AW: [governance] multistakeholderism

"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
Thu Aug 19 05:00:45 EDT 2010


Michael
 
Thanks michael for you long explanation. if I understand you correctly your are in favour of a multistakeholder dialogue below the governmental level . In your concept the balancing of the various interests on the ground lead to a "government" at the top of a hierarchie. And it is the duty of a "good government" to take all stakeholders legitime interests into consideration when they develop policies and take decisions, domestically as well as in internaitonal bodies. If people do not like the government they elect another government. This is okay and this we practice in good democracies, in particular in Denmark, since decades. 
 
What works in a "hierarchy" probably does not work in a "network". And again the chain of representation gets longer and longer in a complicated world where the chances that the input from the ground ends with the correct output at the negotiaton table is questionable. 
 
Again, a more practical example with regard t the forthcoming negotiations in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA: Do you share the view that it would be good if the Internet Community lets say from Chile would have a chance to channel its views not only to the career diplomat, sitting on behalf of the Chilean Foreign Office in the 2nd Committee but would have also a more direct channel via Chilenean or Latin American CS structures (or an ALS/LACRALO) which could be probably much more specific in explaining the details.
 
World gets more complex. General solutions will not work if they do not offer space for very differentiated "issue tailored solutions". To get this right, you need more expertise, knowledge and representation on the table. 
 
Certainly this will lead to a redistribution of power and this provokes the power struggle we see today. Who loves to share power? But power is shifting with the complexity of issues. When parliaments where invented in the middle ages, the kings were not amused that somebody wnated to have a say in decision making. From a kings perspective the interference of a parliament in his decisions was seen as unneeded because he had his advisers and owned all the wisdom. 
 
I like Jefseys concept of polycracy. As we know from Mr. Hegel and Mr.Marx, simple things are becoming more complex if issues move to a higher level. And the move from the industrial society (with its representative democracy) to the information society (with a still undefined governance model) is such a  move to a higher more complex level. 
 
Best wishes
 
 
wolfgang
 

________________________________

Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Mi 18.08.2010 20:23
An: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism




Wolfgang,

(I think I asked you first...  but anyway...;-)

This is a bizarre theory of government you are suggesting.  Government, at
least democratic governments are not (at least in principle)
"stakeholders"... They don't or at least shouldn't have an independent
"stake" in the outcomes of governance, rather they are the crucible through
which the democratic citizenry expresses their voice as to desireable
outcomes in public policy/decision making.  The citizens give individual
elected governments the right to manage the public interest on their behalf
using government public services as their agents through regular and
democratically conducted elections. The citizens have the right to remove
the mandate from those elected governments as they choose if they don't
think that they are executing or managing the public interest appropriately
as they understand this (civics 101).

Elected governments have an ambition to stay in power and thus act so as to
develop and implement public policies of interest to the various active and
effective stakeholders (business, civil society etc.) in such a way that
these "stakeholders" in turn will provide the necessary support (financial,
human resource support in elections) to allow governments to run successful
campaigns and remain in power. Thus they consult with, accept
representations from, are influenced by these various "stakeholders"
(self-interested parties) but this process does not include transferring
decision making responsibiliity to any of those parties. (Under many
circumstances this would in fact be illegal and seen as corrupt practice.)

The above sometimes gets distorted (sometimes wildly distorted) because of
the cost and complexity of running modern elections/governments but at least
that's the theory and in reasonably well-ordered democracies things operate
more or less on that principle.

The fact that many are disillusioned with the practices of certain specific
(democratic) governments doesn't to my mind negate the principles of
democractic practice which seem to me to be provide the greatest good for
the greatest number overall. It does however, suggest that in those
countries where there is concern, those with an interest in making the
operations better should develop ways of enhancing the democratic process. 

Digital tools now provide a variety of new ways for achieving enhanced
("deepened"?) democracy as for example through facilitating rapid
communication and widespread access to information.  This in turn enhances
the possibility of citizens (and thus electors) having for example greater
access to information, means of ensuring accountability on the part of their
elected representatives and transparency of the various processes of
governmental operations and administration.

