[governance] multistakeholderism

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 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.

As I explained in Meissen, MS is at best a transitional form of governance. It starts to disintegrate or moderate the monopoly states have on international policy making, by engaging in a mild form of pluralization. 

> leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the
> condemnation of the multistakeholder model "

As you know I don't condemn it, but people who oversell the model produce this kind of reaction, and create an inviting target.

> 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.

You are, as far as I can tell, conceding the case. You are saying that insofar as multistakeholderism has any value here, it is only because it moves us closer to a form of democracy more appropriate to a world beyond nation-states. But let's not confuse the transitional form with the end state. 

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

Here we agree. But the more it becomes a decision making process, the more it becomes apparent that the "constitution" underpinning the MS model, and its engagement with individual rights and balances of powers, is weak. Very weak. Look at ICANN.

> 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.

"bottom up" is a vague description of a process, not a system of governance. Bottom up using what processes? Based on what rights? (see below)

> 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.

Here we are in violent agreement. But I call that "liberal democracy" not anarchism or MS. MS is notoriously bad at securing minority rights, as are all bottom up participatory processes (a lynch mob could be considered open, participatory governance, operating with "rough consensus" - obviously lacking the agreement of the lynched person, but probably having well heard, and rejected, his/her entreaties). 

Anyway, I don't think the gap between you, Parminder and I is that great. I think the more important differences are tactical and strategic, in terms of how to get there. 

--MM
____________________________________________________________
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