[governance] multistakeholderism

[Michael Gurstein]

Avri,

Thanks for your clear articulation of your position.

A few questions:
	1. what do you mean by a "stakeholder" i.e. who in your conception
are a/the stakeholders

	2. you mention below that you see stakeholders becoming more
representative or at least making efforts to become more representative.
Could you give me/us some specific examples and particularly where efforts
are being made outside of immediate contact networks i.e.
organizational/personal comfort zones

	3. Parminder is concerned about the power of mega-corps in the here
and now. You seem to be mildly optimistic around this and I would like to
hear your explanation not in the misty future but rather more close to home
where the oxcart trails are currently being worn in

	4. you talk about there being a lack of a global constitutional
order, but many point to things like the Land Mine treaty, the International
Court in the Hague, the International Treaty on Cultural Diversity etc.etc.
as the groundwork for such an international order--all of which have been
promulgated and are enforceable (more or less) via nation states. Could you
comment on this and why you don't see these as providing at least some
direction for an international constitutional order, and why this has to be
jettisoned for an as yet completely (conceptually) ill-formed
multi-stakeholderism--baby/bathwater.

	5. you say "I just believe neither the model nor the participants
have matured sufficiently yet to be able to do that. Just like I believe CS
has not yet gotten to the point of maturity were we can democratically, in a
bottom up manner, choose representatives in the various multistakeholder
process - though we may be getting there slowly - experiment by experiment."
I wonder what evidence you have to indicate that either the model or the
paricipants are "maturing" in the direction that you are suggesting. If
anything, I think the evidence is pointing in the other direction i.e. as
the stakes in IG get higher the processes are becoming less
representative/democratic but I wait to be disproven on that.

	6. you say "I tend to think that the most sacrosanct principle is
the protection of people's rights with the corollary that the majority may
not abuse or restrict any of the rights of minorities" but I would like to
hear/see your evidence that MSism in fact does what you say.  My own
observation is exactly the opposite.  I see deals being struck between
various stakeholders in whole range of areas that if they could (and
sometimes do) by-pass national governments the results are a significant
diminution of people's rights -- particularly in states where there is no
broadbased responsible democratic processes--logging in Burma, mining in the
DRC, land appropriation in the PRC and so on.

	7. you say "The point in the multistakeholder model is to equalize
the power among the participants. ...I see no other system that gives us a
path to that other than the multistakeholder model. " I would like to
hear/see your evidence for this. To my mind I see exactly the opposite of
this. Powerful "stakeholders" running roughshod over the less powerful (when
they are allowed to do so) and almost no effort being made by anyone (except
the self-interested and self-serving) to empower anyone other than
themselves.

	8. you say "we have a certain amount of commitment from all sides,
including those who hold power, toward a multistakeholder model". Again I
would like to see your evidence for this particularly in situations where
there may be a clear conflict of interests between powerful stakeholders
(say governments and the corporates and civil society broadly understood
i.e. beyond the usual set of civil society actors and NGO's). As I see
things playing out MSism is a useful way of deflecting attention and
absorbing and redirecting conflicts and energies and leaving the
dis-established without even access to those who nominally speak on their
behalf.	 

Best,

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 9:08 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholderism



On 16 Aug 2010, at 01:49, parminder wrote:
> 
> I think this is an important discussion, and thanks for engaging in 
> it.

Anytime.  I think of the multistakeholder model and the task of preserving
and strengthening it, as well as CS's capability to participate fully in it,
as one of the most fundamental issues we have before us.  I understand that
this is my particular view and may not be shared by many.

> 
> "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 "
> 
> My despair with so many leaders in civil society undermining and 
> bypassing institutional (and not anarchist) democratic forms, 
> especially in the IG space is perhaps prior, as often articulated in 
> this list.

I do not understand this sentence.

