[bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

[michael gurstein]

Thanks for this Sivasubramanian…

 

Can I/we take this i.e. that MSism (governance by self-appointed elites) is the “next evolutionary stage of democracy” is a generally agreed upon position among the proponents of MSism?

 

M

 

From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:12 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

 

Dear Michael Gurstein,

 

The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is viewed as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this phase, it is in its initial stages of evolution with some aspects being defined.

 

Sivasubramanian M




Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> 

+1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014

 

 

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia

 

Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_%28decision_making%29>  of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy>  (Greek demos <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demos>  and kratos <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82> ) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. …

Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities.

It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”.

But maybe I’m missing something.

M

 

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

 

 

On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote:

 If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance.



I haven't read your blog.  But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme.  I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy.

I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition.  So the frames of reference are really quite different.

avri


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141024/530f552e/attachment.htm>