[governance] multistakeholderism

[Paul Lehto]

On 8/21/10, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> The real issue we have, IMHO,
> is that we refuse to use our own words in the meaning we defined and
> try to keep using outdated perceptions we consensually declared as
> obsolete years ago. re-Doing Geneva/Tunis preparations again and again.

While not a personal attack, the phrase "outdated perceptions" is an
empty attack, a kind of name-calling but without giving any real
reasons for why something is 'outdated' and why, if outdated, it
should not be relevant.  Even if prior "preparations" had the full
status of constitutional provisions, they would (a) still be subject
to revisiting and debate and (b) be subject at all times to being
construed in light of human rights law, and (c) subject to attack
(even if "prior preparations" were a full-fledged constitutional
provision) based on noncompliance with human rights and democracy law.

The odd thing is that some people state that technology per se, which
has no legal status whatsoever, is "inevitable" or has "changed the
world" and there's nothing that can be done about it, while others
argue human rights & democracy, which have the highest possible legal
status and prior agreement, are problematic or even "outdated."  This
is truly puzzling.  While there's no silver bullet in politics or
governance, the highest laws of human rights and democracy are the
very best tools available in the legal/governance/due process sense.
What might be called internet techno-determinism is hardly beyond a
witch's spell or placebo -- it works only if people are induced to
believe in it

> Why is this list not refering to the IGF mission to
> deal with the emergences of the Internet and Information Society?

If the highest laws (human rights) are not taken fully seriously, why
would a aspirational document like an IGF mission be much more than a
filler for filing cabinets?

> Is it a
> place to vote about votes, to talk, to work, to build, to protect people?

Your proposal to develop something is just fine, at least if it
doesn't exclude other vectors of development.  But I would point out
that 95% of the real work of politics and of democracy and of
governance can be described as TALKING (debate, reminders, working
toward agreement, etc)  That being said I think you are completely
correct to point to how much can easily be accomplished once a group
or subgroup accept a mutual goal and work toward it.  The thing is,
essentially all the nations of the world have accepted human rights
and democracy at the highest levels, declared them universal, and
commanded all members to work towards their further implementation.
To the extent this highest command is disregarded by some and/or not
taken as seriously as necessary, it's hard to complain when some prior
Geneva declaration or document doesn't function like a Bible, Torah or
Koran.

> I am afraid that a few people meeting on a mailing list or in a few
> fora, even once a year paid by UN, ICANN, etc, having their own
> outdated view of effective forces (I am sorry to be harsh but I do
> think it is true - look at the way ALAC is not considered at ICANN,
> and global members despised at ISOC, not even being represented at
> the BoT) can achieve much.

You say "effective forces".  The highest laws are human rights laws.
If there are "effective forces" stronger than that they are either (1)
true FORCE or (2) illegitimate politically, or both.  Here again, I
would like to know exactly what the nature of the force is, where its
authority comes from, and its nature as force?  I am not ignorant of
what you allude to, but upon examination these "forces" evaporate.  If
they have any legitimate force, in a conflict between the highest laws
of human rights and any lower laws, which do  you think properly
prevails, IF WE USE REASON and the LAW?

> Where are your guns? How do you want to
> impose anything to people who do have guns, billions of dollars, the
> technology, paying consumers and spend their time at social
> engineering?

In at least the name of human rights and/or democracy, in the 20th
century alone guns have been marshalled numerous times.  In WWII in
particular, it seems the side more friendly to democracy won.
Something like 300 million people have died in various wars either
closely or loosely connected to settling the question of whether the
people will be in charge via demcoracy and also WHO constitutes "the
people."  Is it just white men?  Does it include women?  Slaves?

Nowadays, it has been a settled question that "the people" MEANS
EVERYONE, no exceptions.  The people = the people.

Oops.  Along comes the corporate governance "stakeholder" approach,
living mostly in corporations but spreading to government and some
NGOs.

According to the stakeholder approach, which defines who matters and
who gets a voice, the ones who matter, or at least matter more or the
most, are the "stakeholders" or those who have an INTEREST, usually an
economic interest, in the outcome.

One fundamental reason stakeholder approaches are so disturbing is
that they take a settled question -- a question settled at the cost of
many millions of lives that asserted only the human dignity and
equality of ALL people -- and says, in effect:  The people does NOT
mean "all" the people.  The people means just selected stakeholders
who know how to follow a tight agenda that's set for them. This is why
it's "back to aristocracy" which is rule by less than all the people.

Even if the government is "represented" in any fraction like 1/3, 1/3,
1/3, and the government is presumed to represent all the people, the
corporate fraction as well as the civil society fraction (which can
only represent its members at best, and not all) constitutes a
dilution of democracy. Instead of democracy at full strength, it is
reduced to 1/3 or less.

If democratic mechanisms don't work, it may be due to corruption or it
may be, if opinion is divided on a non-constitutional question, that
it OUGHT to be stymied for the time being due to lack of a majority.

 The answer to "inefficiencies" of democracy is not to alter the most
fundamental aspect of democracy: that We the people means ALL the
people.

The answer to perceived 'inefficiencies" of democracy is not to make
it all efficient.  U.S. President Harry Truman got at least one thing
right:  "If you want efficiency you'll get a dictatorship."

There is only one source of power they do not have:
> technical innovation supported by users adhesion. Since you disregard
> technical issues, any form of social advancement, and
> users/people/political/consumer/cultural organizations, I do not
> really see what you may hope

There's no MEANINGFUL technical speech at the level of governance that
is not motivated by some higher value or principle or law, even if
that idea is not stated.  You speak of technical progress like it is
unconnected to higher principles, and that is not true at all.  Even
if the higher principles, instead of the legally binding ones of
democracy, are business values of "efficiency" "speed" or perceived
pragmatism, those are all higher principles that motivate the
seemingly "technical" stuff.

In a democracy, which is to say in a free country or world, business
values like efficiency ARE entitled to due weight, but only at the
second level of analysis.  The first level of analysis, too often
skipped because the typical answer is "no problem here" is the
question:  "Is this proposal going to kill some or all of us, or take
away our freedom, democracy or fundamental rights?"

Some  internet proposals like stakeholderism are controversial
because, like all too many things, they skip the first question above
and proceed on to secondary values like efficiency and business
values.

The correct approach, assuming one wishes to live in a free world of
democracy, is like a typical hiring process;  First, resume's are
weeded through and those clearly not qualified, like those few but
important proposals not consistent with democracy and therefore not
qualified for it, are eliminated. After that, the smaller details of
specific qualifications, rates of pay, efficiency of work and so forth
can be discussed with the candidates remaining.

One should not belittle "dying for glory."  Hundreds of millions of
people have done that regarding democracy and greater democracy. If
the internet cannot be made democratic than the strength historically
of the desire for greater democracy will fuel civil unrest at the
least if not terrorism/wars as it consistently has for the last three
centuries.

But always those with 'better ideas' be they experts or dictators,
want to inflict their ideas on all without their consent -- it's
always "for their own good."  A decent respect for humanity ought to
guide us in favor of democracy as a guiding star for all of our
actions, even if only out of fear for the deadly consequences
historically of not doing so.

Paul Lehto, J.D.
____________________________________________________________
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