[governance] right to development, the structure of IGCand IG issues for march deadline

[Parminder]

Milton,

 

>> Parminder I think it's healthy for you, especially, to be confronted with
>>some honest and well-considered challenges to your ideological viewpoints.

 

I have no problem with ideological debates, in fact I have been asking for
them on this list. The issue here started with your impatience with Meryem's
mention of some ideological issues.

 

>>I don't understand the relevance of this. You don't need to introduce 

>>ideological debates about what "rights" are in order to justify a role 

>>for HR>>>>

 

And then, your pictorial treatment of the right to development would have
brought strong reactions from anyone involved in the theory and practice of
development. If you still think my reaction was too strong, picture making
similar derogatory statements on this list on issues like MSP, or right to
privacy, and wait for reactions. 

 

>>Let's be clear. Development is a good thing. The issue is how to get
there. I am challenging the notion that asserting >>a "right to development"
contributes to development in any meaningful way.>>>>

 

How to get it there - yes, that's the question, and in development thinking
the role of state is considered very important for this purpose. This
directly implicates the issue of strong obligations on the state, which
brings in the language of rights.

 

Political thinking is evolutionary - and new issues get cast in terms of
rights. The right to development is now an accepted formulation of a set of
obligations of various actors - chiefly the state, but also various
inter-state mechanisms(that's why I used the term 'global systems'). So I
really do not understand what problem you have with casting such development
obligations on the political actors in strong terms (as rights). You really
didn't clarify that. 

 

And I don't see why I need to begin a discourse on this list on the 'right
to development' which is a well theorized subject. But since you have raised
issues like moral posturing, lack of clarity of thinking etc, and challenged
whether anyone can translate this concept of 'right to development' into
something real and discrete, let me try to answer you briefly on these
issues. 

 

Looking at the examples of what you think could be construed 'legitimately'
as rights, I am inclined to see that you mostly consider 'negative rights'
as acceptable but not so the 'positive rights'...... And this conception has
to do with the political ideology of what one thinks is the legitimate role
of the state. It is difficult to get into a debate here on this other than
to mention that 'development' thinking necessarily sees much greater
positive intervention by the state than such a restrictive conception of
rights and the role of the state allows. 

 

>> Please tell me, if someone in a poor country, say Sudan, petitions a
nation state (or something as vague as a "global system") for their "right
to development" what are they petitioning for? who will give it to them?

 

 

Now, I can understand where your above conception comes from - you
understand development in terms of macro level economic growth - so you find
it silly for someone to do something like try to enforce a right that her
economy should grow at, say, 8 percent. If you have referred to the
literature on the concept of development, or even to the conception of right
to development (that Meryem pointed you to) you will have seen that the
concept of development goes much beyond macro level economic growth. 

 

>> Perhaps you could give me a specific example of how a right to
development would be claimed, adjudicated and enforced. I suspect you will
have a difficult time.

 

Contrary to what you suspect it is not at all difficult task. For anyone who
as much as reads the daily newspaper in India knows that at least three
distinct 'rights' have been decreed officially in India, over just the last
two years. Right to information, right to education, and right to work. All
these are 'positive rights', with strong 'development' implications, and
cast strong and enforceable obligations on the state.(and if you want
further details on how these rights are claimed and enforced, I can share
them with you.)

 

And all these rights can be directly derived from the broad language of the
'right to development' as adopted by the international community..... 

 

And these rights have followed strong advocacy and grassroots movements, and
represent important milestones for development ideology (before you trash
them again, please relate these 'rights' to the similar obligations that
almost all 'welfare states' of the North already fulfill.) 

 

 

While arranging rights neatly into generational categories do serve some
analytical purposes, I do not completely accept the hierarchy implied in
saying that the second and third generation rights came into being in order
to create conditions for fulfillment of the first generation rights. There
is a big debate in development theory about how such perspectives may have
differing validities in cases of extreme poverty, which is still very
widespread. 

 

The use of the 'rights' terminology in new areas represents political
evolution of our civilization, and new concepts and descriptions in this
area - like the right to development - often represent elaborations upon, as
well as an additions to, what was included in the earlier generation of
rights.

 

'Rights' also signify some significant areas/ issues on which a widespread
acceptance and relative unanimity (at least in principle) of the world
community is achieved. Still, I am not averse to an honest and open
discussion of even these issues, but the manner in which the 'right to
development' was rubbished offhand by you, represents to me a great
insensitivity. (like your comment - "Or is the right to development just a
request for a bag of cash?")

 

Could you have spoken about the human rights of political freedom, personal
liberty etc in a similar fashion??

 

A 'rights' based language also helps open up new spaces for strengthening
political claims - and such claims often arise in CS spaces. WSIS was
characterized with CS claims for a set of 'communication rights'. While such
claims may need to go through some evolutionary changes, and adjustments, CS
spaces are generally associated with such progressive notions and
advocacies. That was the reason for my wonderment on regressive debates on
right to development on this list. 

 

I am also laboring these points because they have direct relevance to the
mandate and future of this caucus. 

 

Clarity on such basic political orientations is necessary to build the
context of what really are we seeking here from our engagements with IG.
Whether a positive interventionist role of global IG structures for using
the power of Internet technologies to further development is strongly sought
by the civil society constituency represented on this list is an issue that
needs to be clarified. And whether such a role will be sought on terms of
charity and moral appeals, or of self-interest based negotiations (if you do
so and so it will also be useful to you in such and such manner), or as a
matter of right of the under-developed and disadvantaged communities and
groups (as a part of their 'right to development') is an important political
issue in IG. This caucus needs to have its position clear on this. 

