[governance] Multistakeholderism & the new Citizenship

Eric Dierker cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net
Thu Feb 25 11:28:30 EST 2010


I am a citizen of the spaceship Earth. I owe my allegiance to no government. I owe my allegiance to the planet and to all those that populate it.
 
I am not ready to go that far. I was born just a few years after world war II. But I think that I am leaning toward a dual citizenship. I want to be a part of the global solutions that are on the Horizon. I do not like the boundaries of accident of birth. But I dang sure do no want my new citizenship to be contingent on being a member of a club.

--- On Thu, 2/25/10, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:


From: Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: [governance] Multistakeholderism (was Parminder's exchange with Bertrand)
To: "Bertrand de La Chapelle" <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>, "Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Date: Thursday, February 25, 2010, 2:59 PM



Bertrand (and others)

I have carefully gone through your analysis (and that of others). However I could find no situation, or rather no governance requirement, that cannot  be  met within a 'democratic governance' framework, with all the cutting edge work being done in the areas of deepening democracy, deliberative democracy, decentralization (increasing application of the principle of subsidiarity), stakeholder consultation/ participation etc. 

I do see that the context of global governance throws new challenges  - especially of scale and complexity/ multiplicity of issues. However, I find it perfectly possible to address these new situations through exploration of the 'democratic governance' framework we all know, and are acquainted with the history and the philosophical/ normative basis of. Therefore, the principle question in this discussion is; why do we abandon an evolutionary 'democratic governance'  framework in favour of a completely new 'multistakeholder governance framework'? Democratic governance has a clear ethical basis in equality of all human beings who are expected to relate and interact with each other on terms of equality. I would like to similarly hear about the first principles of this new form 'MS'ism'.

( Bertrand, I do see that you refer to MS-ism as an intermediate stage towards more open and democratic systems. However (1) this implied transition from one kind of democratic system through an MS system - whose conformity to democratic principles is very questionable - to a higher stage of democratic system is conceptually and practically very unclear, and apparently untenable, to me, and (2) during some earlier discussions a few other now involved in this debate - e.x. Jeanette and Avri - had positioned 'Ms-ism' as an alternative and not a step to more democratic systems. )

I do understand and accept that elements of issue-centred governance at the global level bring forth a different requirement/ manner of alignment of actors which situation may have partly led to the MS terminology. However, I think that this situation is perfectly possible to be addressed through evolutionary forms of 'democratic governance'. i would like to engage on this line of discussion more but let me shift to another point, which is perhaps more important to deal with, and if possible get out of way, in discussing MS-ism. 

This is the issue of the legitimacy and status of big business in policy making in the new MS-kind of governance models. As I see it, most people who are for deepening democracy (and other evolutionary forms of democracy) will easily be with the MS crowd but for the latter's deep silences and/ or ambiguity on this one issue.  It quite amazes me how we are able to do such long discussions on MS-ism without discussing this key, in fact, the central issue, which divides  civil society. How well we manage to ignore this gorilla in the room. Is it not one of the primary questions for a civil society group to address when discussing MS-ism?? Why such silences on this question?

We all know that the one group that has gained completely new legitimacy at policy tables due to MS-ism is the business sector. And it is also the sector which, at all places where MS-ism is practised, has by far taken the most advantage (often, all the advantage). Citizen groups and civil society actors always had some kind of legitimate claims to policy making spaces, even if the real practice of deep democracy remained a deeply contested arena. (For instance, UN still have no official process to involve business actors in its processes while there is a long history of CS involvement.) In any case, deepening democracy precisely deals with increasing CS participation in the processes of governance. Why do we need to carry the big business in our laps to the policy table in advocating MS-ism rather than deepening democracy?

In the light of above, I would like to understand from those who advocate MS-ism, how do they see business, especially big business (which almost completely dominates business seats at policy tables), which simply represents the interests of 'capital', a non-human entity if there was one, as an legitimate actor  at policy table, in equality with those who represent interests of real people and groups of people. I do expect to hear that interests of 'capital' are really the interests of shareholders and thus of real people. Maybe. But a basic tenet of democratic governance is equality of participation. Democratic governance is supposed to provide an counter (political) force to undue/ excessive domination of some over others. MSism enables exactly the opposite  - it gives the more powerful ever more political power. This is against the basic principles and practices of democracy. 

Democratic governance aims at upholding public interest, which no doubt consists of multiple private interests but in some important ways rises above it. MS-ism is a naked negotiation based on power. Little surprise that it often employs the language of economic contracts even for things which are apparently political (reminds me of an old email of Bill's on ICANN policy making process). 

