[governance] multistakeholderism

[Paul Lehto]

The effort to redesign democracy into something else starts with
mis-defining it as a "hierarchy."   When power is transferred to the
people's representatives, they are called public SERVANTS.  If there
is any 'hierarchy' it's one with the people on top.  If that's not the
way it's actually working out, the problem is not with democracy but
with its wrongful implementation.

The internet is a tool, usually for greater democracy such as in Iran,
etc.  But in any case, the tools do not drive the democracy, as seemed
to be suggested in another post calling democracy "outdated" based on
the new communication patterns fostered by the internet.  If the needs
or characteristics of a technology drive democracy, then it is
technology that is in control of governance and not people.

Democracy means every person gets an equal vote.  If that idea is
outdated, then please define which people no longer exist in terms of
democracy and are no longer equal - they are the new political slave
clase.  The definition of slave is a person "subject to the will of
another" so whoever isn't equal is a slave, in that sense.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On 8/19/10, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wolfgang,
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:01 AM
> To: Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism
>
> 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.
>
> YES
>
>
> 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.
>
> I AGREE WITH THE FINAL PART OF WHAT YOU SAY ABOVE... THE ISSUE OF A SHIFT
> FROM A "HIERARCHY" TO A "NETWORK" IS NOT VERY CLEAR TO ME (SCOPE,
> APPLICATION, EVIDENCE) NOR IS WHAT CONCLUSIONS YOU WOULD DRAW FROM THIS
> "SHIFT" AND WHAT BASIS YOU HAVE FOR DRAWING THESE CONCLUSIONS.
>
>
> 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).
>
> THIS REQUIRES MORE EXPLANATION--WHAT ARE THE ISSUES BEING ADDRESSED
> (TECHNICAL, NORMATIVE, DISTRIBUTIVE AND SO ON)? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "MORE
> DIRECT CHANNEL" HERE, AND WHAT IS BEING CHANNELED TO WHOM AND BY WHOM FOR
> WHAT PURPOSE, AT WHOSE INITIATIVE, IN WHAT DECISION MAKING CONTEXT AND SO
> ON.  CERTAINLY CONTRIBUTING ADDITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, INSIGHT, INDICATIONS OF
> POPULAR SUPPORT/DISAGREEMENT AND SO ON WOULD BE VALUABLE TO THE OVERALL
> DISCUSSION AND DECISION MAKING PROCESS (BUT REMEMBERING THAT THESE CHANNELS
> ARE AS OPEN TO NON-CS FORCES AND INFLUENCES AS TO CS ONES AND WHERE THE
> ISSUE AT HAND MATTERS (FOR EXAMPLE FINANCIALLY), THOSE NON-CS FORCES ARE
> LIKELY TO BE BETTER ABLE TO MAKE THESE CONTRIBUTIONS THAN IS CS.
>
>
> 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.
>
> YES, THE WORLD IS GETTING MORE COMPLEX... WHETHER WE WANT "DIFFERENTIATED
> SOLUTIONS" IS ANOTHER MATTER--THE OBVIOUS ONE FOR ME IS SAY NET NEUTRALITY.
> DO WE REALLY WANT ONE SOLUTION FOR THOSE ABLE TO PAY AND ANOTHER FOR THOSE
> NOT ABLE TO PAY.
>
> THE PRIMARY DIFFERENTIATOR IN MOST SOCIETIES IS WEALTH AND DO WE REALLY WANT
> TO DEVELOP GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF ALLOWING ONE
> SOLUTION FOR THE RICH AND ANOTHER FOR THE POOR?  MAYBE TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS US
> TO DO THAT IN NEW WAYS AND IN NEW AREAS BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT TRADITIONAL
> DEMOCRACY AND ITS BEAUTIFUL TWIN THE SOCIAL CONTRACT IS WORTH PRESERVING
> EVEN IF NEW WAYS OF UNDERMINING IT ARE BEING DEVELOPED AS WE SPEAK.
>
>
> 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.
>
> YES, THERE IS THE NUB.  DO WE AS CS PROMOTE A SHIFT IN POWER AWAY FROM "THE
> PEOPLE" TO CORPORATIONS, TECHNOCRATS (EXPERTS), THE WEALTHY, I.E. THOSE WITH
> THE RESOURCES AND SKILLS CAPABLE OF EXERTING INFLUENCING (GAMING THE SYSTEM)
> IN OUR INTERNET ENABLED WORLD.
>
>
> 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.
>
> I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A "polycracy" WOULD LOOK LIKE AND FROM WHAT I GATHER
> NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE, WITH ANY CLARITY; SO BEFORE WE MAKE OUR COLLECTIVE
> LEAP OF FAITH INTO THIS MISTY NEW WORLD I THINK IT MIGHT BE RATHER MORE
> USEFUL TO GIVE OUR ATTENTION TO FIGURING OUT HOW THE TECHNO-MAGICAL
> PROPERTIES AND AFFORDANCES OF THE DIGITAL WORLD--COMMUNICATIONS EVERYWHERE,
> UBIGUITOUS INFORMATION ACCESS AND CONTROL, ALMOST INFINITE UNIVERSAL MEMORY
> AND SO ON CAN HELP US TO DEEPEN A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM THAT WHATEVER ITS FLAWS
> HAS DONE RIGHT BY MORE PEOPLE THAN ANY OTHER AND IS STILL THE UNQUESTIONED
> ASPIRATION OF THE VAST NUMBERS OF THOSE WITHOUT ACCESS TO ITS OPPORTUNTIIES
> AS WELL AS THOSE EVERYWHERE WITHOUT OTHER SOURCES OF POWER OR OPPORTUNITY.
>
> BEST,
>
> MIKE
>
>
> 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


-- 
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