What democratic form is bypassed in civil society or in Global Policy
making.  We do not have any sort of constitutional structure whereby a
democratic format other than the Multistakeholder modality exist.  At least
I haven't seen one.  Sure, some of us live in countries that have some sort
of democratic voting, but unless we are going to leave everything in the
hands of the nations states, there is no other democratic form that i see -
nor do i see one on the any horizon.  So please explain the democratic form
we are bypassing.

I do see the multistakeholder model as good for actually making IG policy,
not just for talking about it. 

So in this I disagree with Wolfgang:

> The key issue of MS is "dialogue" among various groups on a more equal 
> footing. MS is NOT a political decision making process.

I agree if isn't yet, but I believe it can, and I believe it should, be.

I just believe neither the model nor the participants have matured
sufficiently yet to be able to do that. Just like I believe CS has not yet
gotten to the point of maturity were we can democratically, in a bottom up
manner, choose representatives in the various multistakeholder process -
though we may be getting there slowly - experiment by experiment.

As for your 'and not anarchist' phrase, I do not know what you mean.  My
view is that bottom-up structures, the absence of top down hierarchy is the
democratic form of anarchism (sometimes also called anarcha-feminism or
manifests in various forms of social anarchism like the anarcho-queer or the
green anarchism movement ...).  In my world view anarchism does not mean
chaos or violence, but means bottom-up organization.  But I know the word is
highly overloaded with meaning and prejudice, and I do not know what you
mean by it and whether you use it as dirty word (so many people do) or not.

> 
> Yes, any democracy has to have a consitutional framework, and though 1 
> person 1 vote is basic and the most sacrosanct principle, it is only 
> the start and any real democracy consists of numerous institutional 
> supra-structures built over this basic norm.

Actually I tend to think that the most sacrosanct principle is the
protection of people's rights with the corollary that the majority may not
abuse or restrict any of the rights of minorities.  I think any democracy
that does not place that at the forefront of its principles is just another
form of tyranny and one that does not deserve support.  So for me, while
important, 1 person 1 vote is secondary to the protection of rights and is
not absolute.

> 
> We all agree that an elected government, even democratically elected 
> one, cannot claim complete right and legitimacy over what is public 
> interest. I proposed, as many others do, that we use the concept of 
> 'deepening democracy' the subject of UNDP's 2002 Human Development 
> Report 'Deepening democracy in a fragmented world'. I argued how this 
> concept seeks to include as many voices as possible with the aim to 
> make democracy a way of life, but is quite mindful of relative power 
> between different actors that 'participate' in its processes. This 
> later issue is what principally distinguishes practises of 'deepening 
> democracy (which are very well established) from those of 
> multistakeholderism.

The point in the multistakeholder model is to equalize the power among the
participants.  This is a process that takes time and is to my mind a
critical component of  democracy.  A fundamental concept is the equality of
the participants in all of their stakeholder memberships, and I see no other
system that gives us a path to that other than the multistakeholder model. 

> 
> So, my direct question to you is ' what is your problem with preaching 
> and practising 'deepening democracy' rather than multistakeholderism.

Because deepening democracy, as I understand your explanation of it, does
not include the notion of equality among all participants.    And because
from a pragmatic point of view, we have a certain amount of commitment from
all sides, including those who hold power, toward a multistakeholder model.

> 
> You say that without an 'informed polity' democracy is dead. Very 
> certainly so. And I dont believe multistakeholderism is what is needed 
> for an 'informed polity'.

Here again, we disagree.  I think the fact that outreach and capacity
building are integral to the multistakehoder model makes it very much the
right solution for today.  It should evolve in its complexity and maturity
and it will eventually morph into the next step on the road to a social just
bottom-up democracy with equal access for all in all of their apsects.

> The concept of 'public sphere' as basic to democracy is well known, 
> well theorised as well as practised. That is what is needed for an 
> 'informed polity'. (And there is a lot of literature on how the 
> Internet may be having both a positive and a negative impact on the 
> democratic public sphere.)
> 
> Again, the question is, what is so new and unique now that we should 
> supplant the known and practised ideas of 'deepening democracy' and 
> 'public sphere' for this new thing, multistakeholderism (MSism), when, 
> as I showed with examples in an earlier email, in practice Msism has 
> mostly only succeeded in giving political space and respectability to 
> mega-corporates.

