[governance] IG/ IGC and participation - whose, for whom, whose interests are served

[parminder]

Hi All

Two interesting discussions took place on this list in the last few 
days, which are closely connected.  The discussion on participation  
between Michael and Meryem on one side and Avri on the other, which 
unfortunately, or maybe with good reason, took an outsider-insider spin. 
The other was on how an 'IG web', within which IGC may also be situated, 
is apparently revolutionizing the world in so many positive ways, 
particularly revolutionizing means and extent of participation. (There 
is certainly some solid substance to this argument; look at what the 
remote participation team has achieved at the IGF.)

Also very relevant is the fact that the 'IG web' got mentioned in terms 
of the e-enabler initiative of GAID (without at all going into what such 
a top-down tool really meant to people involved in development work). 
Then there was this discussion on the 'broadband commission report' , 
which earned some criticism from Michael, and which I too had earlier 
criticized for it being co-chaired by someone who has a strong interest 
in the outcomes of the report (with little or no response/ support from 
the group), but was cited by Wolfgang, an avid proponent of 'IG web', as 
a useful model on how some real outputs can be got while we invest into 
IG web model.

There seems to be a major overall disconnect here. It appears that there 
are two sides speaking completely different things. And generally 
egroups tend to configure themselves in a manner that one kind of thing, 
rather one kind of 'framing' (George Lakoff), becomes much more 
acceptable than the other, the reasons for which are much more complex 
than just the greater reasonableness of one side's arguments over those 
of the other.  Those with fundamentally different views/ 'framing' then 
withdraw to take on an 'outsider' role, especially if no mutually 
discursive (and/ or negotiating) space is offered/ built, if they do not 
indeed leave. In any case, new participation from among those quarters 
is highly unlikely.

This proposed mutually discursive space will consist of questions like;

   How does the IG world, and specifically IGC, deal with the 
participation question? Is 'openness' as in 'anyone can participate' 
enough? If overdone, can such a model actually reduce participation? Is 
effective and real participation always linked with proactive actions 
focussed on those that are excluded (which have to be preceded by 
identifying exclusions), some kind of protective discrimination? Does 
participation need to judged foremost from outcomes? Does a greater 
participative-ness lead to, and can only be evidenced by,  
democratization of power through the society, the best proof of which 
will of course be found at the edges, where there is the highest 
marginalisation. So should we not put our 'participative test' lenses to 
these edges?

Should evidence of whether the IG world is more participative  than 
earlier arrangements not come from asking the question, whether IG at 
present is serving, in fact disproportionately serving, the interests of 
the marginalised? Micheal seems to very much doubt it. But whether we 
agree on the outcomes of the present IG dispensation or not, can we 
agree that that this is a good test of participation.

I think the 'participation' discussion can not make progress if we 
remain struck on process issues, which the IGC, and the IG world in 
general, has remained focussed for too long now. It is time to move on. 
Can we take the 'proof of the pudding' approach instead?

Can those who say that the new age IG models have hugely revolutionized 
participation provide any evidence at all that this has led to better 
representation, or better serving, of the interests of the marginalized 
groups?  This to me is the key question. What has been done in IG till 
today, ranging from 'framing' issues to actual outcomes, that can be 
said to be focussed primarily on the interests of these groups?

Participation is not just about giving pat responses when exclusions are 
spoken of; why dont you enroll and be present, and speak up, and make 
contributions, when there is an open system giving anyone chance to do 
so. It is much more structural. Power is exercised in every apparently 
open system, and exercised to a very great extent. The 'apparent' 
openness may actually make it more difficult to deal with such exercise 
of power, which is what limits meaningful participation. The best way to 
go forward, in such a situation, is to discuss the old-fashioned 
questions of power, best represented in posers like - what outcomes/ 
impacts have actually shown up, whose interests are being served etc.

Can we, as IGC, for a change, committedly get down to a 
self-introspection over these questions, rather than tom-tomming the 
great new revolution of participation, and flows of information and the 
such, which, I can assure you, has begun to sound rather repetitive and 
boring to the outside progressive CS world. 'Openness' is good only if 
it is *not* accompanied by a delusion that with it all or most questions 
of power are overcome. Otherwise, openness becomes a convenient cover 
for power, making political struggles even more difficult than before. 
Very often that is what seems to be happening in many IG related forums 
and discussions.

In my contribution to the proposed discussion, I contend that the main 
socio-political phenomenon underlying what has so approvingly been 
called as the 'IG web' is a major coming together of, and the interests 
of, upper-middle classes of most countries, across the spectrum of North 
and South (and thus too the challenge to this nomenclature). While 
'participation' has indeed increased within this new emergent global 
class, across erstwhile geographic and national boundaries, which is the 
phenomenon being rejoiced by the celebratory voices here, such 'coming 
together' and forming a new transnational upper-middle class has had the 
simultaneous effect of even greater distancing of it from the 'lower' 
classes within local spaces.

And so while the upper classes have joined-up globally through the new 
ICT based means, discovering and revelling in this new social, cultural 
and political phenomenon, lower classes are perhaps, to that extent, 
even more marginalised because of ICTs. Worse, the upper class bonhomie, 
of borderless engagement and participation, has even taken away the 
normative categories of 'participation', need to address 
marginalization, democracy, protective discrimination, representation 
etc from the lower, marginalized classes. This is a major political loss 
for these classes. This is how unbridled championing of openness, 
discussed and promoted without analysis of power relationships, could 
actually further harm the interests of marginalized groups. It is this 
what I see as happening which underlies the apparent paradoxes with 
which I begun this email.

Parminder




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101005/fcb11256/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