[governance] Ism or not Ism ?

[Paul Lehto]

On 8/18/10, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Your entire post here is quite thoughtful, but above you point to one
of the most important dividing lines, one that I think perhaps we ca
develop at least a rough consensus on.  As I believe Parmnder also
pointed to, it matters a great deal whether MS is an "adjunct" to
final democratic decision -- such as an advisory board or a specific
issue task or working group -- or whether it drifts or is designed
into de facto policy-making, either directly or because democratic
bodies function only act in a  perfunctory way or in a rubber stamp
fashion, without any real meaningful opportunity to modify the MS
recommendations after discussion.

One main reason the bureaucratic state gets set up from within a
nominal democracy is that lawmakers fear or disfavor accountability,
so they "delegate" authority to an administrative agency to develop
regulations (laws), to enforce regulations (executive functions) and
often to adjudicate regulatory violations (its own "informal"
"administrative law" court system).  In one fell swoop a democracy
based on separation of powers suddenly has all three powers in one
bureaucracy, the bureaucracy getting to be lawmaker, prosecutor,
judge, jury and hangman.

MS often takes the form of "blue ribbon" panels.  It is often thought
the "blue ribbon" status and the length of deliberations in the MS
process is a good excuse for the democratic representatives to rubber
stamp the work.  The truth is both yes, and no.  NO matter how many
blue ribbons the MS panel has there's no excuse for rubber stamping
the panel unless its work appears perfect after study and vigorous
democratic debate.

In my view, which I believe is shared by many, MS can never substitute
for democratic control, and also can't be allowed to become the
political bosses that call the shots for placeholding elected
representatives.

The existence of unelected 'political bosses' is one of the most
perennial problems of governance certainly in the USA, and, I believe,
worldwide.

A tripartite MS panel is a perfect way for political bosses to gain
more legitimacy through "open disguise," for the government has
seemingly already had its say in its 1/3 representation, so it would
be redundant and a waste of time to rehash all the issues, assuming
there's a final "democratic" vote on the matter at a governmental
level.

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-2334
____________________________________________________________
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