[governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus

[John Mathiason]

Just to add my 2 pfennig's worth.  Having worked with civil society  
in other UN contexts, I have seen them to be most effective when both  
conditions Milton mentions is in place:  when they have a common  
position on an issue, governments and Secretariats take notice,  
because it reflects a broad underlying consensus. and when individual  
or smaller group members of civil society have strong, well-argued  
positions that are derived from their particular experience, they  
have effect because their legitimacy (based on experience)  
contributes to the understanding of the issue.  Therefore, I think  
that when an IG Caucus has a common position (or members believe that  
one can be reached reasonably quickly), that should be placed on the  
table, as clearly and bluntly as possible.  When it is clear after an  
initial round that there are significant differences, those having  
different opinions should express them.  Unlike government groups,  
civil society does not have to forge consensus when none is possible.

Regards,

John
On Mar 12, 2006, at 16:34, Milton Mueller wrote:

>>>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni- 
>>>> halle.de> >One natural difficulty is certainly that CS risks to  
>>>> end up like the
>> EU: Hours of multilateral consultations behind closed doors and
>> finaly a statement with ten lines, representing the "consensus"
>> on the lowest level. Such an input would not lead to impact
>
> This is an important question. Lacking time, I can only say that I  
> agree more with Brett than with Wolfgang and Jeanette when it comes  
> to arriving at common positions on policy issues of substance. IG  
> Caucus should NOT attempt to develop common policy statements but  
> should simply facilitate convergence of opinion within CS to  
> whatever degree it can.
>
> Deliberation within the caucus will allow us to find areas of  
> agreement, providing some aggregation of voices, but there is no  
> reason to force that deliberation into ONE opinion or statement,  
> and claim for it the voice of "civil society." Such a claim would  
> be illegitimate in any case.
>
> Also, from a practical standpoint If you try to arrive at one  
> statement, one opinion, you will end up with the EU situation  
> Wolfgang decscribes above.
>
> However, I think we need a caucus structure with the capacity to  
> appoint people to posts, and in doing so we will tacitly represent  
> opinions. This is in fact a more flexible way to aggregate opinion  
> than writing joint statements.
>
> For example, I might never agree with Parminder on certain policy  
> position statements, but I would easily accept him as a legitimate  
> CS representative from India and see his views as representing a  
> subtantial segment of opinion within CS. (and I hope he would have  
> a reciprocal view).
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance