[governance] Ism or not Ism ?

[parminder]

Bertrand,

On Tuesday 17 August 2010 05:49 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Avri has triggered an interesting thread that is a recurring 
> discussion among us.
>
> As a general input, I sense that there is strong reluctance towards 
> the expression multistakeholderism and apparently less regarding 
> other, like multistakeholder processes, multistakeholder model or 
> multistakeholder approach.
>
> I'd like to understand a bit better the rationale. Is it because the 
> use of "ism" seems to imply a sort of achieved model, a general 
> theory, or a movement ? Let's leave aside for the moment the rest of 
> the discussion on the value (or dangers) of the MS approach to 
> understand better what people feel is behind the use of an "ism" 
> termination.

My main problem with the ism is as follows. 'Multistakeholder 
participation' has for long been a valid concept in democratic practice, 
especially in terms of gathering perspectives around specialized issues 
( and  generally not so much in deciding larger/ broader/ overall public 
interest issues where 'public interest' actors are mostly engaged)), and 
works clearly within, and in subordination to, traditional 
(representative) democratic institution and political processes.

Multistakeholderism, however, seems to be a term which has taken hold 
largely at the global policy level, where there is admittedly a huge 
political vacuum, and whereby, and Avri expressly says it, 
multistakeholderism is considered not as just a process leading to, or 
inputting into, policy making, but as a process of policy making itself 
(or, as I like to put, of 'not making policy').

In that sense, it seeks to do away with any need for moving towards 
democratic political processes at the global level as well (and this has 
manifested at the global IG scene) which are based on equality of people 
and of groups of people within constitutional frameworks. What is 
clearly different *in any such democratic global process/ institution* 
vis a vis multistakeholderism is that in the former* only natural human 
beings and their natural collectives are recognized entities with rights 
and equality, and legal entities like corporates are not accepted to be 
at the same level. MSism however tends to do that. This is the single 
biggest issue with MSism,* and to go any further with this discussion, 
it is my sincere opinion, that we need to focus on this single issue. 
You solve this issue for me, I will accept MSism :).

However, in my numerous discussion on MSism, those who uphold MSism 
generally tend to completely bypass/ ignore/ minimize this issue, which 
for me, and most others having suspicions about MSism, is THE central 
issue. This especially so because when we look at the global scene the 
strongest power shifts taking place today are towards mega-corps, who 
seen to further benefit the most from MSism.

Thanks

Parminder



>
> Anriettte has formulated a valid concern in that respect :
> - 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
>
> That concern I completely share (as my recurrent criticism of the 
> "siloed" process in ICANN demonstrates). But is there something else 
> regarding the use of an "ism" termination ?
>
> In any case, I personally have always felt that multistakeholderism is 
> an ugly word in itself and much prefer multi-stakeholder governance or 
> multistakeholder processes. But it is hard to find a better word (been 
> struggling with that for long), even if I'm sure it is merely 
> transitory (like "horseless carriages" before we labeled them 
> "automobiles")
>
> As a matter of fact, *the term Governance, on its own, could be 
> sufficient*. The WSIS has provided the now famous definition of 
> Internet Governance that I usually summarize as follows : "IG is the 
> multistakeholder development and application of shared regimes that 
> shape the evolution and use of the Internet".  Here, Multi-stakeholder 
> stands for "by governments, civil society and the private sector, in 
> their respective roles".
>
> As the discussions in the IGF demonstrate, the major challenge to 
> define the desired "Governance Framework" is *to clarify the 
> "respective roles" beyond the restrictive (and siloed) interpretation 
> of the famous Article 35 or the Tunis Agenda*. Isn't it what this 
> discussion about multistakeholderism is all about ? Not about which 
> category of stakeholders is best, more legitimate, or more powerful, 
> but how to ensure full participation, rules of engagement, 
> representation of all viewpoints and clear and transparent processes.
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
>
>
> -- 
> ____________________
> Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for 
> the Information Society
> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of 
> Foreign and European Affairs
> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>
> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de 
> Saint Exupéry
> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100817/28a6b40e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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