I'm sure this sounds incredibly simple minded to most of you folks but it is
probably worth repeating here simply as an antidote to what appear to be
some serious misunderstandings of how (democratic) governments in principle
(and to a very considerable degree in many many instances) in fact do/should
are legally obliged to operate.

As for ways forward, I'm with Parminder in seeing the necessary way forward
as being the establishment of some frameworks for global governance (perhaps
in specific identified areas) with clear rules of
operation/legitimacy/participation and means for enforcement.  Those rules
may be (perhaps need to be) supranational but it can't I think for reasons
that should be obvious, be left to decisions by those who (have the means
and interest) to show up and participate. The problem with with leaving it
to those who show up (and in the absence of rules) is that those with the
resources and the specific "stake" i.e. return from the outcome will find
whatever means necessary to realize their ends and ultimately dominate the
process. And those with less of a focused "stake" (viz. the public) will
inevitably lose out. (Microsoft's apparently successful suborning of various
global/national standards setting processes to serve their specific product
promotion interests is an obvious example.)

Again in response to your question, the rules going forward need to be based
on a clear recognition that the over-arching value is support for the
(global) public interest and ensuring that the development of those rules
are based on the broadest possible and democratic inclusion into the
definition of what the public interest is in specific areas.

Best to all,

Mike




-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:06 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism


Dear Michael

you did not comment on my key point: Do you agree that a mixture between
(traditional) representative democrarcy and a new participatiry democracy
(including of more stakeholders in policy development and decision making)
is deepening democracy or not?

What are the options (if you go beyond abstract theories about "isms")

1. One-Stakeholder Approach: A government develops policy and makes
decisions (a good government consult a bad does it not)

2. Two-Stakeholder Approach: In reality this is the traditional deal we know
when governments follow strong lobbying by industry.

3. Multi-Stakeholder Approach: This brings all concerned and affected
parties, including civil society, to the negotiation table.

If you have multiple choice, what do you prefer?

Another questions is how to organize a process that the people sitting in
the room do get a legitimacy from their constituencies, do understand the
issue and are immune against corruption.

Another questions is also, what the rules will be for the interaction among
the participating parties in a multistakholder model. Such collaborative
principles have to be developed (and your are invited to participate in
drafting such principles).

As Mawaki has said, it would make no sense to exclude one stakeholder who is
concerned or affected. This would lead to process where you externalize
conflicts which then would block sustainbale developments. It would be
stupid if one stakeholder would try to play the role of another stakeholder
(or try to substitute). It is the collaborative idea of equal participation
where different perspectives are puzzled together to find balance solotions
(which means balance of legitimate interests) which will be sustainbale and
fair to all parties.

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 23:04
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Betreff: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism



Wolfgang,

This is not meant as a rhetorical question.  I asked it in the context of
WSIS years ago, I asked it of Avri and now I'm asking it of you...

I completely agree about the role of CS in advocating, advising, lobbying,
providing expertise and so on and so on--and I agree that this was a very
valuable, even crucial contribution to WSIS.  What I don't understand is on
what basis you think that a couple of dozen, highly educated, self-selected,
self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged males could (and should)
somehow participate on behalf of (?) global civil society i.e. 6.5 billion
actual and potential Internet users in negotiating and decision making
concerning global Internet governance (or anything else for that matter).

The fact that these folks were able to show up for a couple of weeks in
Geneva and then again in Tunis doesn't it seems to me provide a substitute
for accountability, transparency, representivity, and so on. At least with
your German diplomat I can see some clear logic/train of accountability
which, if for example, I'm a trade unionist, an unemployed computer
programmer, a marginalized Turkish migrant, or whatever I can gain a voice
however feeble individually or through my advocacy (or other) group lobbying
parties, members, ministers who in turn instruct your German rep. It may not
work but where would be the equivalent linkages for these folks or the
several billion others in the scenario that you are positing in Steps 5 and
6.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:01 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Allen; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism


Dear David

thanks for your inspiring contribution. "Deepening democracy" and
"multistakeholderism" are in my eyes not a contradiction. It is the first
and overall aim of the multistakeholder approach to deepen democracy.

