[governance] Ism or not Ism ?

[Mawaki Chango]

In the same time, it is precisely because MS processes have (so far)
applied for "gathering perspectives around specialized issues" that I
think inevitably you'll have to accept the direct participation of
'non-natural' or legal entities as opposed to natural individuals and
citizens. For the point then is precisely to get the most informed
advice possible, irrespective of the source.

So (returning to the broader question) the problem is less one of
'who's who' and 'who is or is not a legitimate participant' and more
one of process.

As a reminder, multistakeholder (sure, not the best word one can dream
of) says *multi*-stakeholder, not *tri*-stakeholder. At this time,
many participants - probably most - seem to go along with the idea
that there are three main stakeholder groups but obviously we know
that doesn't necessarily have to be, and will probably not always be,
that way. I believe things are and should be more fluid than when we
try to categorize them with fuzzy labels.

First, ultimate authority to make public policy lies with the
government, still at this point. And government will always have a
competitive advantage on that front as long as only it has the
authority to enforce the law. So how do we get from here to full, or
nearly full, multistakeholder policymaking? As things stand, it will
obviously depend on how able the other groups are to weigh on
governments.

Second, private business and corporations are crucial for a nation's
economical health by creating wealth and employment. Whether we like
it or not, any democratic government would rather preside over a
thriving and innovative economy (and for their nation first, before
they worry about the global, unless the national largely depends on
the global). So governments have obvious good reasons to listen and
support private business interests while making policy.

Third: What is civil society's value proposition? It is up to CS --
and all remaining part of the *multi-* -- to make its case and choose
its strategies.

I'm not sure what people mean when they talk about full
multistakeholder (not just process or participation but actual)
policymaking, or CS being on "equal footing" with the government. I
don't know whether that implies that we're fighting or should be
fighting for up to a seat around the signing table with the signature
of CS delegates alongside those of government on the decision
documents.

Also, it seems vain to me that anyone spend energy arguing that CS is
or should be the one most legitimate party whose views governments
should take into account over others' while making decisions.

But I suspect possible paths to ensure decision outcomes are as
multistakeholder as possible would require CS talking to/ petitioning/
lobbying/ pressuring/ etc. not only governments, but also private
business and any other possible parties. To the extent that those
other parties are not by themselves ready to fully embrace CS views,
the onus will be on CS to show governments how doing away with CS
views might be damaging to the polity and to them, and business how
supporting CS inputs (at least some of them) might be good for their
long term interests (if only because CS might expose their
anti-citizen behaviors otherwise), etc.

To start -- not sure if this has already been done, as I've had my
hiatus with these discussion, but...-- this WSIS-generated CS
coalition would already make history if it only manages to come up
with clearly defined formative principles with regard to what 'public
interest' might be when it comes to policymaking towards information
society, and further principles or rules that should be observed to
ensure that public interest and CS basic values be included in any
policymaking process and decision. Just something parsimonious,
fundamental, without verbiage, as one would do for a constitutional
preamble or bill of... norms, so to speak.

Mawaki

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:10 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:


> 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.
>
...........

 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.
____________________________________________________________
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