I do not think you have shown this.  You have argued it from our
perspective, but I do not agree that you have shown it in any sot of QED
manner. 

I find that you have a fear and resultant  desire to exclude the commercial
participants whereas I believe we can't do it without them.  I believe their
power can be fought in many ways, but keeping them away from the table is
not one of them.  These days, I find that people's identities and
participation are as invested in the companies they work for or believe in
(how many people identify themselves by the products they buy - Apple people
anyone?) as they are in the governments they are ruled by and the civil
society groups that represent their interests or the teams they cheer for
and he veer they drink.  The various stakeholder groups (and I do not hold
to there only being 3) are the manifestations of the many forms of
participation that humans engage in.  When we bring together a truly
multistakeholder group we allow for people to participate fully, being
represented, in some sense to some degree, in several of the stakeholder
groups.

> 
> Discussing about what may be really new today, I thing the most 
> important new factor is that the economy is globalised and polity 
> still national, which means that global megacorporates are largely 
> unregulated and will keep increasing their power at the expense of 
> public interest.

And I give every support to notions of multistakeholder regulation of these
multinational entities.  I think it is the only way.  But this means that
the multistakeholder model needs to mature to the point where this can be
done in a reliable open, transparent, and enforceable manner.

I also do not agree that the polity is fully national.  I think many of us
are trying to move away from that national mode and some have done so to
some extent.  I think governments are holding us in these cages, but that
too will probably change in time.  I think a growing number people all the
time are thinking globally, well except for when it comes to futbol teams
and the local farmer's market.

> This is what is new, which gives us even more reason to look at 
> existing democratic practises like the above mentioned ones, rather 
> than try out new 'suspect' ones which in fact helps spread the malaise 
> of unbridled corporate power even more.

I find the old democratic forms to be suspect and inappropriate as they are
all controlled at the national level.  Some may be fine for determining the
various governments' perspective on the issues, but do nothing for the other
sides of the question.  So these older democratic forms only represent one
side of the multistakeholder equation.

> 
> As for your concerns about governments forcing the uniquely global 
> Internet into national borders, I am very concerned about it. But I am 
> as concerned about Internet being forced by mega digital corporates 
> (see net neutrality debate) into new borders of class. I cherished the 
> possibility of an undivided global world through the Internet, but 'my 
> uptopianism' even more saw a hope and vision of a class-less world 
> through the Internet.

I too support that.  And see the multistakeholder model and the regulation
by multistakeholder bodies as the only viable solution to the problem.

> 
> Why some kind of borders bother us more than other kinds?
> 
> Depending on which kind of borders bother us more, the principal 
> adversary of our advocacy efforts would change.

_All_ borders bother me. 

> 
> You said,
> 
> "..... 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. "
> 
> The political economy question is, which 'people' who are 'them' or 
> rather 'we'. If we think through political economy lenses these things 
> may not be as unfanthomable.


That is the point of continual outreach and capacity building in the
multistakeholder model. 

Why is it these discussions remind me so much of the bitter fights in the US
radical scene in the 80's?Where the Marxists said they had the way to
understand the world while the Feminists said they did and then finally some
really clever theoreticians figured out that combing the methods was most
useful (of course while we argued among ourselves the free-market boys had
eaten our lunch and captured the global mindshare).  In today's world we
have hopefully even moved beyond the recognition that have those are the two
variables in the discussion and have hopefully moved in a multi-theoretical
framework.  

Like the Marxism of the 80's, political economy only focuses on one aspect
through one lens, so while useful and critical, it is limited;  I believe
one needs to take a multi-theoretical approach to both understanding the
problems and finding the solutions - which leads me to conclude that a
multistakeholder approach is currently the only viable option.

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