we have changed over all of our methods to Multistakeholder reasonableness. And personally I think one of the reasons we see a pull back in the support of the multistakeholder model by the other stakeholders is that we have become docile, or even invisible, when excluded.
The only time many of the others will allow CS at the table is when they think that excluding CS will be more annoying than having us at the table is. To expect governments or business to it because it is the right thing, is sort of wishful thinking. governments do what make retention of power easiest and business do what maximizes profit. So CS has to be prepared to be disruptive of easy power and profits if it wants to be included in the discussions. And sometimes it just has to flex its disruptive muscles just to remind the powers that be that it is ready to do so.
my thoughts for an easter morning.
avri
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>