<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Dear Wolfgang,<br>
<br>
Thanks for taking up this discussion on democracy vrs MSism . It
is most needed.<br>
<br>
Like many others here I react with horror about any assertion of
MSism being the pinnacle of participatory democracy, or as
Matthias K puts it, approvingly, MSism being post democratic
(something I have been saying as an aspersion on MSism).<br>
<br>
Let me use the schema I employed to describe to an government
official recently what my vision of an appropriate IGF is. This
was with regard to developing an India IGF model...<br>
<br>
This is how I described to him. I can see the (continued)
progression of democracy in three versions. Version 1.0 was when
elected officials assumed full authority to legislate and execute,
once they were elected, without any reliance on any axillary
democratic processes of public consultations. Ministries were
steeped in deep secrecy and considerable aloofness from the
public.<br>
<br>
Ver 2.0 begun when elected officials started to employ some
processes of democracy beyond elections, like undertaking public
consultation on various legislative proposals, stakeholder
consultations with those directly affected by any governmental
measure, forming ad hoc or standing committees with civil society
and outside expert participations, instituting right to
information legislations etc..... However, at this stage, public
participation was still largely ad hoc, mostly on the terms of the
government, and largely not institutionalised. <br>
<br>
Ver 3.0 of democracy (and ver 2.0 of participatory democracy) is
about strong institutionalisation of means and processes of
participation (outside of elections) in an ongoing manner, whereby
the agenda of such participation can be set with a greatly
curtailed influence of the government, if any, the processes are
largely out of control of governments and so on. It is
independently institutionalised, funded, legitimised, etc.
However, there is never a doubt that actual policy making
authority remains with representative democratic bodies (how much
improvement they my need which is to be pursued at another level).
There has always to be sufficiently clear difference between
institutions of participation, while they have to made as strong
and inclusive as possible, and those of legislation and
execution. I support Norbert's recent assertions in this regard. <br>
<br>
Well, this is how I said I see UN IGF normatively as. A path
breaking innovation in global democracy denoting Ver 3.0 of
democracy, which should also be replicated at national levels. <br>
<br>
Now, this Democracy 3.0 model is not necessarily an invention of
the the IG space. A lot of theoretical and practical work in the
area of institutionalising participatory democracy has been done,
especially over the last decade or two. John Gaventa's work,
especially on invited versus invented spaces of participation,
comes to mind in this regard. There is also the famous Porto
Alegre initiative of institutionalising public participation,
through participatory budget exercises. Lately ICTs have been
used in Porto Alegre and other places to improve the ambit and
effectiveness of participation. So, yes, ICTs do provide what is
perhaps a transformational new context to possibilities of
institutionalising participation. <br>
<br>
As said, I see/ saw UN IGF as a Democracy 3.0 experiment, which
however has now increasingly being high-jacked by special
interests, largely in aid of global digital corporates.
Unfortunately, MS-ism instead of being another name for Democracy
3.0 as some people here are trying to argue, has, in practice,
mostly represented everything which seems going wrong with the
IGF, and other new age information society policy mechanisms. <br>
<br>
It is bit surprising that in this very interesting discussion on
relationship or difference between democracy and MSism, no one
has pointed to the elephant in the room. It is of course the
growing economic, social and political power of mega corporates,
and how a good amount of MSism in practice is a front for
political legitimisation of corporatist power in ordering our
societies. The article at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654-druck.html">http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654-druck.html</a>
on how Google has infiltrated most 'participatory processes' in
and around Germany's IG space makes the case rather eloquently.
Then one reads how 84 out of 108 Google lobbyists in the US are ex
gov employees and what influence it exercises on the behaviour of
expectant government officials still in service
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://keionline.org/node/1555">http://keionline.org/node/1555</a> ). And now, in Brazil, we find
that Google thinks that it has some kind of independent
jurisdictional status whereby it can decide what to do or not do
with national laws, using its Internet based powers, including by
making backhanded appeals to users
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/thompson/2012/09/27/on-the-arrest-of-googles-head-in-brazil/">http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/thompson/2012/09/27/on-the-arrest-of-googles-head-in-brazil/</a>
).<br>
<br>
The institutionalisation of participatory spaces and processes of
Democracy 3.0 needs to be done with no less care then was done in
the case of basic representative democracy. It needs similar
building of values, norms and highest principles, and also, most
importantly, safeguards against capture. Unfortunately most
adherents of MSism are averse to any deep discussions on these
issues. And to me that is the principal undoing of MSism.<br>
<br>
Matthias, if you can critique current relevance of democracy
citing the difference between formal and material forms of
democracy, maybe it is also worthwhile to pay attention to
difference between formal and material aspects of MSism. Almost
all the stuff I read about MSism in such discussions as this one
is about formal MSism, which is made to look so good and
inclusive. On the other hand, almost all of the material reality
that I see around me of MSism (in IG) is about a very thinly
veiled apology (and legitimisation) for growing political power of
mega global digital corporates. Also worth a PhD for someone I
suppose :) .<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 01 October 2012 01:22 PM,
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD3C5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Parminder:
multistakeholderism (whats wrong with participatory democracy?)
Wolfgang:
Multistakeholderism *IS* the highest form of participatory democracy
Parminder:
improvements to internationalism & national laws
Wolfgang:
To errect (national) legal barriers for the free flow of information among people is a bad idea and contrary to individual human right to freedom of expression. Governments have an obligation under international law to guarantee access to and the distribution of information "regardless of frontiers". To undermine the borderless nature of the Internet and to introduce a system for Internet communication similar to global travel arrangements, (where you need a permission (visa) to leave or enter a country) brings us back into the cold war of the 20th century and would have bad and sad economic and social consequences in particular for individuals in developing countries.
In this context I repeat my proposal to start in Baku with the work on a global "Multistakeholder Framework of Committment" on Internet Governance and Internet Freedom (FoC) which could take on board all the ideas and proposals expressed in the 20+ Internet Governance Principles declarations, resolutions and guidelines which has been adopted in the last two years by IBSA, Shanghai, OECD, CoE, OSCE, UNESCO and numerous non-governmental platforms, including the IGF Dynamic Coalition in Rights and Principles. The message from Baku should be to invite the MAG to form a WGIG like multistakeholder group of experts (during its February 2013 meeting in Paris) and to draft until the 8th IGF a first outline with the aim to have a substantial draft for high level discussion at the 9th IGF in 2014 and to adopt such a FoC by acclamation at the 10th IGF in 2015.
wolfgang
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>