[governance] Ism or not Ism ?

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Aug 20 06:00:50 EDT 2010


Mawaki, and all

I pick two important issues from Mawaki's email, but the ideas being 
responded to are from the broader discussion here.

First is about expertise versus participation. These two ideas and 
concepts should be kept clearly seperate. Even a despotic king requires 
expertise to rule, but participation is about democratisation. Using the 
logic of need for expertise to push for a new post-democratic 
'participation model' should be avoided, and in fact is quite dangerous. 
Such meritocratic / technocratic claims to 'higher level of 
participation' are one of the main reasons/ logics behind the current 
challenges to democratic forms in IG (because of its technical roots), 
including as expressed often in the present thread of discussion.

Second, the issue of the need for thriving economy. US became a thriving 
economy, and more recently China has, without giving a 'formal' role to 
big business, or non-human legal entities, in policy making. Why would 
such roles suddenly now be needed to maintain or achieve a thriving 
economy? This fear of losing out economically is one of the main ones 
that is put in the minds of developing countries to force them to yield 
policy spaces to global digital mega-corps. But that is simply 
extortion-ism by the more powerful, and we need to confront it rather 
that use it our analyses to justify new governance models.

So, the simple question is what is so new now that we need to move away 
from democratic models to post-democratic ones, especially at the global 
level? The burden is on those who advocate these new models to show why 
they are needed, how they will work, and whose interests they will 
serve. And I have heard rather limited stuff, if any, on these key points.

Meanwhile, I have a theory why these post-democratic models have  
suddenly become so 'popular' at the global levels, which I open up to 
being contested.

One. As the world becomes one economically, and also increasingly drawn 
closer at social and cultural levels, there is of course the concomitant 
need for some kind of an effective global polity. The dominant powers, 
chiefly the developed countries, are however mortally afraid what a 
global polity with a democratic basis will mean. A democratic form of 
polity will always tend towards certain degree of greater eqaulisation, 
egalitarianism; that is the nature of democracy. It is obvious that this 
simply does not suit their interests. Proposing post democratic model, 
in the name of greater opening up, where big business has a veto is 
clearly very convenient (these businesses are largely developed country 
based, but even developing country big business has a strong confluence 
of interest with them, explanation of which is given in the next point) 
. That is what global multistakeholder model of governance is really about.

Second reason. There is a rising middle class in what have been called 
'emerging economies', but also in not so emerging ones. whose social and 
cultural, and increasingly economic, and thus political, aspirations are 
in tune with the dominant classes in the west/ north. This convergence 
of political interests of rather vast groups across the global is one of 
the most important transglobal phenomenon today, which I think has not 
been given the attention it deserves. These transglobal links follow the 
pathways and networks of economic globalisation  but as a phenomenon are 
different and perhaps larger than economic globalisation. (Wolfgang, 
yes, the network phenomenon is quite strong today, but it is much more 
complex and non-linear that as you described it, especially in its 
strong exclusionary tendencies.)

This new transglobal dominant class has a strong commonality of 
interests, and is in the same way very wary of a global democratic 
polity as the developed countires (These rising middle classes are 
indeed finding it a happy situation that the national polities no longer 
can afford much social welfare expenditure and much redistribution 
because of the fear of global capital fleeing; they certainly do not 
want a global polity to reinstate such democratic/ welfarist norms 
globally, and therefrom nationally.)

In such a situation, I understand that the role of a progressive global 
civil society is to counter these anti-democratic developments, rather 
then flow in their chimeric allurements and deviously built false 
promises, much less actually contribute to building, the discourse and 
justifications for these post-democratic models.

Unfortunately, excuse me to say so, much of civil society, especially in 
the IG arena has not stood up to the challenge of resisting the dominant 
forces and their plans, and building alternatives that bespeak the 
interests of those who are systematically being left out. It often more 
closely represents the viewpoints and the interests this emergent 
trans-global middle class. One can give many instances of it but this is 
already a long email and so i'll stop here :).

Parminder





















On Wednesday 18 August 2010 08:47 PM, Mawaki Chango 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.
>
> 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
>    
____________________________________________________________
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