[governance] multistakeholderism Re: [] Net neutrality on

Sun Aug 15 19:44:38 EDT 2010

I couldn't agree more.

The fundamental danger of multistakeholderism is unfortunately evident in
the workings of this group in relation to the IGF.  Rather than seeing (and
acting accordingly) that multistakeholder discussions are a prelude to
policy there is the assumption that it can become the policy making process
itself.  The consequence is that rather than acting so that multistakeholder
discussions reinforce and support democratic decision making the intent is
that it acts parallel and superordinate to it with the necessary effect of
hollowing out democratic governance. This has the ultimate effect of
reinforcing the role and influence of the corporate sector and their
compatriots among the NGO's and maginalizing the grassroots whose only
avenue to participation in decision making is via democratic processes
however difficult and corrupted those might be.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 2:44 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen
Cc: Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholderism Re: [] Net neutrality on

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

____________________________________________________________
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