[governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main

[Parminder]

> > No way, forget it. No body that exercises power in realms that directly
> >  affect other people (and a considerable number of them, all internet
> users)
> >  can be considered CS.
> 
> Well that's just silly. Consider for a second the Board of a
> non-profit, non-state hospital composed entirely of volunteers.  They
> wield considerable "power" that affects others, but are certainly CS,
> no?

Exercising power in this case means exercising monopolistic power that one
can not exclude oneself from. 

Trade Unions,
> when they strike, certainly exercise power over those not in the trade
> union (If I can't get to work because of someone else's action, I
> would say that is an exercise of power.

I spoke of explicit and direct exercise of power (And I add as above the
monopoly and non-excludability criterion). I know quite well every social
actor exercises some kind of power. 

> So you are not only taking it upon yourself to define CS for this
> group, but you are giving me "limits" on what I can believe or say?

The limit I spoke of was about how far one can stretch the meaning of a
term. You are free to believe what you will, but yes surely a CS group may
want to reach an understanding of what is civil society for the purpose of
membership of that group. We have had discussions on this list in the
context of people with governments, or even about those that are included in
gov delegations. Yes, of course there are "limits" in this context. And we
have enforced them in the past.

> 
> If that is the case, I will happily unsubscribe from this group, and
> spend my time exercising "power" by participating in the Internet
> admin bodies (which most on this list refuse to participate in
> despited repeated invitations) that are actively practicing EC.

You may spend your time exercising power anywhere, but as a civil society
group we need to be able to seek accountability from organizations that
exercise monopolistic power, and for that purpose they themselves cant be
considered a part of CS.

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 8:04 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main
> 
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >  McTim
> >
> >  Though you have advised against our carrying on this discussion, there
> is
> >  something I just must comment on
> >
> >
> > > 1) Internet admin bodies are squarely within the realm of CS,
> >
> >
> > No way, forget it. No body that exercises power in realms that directly
> >  affect other people (and a considerable number of them, all internet
> users)
> >  can be considered CS.
> 
> Well that's just silly. Consider for a second the Board of a
> non-profit, non-state hospital composed entirely of volunteers.  They
> wield considerable "power" that affects others, but are certainly CS,
> no?
> 
> Every development NGO operating here in Uganda exercises power (who
> they feed, who gets their bed nets, what their education curriculum
> is, etc, etc)  Are you suggesting that none of these is CS?
> 
>  Even by the definition you picked (at
> >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Society#Definition )it wont pass.
> 
> It passes in my book, and the LSE seems to agree with me!
> 
> Where in any of the below definitions of CS does it mention the
> criteria of "not exercising(sic) power in realms that directly
> affect other people"?
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/25jtfl
> 
> admittedly, this is only the first 14 results on Google, and only in
> English, but all the Internet admin orgs I have ever worked with pass
> muster according to each of the 15 definitions I have offered.
> 
>  Tell me
> >  one category in this definition where any body exercises direct and
> explicit
> >  (and not merely implicitly) power on any group/ community outside the
> body.
> 
> You mean these categories:
> 
> "registered charities, development non-governmental organizations,
> community groups, women's organizations, faith-based organizations,
> professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social
> movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups"??
> 
> If so, I will pick one as you asked and give an example. Trade Unions,
> when they strike, certainly exercise power over those not in the trade
> union (If I can't get to work because of someone else's action, I
> would say that is an exercise of power.
> 
> >  Please do not misuse the term CS in this manner.
> 
> see above 14 other definitions, I think it is you who are outside the
> mainstream in defining CS according to this criteria.
> 
> >
> >  I can still understand someone arguing that one can be CS and still be
> on
> >  these bodies, but to say these bodies are a part of the CS is just the
> >  limit.
> 
> So you are not only taking it upon yourself to define CS for this
> group, but you are giving me "limits" on what I can believe or say?
> 
> If that is the case, I will happily unsubscribe from this group, and
> spend my time exercising "power" by participating in the Internet
> admin bodies (which most on this list refuse to participate in
> despited repeated invitations) that are actively practicing EC.
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance