[bestbits] multistakeholderism is democracy was Re: [] FW: US Is an O...

[Mawaki Chango]

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:09 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
 wrote:

>
> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 07:07 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>
> SNIP
>
>
> . So democracy as a concept cannot be frozen into the practice of voting
> as we know it today (one person, one vote) in the sole context of
> nation-sates.
>
>
> It may not be frozen into the practice of voting-- there is a huge amount
> of literature and practice of participatory democracy that says exactly
> that.. But, can we freeze in not having a vote for corporates - in fact
> multiple and exclusive votes, where ordinary people do not have votes...
> That is MS decision making...
>

By that sentence plus the phrase that says MSism may be more, or less,
democratic --as indeed the gist of a good chunk of my message-- I was in
fact addressing the party that reacts against any reference to democracy in
the Ig context (as seems to be the case with Milton reacting to EC's Neelie
Kroes' blog post on the NETmundial outcome draft document.)

So don't get me wrong: I am not satisfied with everything about MSism
although I remain open to the fact that some implementation(s) of it may
work well in some setting(s). And as I have suggested, I can't even
effectively compare Democracy and Multi-stakeholderism because, as I said,
it seems to me we're conflating different levels of analysis (it's even
worse when one thinks Democracy is something that is necessarily confined
within nation-state boundaries for government affairs.) Furthermore, the
simple word "democracy" (the rule of the people) tells me a good deal about
the intent, goal and set of values being in play, while the simple word
"multistakeholderism" only tells me that multiple stakeholders are
involved. It doesn't even say "multi-stakeholder-cracy" and it's much
easier for so many people around the world to understand the notion of "the
people" than it is for us here to even agree on what constitutes
"stakeholder" (let alone for people at large to understand what it is.)

And for those who think they can effectively compare MSism with Democracy
(putting them on the same plane of analysis), I would like someone to tell
me (indeed demonstrate) how you're going to use MSism to elect the US
President and members of Congress -- in a way that will convince American
people that this will better serve their interests as opposed to what they
have right now.

Further on that line of reflection, one might wonder what are those state
Republicans (still in the US) intent on vote suppression or making it
harder to some people to vote at elections up to? And what about all the
gerrymandering of the districts? Are they being less democratic in a
democracy, or more democratic? Are they having their own version of MSism?
(I'm asking this not to be provocative but because it was my impression
that some people see any reference to voting, equated with Democracy, as
something counter to MSism.) And if they're just messing around for pure
political/election gains (IOW, making "rational choices") what would be the
(principled?) response of Democracy to that and what would be MSism's?

[Again, the boundaries for the questions in the above 2 paragraphs to make
sense, in my view, are delineated by the thinking that assumes both models
are comparable in such a way that one can be said to be better than and to
supersede the other.]

>
>
> Why do we need to go beyond participatory democracy as the means of
> fulfilling the ideal of democracy and rather jump to MSism which is simply
> not democratic in a thousand way.....
>

On the other hand, could you please elaborate on how you would concretely
apply participatory democracy to decision-making about the Internet and all
what we're referring to as its governance? Sorry if you've done this
elsewhere and I haven't read it. Otherwise, my sense is that all your
criticism is being construed as advocacy for intergovernmental mode of
governance, notably though traditional treaty-making.

I don't have answers to all the questions. I still have a lot of thinking
to do and a lot to learn. But those are the things I can say so far
regarding the question of MSism and Democracy. Democracy is much older and
has delivered many goods, and I don't think anybody can say (nor do I think
anybody is saying) it's time to throw that away. MSism is much younger (in
its infancy) and still needs to prove itself in the eyes of countless
number of people. However, I don't think one can replace the other because
I see them conceptually and to some extent operationally at different
levels. That's why I can conceive of a MSism instance that is less
democratic, even anti-democratic, as well as I can conceive of one that is
more democratic or maybe even enhancing Democracy in an already existing
form. It will all depend on the specifics on the implementation at hand:
the setting, what is in a "stakeholder" and how do they impact the
decision-making process, to mention the most obvious ones.



