[governance] multistakeholderism

[parminder]

Dear Anriette

I agree. The real problem is not with the term 'multistakeholder 
participation', which is very useful and has been around for quite some 
time, but with 'multistakeholderism' (MSism). Especially, when MSism is 
sought to elevated to a new form of policy making (or as often, not 
making policy when required).

Parminder

On Monday 16 August 2010 02:34 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear Avri
>
> Perhaps I gave the wrong impression. When I said I don't like the term
> 'multi-stakeholderism' I simply meant that the 'ism' at the end of
> multi-stakeholder makes me feel that we have become more pre-occupied
> with the form of the participation than its content.
>
> I am completely in favour of multi-stakeholder participation in all
> policy processes and I don't feel that the multi-stakeholder model
> contravenes democracy.
>
> My concerns are that:
>
> - the notion of multi-stakeholderism is often associated with a crude
> 'tri-partite' approach that boxes stakeholders into three groups: civil
> society, government and business.
> - this obscures diversity within each of those groups
> - and, inclusion of representatives of these groups can become and easy
> way to brand processes as being democratic
>
> I agree with you that it is way of achieving greater democracy. But I
> don't think we should be uncritical. There is still room for
> improvement. Mainstreaming or integration of gender into every programme
> and policy resulted in a lot of token references to gender equality and
> in many cases in less attention being given to equal rights or women's
> empowerment.
>
> We want to avoid a similar trend... a process is not necessarily going
> to be democratic simply because it is multi-stakeholder.
>
> I wrote this about 5 years ago. We were having similar debates then :)
>
> http://www.apc.org/en/news/access/world/multi-stakeholder-participation-and-ict-policy-pro
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 16:19 -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
>    
>> Hi,
>>
>> I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders
>> in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of
>> the multistakeholder model.    To see and hear people undercutting the
>> very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional
>> and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to
>> me.
>>
>> Some people argue that the multistakeholder model is in contravention
>> to democracy.  i see it as one way of democracy.
>>
>> Democracy in the simplest form that so many argue for, only works when
>> it is done within a constitution framework of some sort (does not need
>> to be a Constitution, could be a set of Basic Laws or some other
>> instrument) that defines the constraints on absolute democracy and
>> that guarantees the fundamental rights of people.
>>
>> Democracy in its simplest form means 1 person 1 vote and majority
>> wins.  But we have seen time and time again the basic majorities are
>> hungry to remove the rights, and more, of minorities - they do it all
>> the time.  We have also seen time and time again that a democracy
>> without an informed polity does not remain a democracy for long but
>> devolves in a dictatorship of personality.
>>
>> Multistakeholderism is a fundamentally democratic form that functions
>> in environments where there is no overarching constitutional
>> instrument.   It is something that allows any person in the world, or
>> group of people, to have a say and a seat at the table.  Sometimes it
>> sounds like people confuse multistakeholder with multishareholder.
>> The multistakeholder model allow everyone to get involved in
>> discussing and creating policy whether they have a financial stake or
>> not, and whether they are part of some organized group or not.  Yes,
>> outreach  and capacity must be done to reach the number of people who
>> can participate, but that does not dismiss the participation of those
>> who have made it to the table and continue to do outreach and capacity
>> building to bring in others.
>>
>> Brand me a techno-utopian but I proudly believe the Internet is
>> fundamentally different from any other social structure the world as
>> ever seen in many respects, a fundamental one being its capacity to be
>> global and borderless - though governments are working very hard to
>> force it into borders and way too many people are helping them.  To
>> give up that uniqueness and cast it in the restrictive forms of
>> telecommunications is frightening to me.  The Internet is also the
>> first time creating a global multistakeholder modality has even been
>> possible.  The utopian, and philosophical technologist, in me still
>> hopes that the world can learn something new about governance from the
>> Internet as opposed to allowing the wretched history of current
>> governance models to overtake it and destroy it.
>>
>> a.____________________________________________________________
>> 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