Lets accept it. MS-ism is the preferred governance system of neo-liberalism, which aims at reducing every social institution to something as close to a market system as possible. MS's march is the march of neoliberalism. It is obvious that one cannot attain a huge degree of economic (and cultural) integration of the world without some concomitant enhanced global governance systems. Developed countries are afraid that any promotion of democratic political systems at the global level would work - as democratic power is supposed to work - as a check to their undue dominance through still greater economic and cultural imperialism. This new thing - MS-ism - serves them well. Big business is still overwhelmingly developed countries based. There is a new state-business alliance which needs to be confronted. MSism rather than confronting it, promotes it. Thats is what it is for me. I will be glad to hear refutations, and counter logics. (Avri, we are moving
 towards post military-industrial state-business compacts, and while fighting one we cannot help create the other, most likely, a much more virulent version. Present dominances are mostly based on controlling financial systems and flows, and we are moving towards dominances that would be primarily IP-control based helped along with control over techno-social infrastructure. That is why democratic governance of Internet is important, and that is why correspondingly, developed country's and big business' enthusiasm for neolib MSism in this area.)  

If the illegitimate route to political power that MS-ism affords to big business is somehow taken out, MS-ism for me is a form of deepening democracy, which is one of the principle aims and areas of work of my organization. MSism as practised, however, seeks to supplant elements of political discourse and practise native to democracy - public interest, public sphere, conflict of interest, equality, human rights, social justice etc. It seeks to take us to a pre-democratic era where political systems were built on the basis of power that an actor already possessed in the society. This power is now expressed through the 'power to participate' and influence. What was earlier back room business lobbying has now got new legitimacy and respectability, and correspondingly more power. That is how a post-democratic MS governance system really works.

Parminder 

Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: 
Dear all, 


Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with Karl Auerbach on this topic.


"Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or five ...) "stakeholder groups" or constituencies : governments, civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is still structured very much in this way, with what I have often described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion. 


"Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in particular) as meaning institutional organizations only (ie incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful example with its open registration policy that allows individuals. Important established structures (governments, businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too. 


The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure that this perspective is taken into account
 in the discussions even if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and structures may have a specific role to play here. .


This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to the last bit of the paragraph  :
MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. 


Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, governance should be based on the right for any actor, including individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in (is impacted by or concerned with). 


However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance is the generalization at the international level of the kind of representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President or even Parliament is not the solution.


This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its different perspectives carried forward in international discussions by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the employees of companies in an industry that has to support an important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global regime will impact their jobs
 and therefore want the said company or its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and scientific analysis, which requests expert participation.  Etc... On such global topics, individuals have in fact several stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is not the mere aggregation of national public interests. 


In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the issue, the venue and the state of the discussion.   


This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place. 


I hope this helps move the discussion forward. 


Best


Bertrand


PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis.
  


On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:





 Second, We

need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for
good governance and appropriate institutions; 

I don't understand why. 


MS is at best a

transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental
toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this
progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is
- and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the
artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government,
business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual
that matters. 

I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions of it.
The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks like an impoverished notion of regulation and political rule-making to me.
jeanette

jea 


In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers



the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is
used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow
does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but
not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately.

________________________________________ From: Parminder
[parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy
Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance]
REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing

Jeanette and Bertrand,

First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open
consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed
countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have
forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal
point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am
sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be
because of this procedural part.

However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my
'analysis of motivation  of governments' that made the mentioned
interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but
the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can
hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'.
Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper
analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are
interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder
nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them
'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage,
and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in
this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not
have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations?
Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And
why  at WIPO and WTO  developing countries are more-NGO involvement
friendly and  not developed countries?

Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is,
therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand
that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities
for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control
over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with
stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global
domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is
little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great
advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off
excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping
the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing
countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political
domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls
within their own territories.

Developed  countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many
developing countries  want  the  IGF  to  have  more  substantive
role  in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy
regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place
holder. Developed countries  seem  not  interested  in  furthering
the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community
supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society
(dominated by North based/ oriented actors).   The latter two also
have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of
IGF, with no consideration to the fact that

1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy
making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to
which it does so.

2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make
recommendations where necessary.

I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following
assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive
issue in the email.


para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the
continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly
revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get
into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and
operational organization of the Forum.


In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General
assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss
more than the Yes or >No question.

Section 74 of TA reads

"We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options
for the convening of the Forum ..........'

and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized
structure that would be subject to periodic review".

Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate
the mandate of the IGF,  the 'administrative and operational
organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change.

In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it
closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds
(things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda,
some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more
effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is
made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc).

I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to
get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable
the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there
is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review
debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is
needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and
sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive
changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in
fact, into the oblivion.

Parminder


Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all,

Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking
of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a
different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up
to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report
give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not
that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some
governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more
vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening
MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations
really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first
assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the
proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is
all.

I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of
discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in
Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD.

The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet
Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG,
which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of
the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments
only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important
role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been
organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process
(including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions
"the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of
the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation
Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the
administrative and operational organization of the Forum.

In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General
assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss
more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize,
which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD,
because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only
the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for
ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the
possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how
to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental
multi-stakehoder nature.

The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to
preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF.

Best

Bertrand

-- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour
la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information
Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French
Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting
humans") ____________________________________________________________ 

 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



-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100225/63f0e943/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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