 

>>>If you want to claim the mantle of "civil society" you'd better get used
to the idea that _real_ CS is vast and >>diverse - ideologically as well as
culturally, politically, etc. >>>

 

 

While the manner in which IG and the development connection will be
interpreted in specific contexts is an issue that is open to debate and
contestation, for me the overall issue of the whether the governance of the
Internet will pro-actively be used to promote development and the 'right to
development' (as adopted by the international community, and as it works out
in various local contexts) is not negotiable. 

 

I hope I have made my position clear. I request you also to make your
position clear on the IG and development connection. This debate is
important for the IG caucus. 

 

Regards

 

Parminder 

 

PS: I also want to make it clear once more - because I expect a typical
response to this demand for putting IG in the development context - that by
this demand we do not mean that the IG Forum should be used as another good
place for open ended discussion on IPR, open source, community networks etc.
That will be quite wasteful, and that's not what is being demanded here. A
development agenda in IG means that all issues of IG must be seen and judged
from the perspective of development - and if you like, in terms of 'right to
development' - and this should remain a strong focus of CS involved in the
IG, and of the IGF. And we need not repeat the debates and arguments here
about how no technology and no techno-social phenomenon is neutral in terms
of its 'developmental' impact. 

 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

91-80-26654134

www.ITforChange.net 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 10:25 PM
To: parminder at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org;
marzouki at ras.eu.org
Subject: Re: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGCand IG
issues for march deadline

 

 

>>> "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> 3/7/2006 4:14 AM >>>

>Milton, I am sorry to say this, but your rubbishing of the 'right to

>development' is alarming for someone who often leads CS interventions 

>in IG consultations. 

 

Parminder I think it's healthy for you, especially, to be confronted with
some honest and well-considered challenges to your ideological viewpoints. 

 

Let's be clear. Development is a good thing. The issue is how to get there.
I am challenging the notion that asserting a "right to development"
contributes to development in any meaningful way. I haven't heard any
convincing arguments from you to the contrary, yet. And -- sorry --  I am
not going to let you substitute moral posturing for clear thinking. 

 

>And ideological debates are not un-necessary - they are the very basis of

>what we are doing here. The de-politicizing of IG debates is the reason of

>much of the exclusion (or keeping away) of many actors from these lists/

>discussion spaces. 

 

My friend, we are having an ideological debate, right now. And it is you who
are attempting to short-circuit serious debate by implying that my comments
are outside the proper bounds of civil society discourse. By all means, let
us have an ideological debate. Don't accuse me of being the obstacle.

 

>And the right of development should be 'enforceable' by individuals and

>communities against all kinds of political entities - from nation states,
to

>global systems. That was what we have been trying to do at WSIS, but you

>seem to have very different views.....

 

Perhaps you could give me a specific example of how a right to development
would be claimed, adjudicated and enforced. I suspect you will have a
difficult time. 

 

I understand what it means when, e.g., indigenous people claim that their
lands should not be expropriated or polluted, but these are not "development
rights" but simple assertions of property rights. I understand what
enforcing such a right would mean: return of the lands to their rightful
owners/stewards, or cessation of the pollution, etc.

 

I understand what it means when people claim that they should not be
imprisoned for political dissent, or held in jails without due process,
habeus corpus and other well-established procedural rights. I understand
what enforcing such a right would mean: release from prison; avoidance of
interference with their expression, adherence to procedural standards, etc. 

 

I understand what it means when people claim that protecting copyright or
patent rights are inimical to the development of certain LDCs. I understand
the counter-claims as well (that failure to protect those rights will reduce
investment in technology). Whatever side you take on that question, framing
the issue as a debate over "rights" makes sense, and it is clear how the
rights would be asserted and enforced. 

 

Please tell me, if someone in a poor country, say Sudan, petitions a nation
state (or something as vague as a "global system") for their "right to
development" what are they petitioning for? who will give it to them? 

 

Is it a change in the government's monetary policy? An increase or decrease
in the state's budget or debt? More investment in education? or should that
money be placed in science and technology? Are they saying that the current
pricing of energy should be changed? Up or down--which price movement will
have better long-term consequences for the development of the economy? All
such changes would affect a society's development. All would interact in
complex ways. 

 

Or is the right to development just a request for a bag of cash? Is that all
you mean? If so, is that really "development," or just a static transfer of
wealth? If you give the bag of cash to that person, what about the other 800
million people who'd also like one? Where does the cash come from? What
other activities, investments, people will it be taken away from? Are you
sure you have enough to supply alll the claimed "development" rights? What
if some of the people who get the bag of cash handle it unwisely? Do they
get to petition for another one, based on their right to development? How
will the people who saved theirs and made it grow react to that? 

 

Really, I am quite curious to learn more about how a "right to development"
is articulated, claimed and enforced. Perhaps you can fill me in with some
specifics. 

 

>What is it that we really share to be working as a group. 

>At no other CS forum or grouping at global advocacy level have I 

>seen such a lack of clarity on the bare minimum basic unifying ideological 

>issues. 

 

If you want to claim the mantle of "civil society" you'd better get used to
the idea that _real_ CS is vast and diverse - ideologically as well as
culturally, politically, etc. 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Milton Mueller

Syracuse University School of Information Studies

http://www.digital-convergence.org

http://www.internetgovernance.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060311/5aac6aeb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance