[governance] multistakeholderism Re: [] Net neutrality on

[Paul Lehto]

The phrase "greater democracy" is only meaningful if a transition from
representative democracy to direct democracy is envisioned.
Multistakeholder-ism may be a move in the direction of democracy in a
sense -- if the baseline is purely business/government and one is
adding some civil society groups -- but multistakeholderism is not
democratic, and thus nothing to content oneself with,  for this basic
reason:

Democracy is rule by ALL the people.
Aristocracy is rule by a subset of less than all the people (not
through elected representatives of all the people.)
Multistakeholderism is thus a form of aristocracy, in which some civil
society groups, and not others, get a voice.  That voice is often not
their true voice, either, because in many cases those voices can and
are replaced if and when they become too outspoken.  All too often the
civil society persons asked to testify in Washington DC, for example,
are most sycophantic and establishment-friendly, and don't really have
a door open to grassroots civil society.

When business corporations are given a vote in multistakeholderism,
this vote is one  that they absolutely don't have in a real democracy.
 All of the natural person individuals within a corporation have
votes, so why indeed would or should individuals who associate with a
corporation get an additional weight to their vote nobody else gets
just because their corporation has a seat at the table?  Tallying up
the real support that corporations have in terms of numbers of human
beings, they are given something akin to a one thousand percent or
more increase in voting power, whenever the stakeholder composition is
anything like, say, 1/3 business, 1/3 government/regulatory and 1/3
civil society.

The point at which multi-stakeholderism actually becomes close to
approximating the accountability of democratic representatives is the
point at which business interests will abandon that multi-stakeholder
model and take their chances with elected and unelected governments,
which they then stand a better chance at controlling the outcomes in
their favor I'm not the least bit cynical, but am only stating a
fundamental point of law in layperson's terms, when I say that
corporations exist solely to make a profit and have no essential
social ethics, democratic values, or commitment to the public interest
or even to public goods.  If a corporation adopts any of these as a
business strategy - the only way they CAN adopt anything - it is
eternally subject to being overridden by the legal command to make a
profit or else face a derivative lawsuit from shareholders for the
tort of legal "waste" of corporate assets.

Most simply put, the following resolves the basic question here, and
decisively and conclusively so:

Any agreement or contract reached by two or more parties can never
legitimately affect the rights of persons who are not parties to that
agreement (at a multistakeholder summit) or contract (such as Verizon
and Google).  Under Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights there is only ONE legitimate source of political authority and
that is ALL the people.  Any institution that can't trace its lineage
to all the people (as opposed to some subset of people) that is also
negatively impacting the interests or rights of people who are
themselves not represented by freely elected representatives is an
institution that has usurped real authority and is running at a
legitimacy deficit of 100%.

Thus, private contract, or trade association or multistakeholder group
can do the job it is asked to do, because it will use contracts or
agreements that, by purporting to alter the rights of people not
parties to those agreements, are utterly illegitimate.   The only
entity that can do the job is a democratically representative
institution that can trace its legitimacy to ALL the people of a given
jurisdiction.

If it is merely inconvenient to create democratic institutions, that
doesn't strike me as a worthy objection.  Other than religion, the
only thing people have voluntarily and consciously worked and
sacrificed their lives for around the world is democracy.  To have
something as fundamental as the internet become non-democratic because
of the perceived inconvenience of setting up democratic systems
globally is something I would like to see (if it were possible)
explained to any one of the millions who have sacrificed their lives
for the dream of democracy or the right to vote.  I imagine they woudl
be indignant, yet calmly remind everyone of the Universal
Declaration's adoption and expansion after WWII, perhaps reading this
paragraph of the Preamble and then asking "Why would you think this
process is so hard when essentially every nation in the world is
committed to it??:"

"Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION
OF HUMAN RIGHTS as **a common standard** of achievement for all
peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every
organ of society, keeping this Declaration **constantly in mind,**
shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these
rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and
international, to secure their*** universal and effective recognition
and observance,*** both among the peoples of Member States themselves
and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."
--Preamble to Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (emphasis added ***)

Multistakeholderism, if it has any power, is an abdication of the most
solemn responsibilities of all states reached just after the end of
the most deadly war this world has ever seen, WWII.  It is not, and
was not, written in an atmosphere of "unrealistic idealism."  The
ratifying states understood then, if not now, that attempting to
affect the rights of people in one's own country, or around the world,
without legitimate democrafic representation is ultimately a
prescription for civil unrest or war because nobody likes not having a
say, at least through freely elected representatives.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-2334
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t