Decisions in a representative democracy are made by our parliaments. In
international relations governments represent our nations. In a one
stakeholder model only the government has a voice. A good government will
listen to the people, a bad government will ignore this. However even under
the best circumstances the chain of representation gets very long and it is
difficult tho channel the opinion of the majority of the Internet users in a
given country into the statements of career diplomat who takes only advise
from his "Capital". Just to take one example: The German diplomat who sits
in the second Committee of the UN General Assembly, which has to negotiate
the future of the IGF in October/November 2010 is the "legitime
representative" of Germany and represents insofar also the Internet Users in
Germany. He has to negotiate around 50 issues and even if he tries to do his
best he can not be an expert in this field. If he is wise (and fortunately
the German governmental representatives in ICANN and the IGF are very open
minded and cooperate with the public) he will listen to the various voices
and than make his own decision if he has no instructions from his HQ. In a
multistakeholder approach, there are more voices on the table. They will and
can NOT substitute the diplomat who has to play "his respective role", but
the inclusion of more viewpoins can lead to more sustainable and workable
results. This combination of representative and participatory democracy is
the core of the multistakeholder approach.

Remember the early days of WSIS, wenn MS was not yet recognized and CS was
removed from the room after the plenary meeting. We developed a multi-step
strategy to include CS in policy and decision making within the WSIS
process. Step 1: The right to sit in the room also in working groups as
silent onlookers, Step 2: The right to make statements. Step 3: The right to
participate in the discussion, Step 4. The right to draft language for
recommendations, Step 5: The right to participate in the negotiations, Step
6: The right to participate in decison making and to vote.

We reached Step 4 in WSIS, which was not bad if you compare it with the
start. To have different voices on the table when policies are developed is
important. But it is true. It can not be the end of the story just to sit
and to say some words. Insofar, rights, duties and responsibilties of the
various actors have to be defined and procedures for the interaction among
the stakholders have to be developed.

BTW, it would be good if the pharma industry and the private health insure
companies, when they negotiate with governments, would include the "users",
that is the patients, into the discussion. This would be multistakeholder in
healthcare. :-)))

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: David Allen [mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu]
Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 05:52
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re:[governance] multistakeholderism



> I really do not see big differences between ... It is a little bit
> playing with words

This comes perilously close to demeaning the original author.  That author
most likely did not see his carefully thought-out propositions to be
'playing with words'...  Such is not convivial for the quality exchange we
have seen on this list of late.  Instead, if we take care to respect the
view we do not share, then our contrary reasons and evidence may help to
find even more enlightened synthesis.

MS'ism - as practiced in Internet Governance - has been a means to try and
insert more viewpoints into United Nations processes.  Whether that will
'work' is still unclear.  Power, as held by the states, is the starting
point.  Will they cede and share some power?  That is the core question.
Certainly, MS'ism is what has given the likes of CS some seat at the table.
Indeed, that is to be treasured.  Has it also created the possibility for
co-opting CS, by picking and choosing which CS voices are chosen, from amid
the cacophony?  Has CS (or for that matter the other 'estate') been given
'equal time'?

There is a backdrop against which this has occurred.  On that much larger
canvas, there are the seemingly ever-present pressures for expansion,
finally now toward what some would characterize as a global polity.  In a
recent post, if I remember, the Internet has been dubbed a new form of
[effectively global] government.  Others have sought new forms of
democratized governance, globally, seeing a failure of states per se and of
the elected and representative forms of government so far in place.

As far as I can see, the Internet is a form of communication.  But people
govern - communications tools, such as the Internet, can be turned to one or
the other means, means often with very different end effects.  (Much) more
than that, there is a dearth of thoughtfully- worked out detail for what
will replace representative forms of governance.

This larger canvas can situate the present subject:  MS'ism might indeed be
a 'step along the way.'  But what are further steps, realistically? and at
some (at least intermediate) end points, what forms of governance,
concretely? reliably worked out?

Heading that direction could be one goal of quality exchange, such as here.

David ____________________________________________________________
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=

____________________________________________________________
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


More information about the Governance mailing list