On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 15-Apr-14 09:37, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> > MSism is a decision-making process and I don't know where anyone could
> > have possibly taken that bogus idea that MSism is the next big thing
> > after democracy (just like democracy once was that next big thing after
> > tyranny, aristocracy, etc.)
>
> I am one who does argues that Multistakeholderism is not just another
> decision making process.
>
> I also do not claim in is the next big thing after democracy.  I argue
> that it is a form of democracy.


I cannot fundamentally disagree with that but I might say it
differently: Multistakeholderism may be a form of exercise of democracy.
For it to be effectively so, we would need (as I mention above) consensus
on who are the stakeholders (or even what is a stakeholder) and how do they
impact decisions, etc. Are all the conditions in place for everyone to have
equal chance to participate and influence the outcome, if they're so
inclined? It is those details that will make MSism a form of Democracy or
not.


> <snip>.
>
> I do agree that there is not just one form of the multistakeholder
> model, but argue that there are attributes of Multistakeholderism as
> participatory democracy that are necessary.
>

Do you think we could initiate collaborative work with the aim to put
together a table which will include those attributes as well as the points
of criticism?


>

>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:29 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 07:41 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 15-Apr-14 09:37, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>
>>>> MSism is a decision-making process and I don't know where anyone could
>>>> have possibly taken that bogus idea that MSism is the next big thing
>>>> after democracy (just like democracy once was that next big thing after
>>>> tyranny, aristocracy, etc.)
>>>>
>>>
>> You had in your email sought focussing on actual practices... Therefore
>> you need to look at practices of MSism... It is indeed the next thing after
>> democracy, and NOT democracy... MSism gives big business a veto on public
>> policy making. This kind of thing is impossible to even mention in a
>> democratic discourse.. But the same unmentionable has been dressed by
>> employment of huge expenditure of resources in the respectable clothes if
>> MSism.
>>
>> Do you disagree that MSism as being practiced in its 'equal footing'
>> model (1) gives veto power to big business and (2) such a thing is
>> unattainable in democratic discourse and practice..
>>
>
I agree with (2). I haven't seen a formal veto power accorded to any
stakeholder group but in some instances there is de facto something
bordering a veto. Based on my experience with the GNSO Council at ICANN,
particularly with the WHOIS policy debate. It seemed that business would
push for yet another task force, and yet another working group, etc. until
they get what they wanted (and the system allowed for that kind of
manoeuvre.) The issue was so contentious we had to take a vote and their
party lost. Their refusal to take a No for an answer led the Chair to
accept, at the Marrakesh meeting (2006? or 07) the request that those who
voted for the definition of Whois that won the vote to explain their...
vote. I'm sure he meant it to be a kind of pedagogical engagement with the
public at large. But think about that: you have to publicly declare your
vote and explain it on the request of people who reject the result (and
only those who voted for that result were asked to do that, obviously
because of what they voted for.) I objected and declined. It made me feel
like I was a character in a novel by Milan Kundera in which the setting is
the old (pre-Vaclav Havel) Czechoslovakia -- The Joke (La Plaisanterie).

That was my closest encounter with MSism ;) but it has been years now and I
want to believe things didn't stay that way (so I don't mean the above as a
wholesale characterization.) Or at least we can contribute to shaping them
in a better direction (though I must say the way you describe what has been
happening to the NETmundial draft document is alarming.)

Mawaki


>
>> Now you may say that I am speaking about entirely imaginary models of
>> MSism, and creatign strawmen of MSism...
>>
>> Well, no..
>>
>> On the BestBit list an elaborate model has been developed and presented,
>> latest in response to the leaked NetMundial draft (did you also support
>> this model?) which creates a multistakeholder screening mechanism for
>> taking up any public policy issue.. Does this not give big business a veto
>> on what matters can be taken for public policy treatment? Is this
>> democratic?
>>
>> Second, the NetMundial draft document seeks public policy making through
>> consensus basis alone -  which is an multistakeholder consensus on equal
>> footing...  It says that processes of governance have to be first be agreed
>> by all stakeholders (keep reading business when I say stakeholders bec it
>> is they for whom these models are fashioned)....
>>
>> Now, is it democratic to give business (big business, no one asked my
>> corner shop guy) such structural vetos over public policy making? What
>> could be more democratic...
>>
>> Since you said devil is in the details, lets talk about the detail and
>> the devil... Lets talk specifics, and these above are the specifics of
>> MSism...
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140416/a5971da2/attachment.htm>