[governance] MSism and democracy

Wed Jun 8 01:04:14 EDT 2011

Dear Bertrand,

Thanks for engaging with this discussion. I have always been very keen 
to get a serious discussion going on this subject, and rather to the 
contrary of what you say, it is the multistakeholderism (MS) enthusiast 
who have run away from probing questions both of (1)  the principled and 
logical basis of their beliefs and stances and (2) the precise working 
models of governance that they propose. I hope in this present 
discussion they, and you, can answer such questions.

I have quite often stated my problems with  MSism as it mostly gets 
spoken of and practised in IG arena, including at the recent CoE meeting 
during the panel discussion moderated by you.

Your email raises two specific issues, the first one is

"what I am missing in your very critical comment ("/it is very much the 
wrong direction/") is the proposed alternative;"

The alternative is the original corrective to the shortcomings of 
representational democracy. This is what is spoken of as deepening 
democracy or what we may also call as participatory democracy (though 
not the anarchic versions of it which suffer from the precise ill you 
speak of - a real workable alternative model). Its institutional forms - 
existing and those possible in the future - have been well discussed in 
literature, and there is enough stuff about practical working models as 
well, including some about the global space. I am ready, in fact eager, 
to have a specific discussion on this.

I have always engaged positively by presenting proposals of working 
models of what I (or we) want, and what for us is taking democracy 
forward rather than supplanting it. We, as in my organisation, worked 
with the Indian government delegates to come up with a clear proposal on 
how MAG for instance should be constituted, which addresses the 
negatives of MSism. This part of the 'Indian proposal' is enclosed, 
which is also largely contained in the contribution IT for Change made 
to the process. Is it not specific enough? Now, reversing the 'inquiring 
role' I am eager to know what are your own views on it.

The second issue your raise is contained in the following part of your 
email.

".......imperfect as they are, aren't the experiences currently under 
way presenting more potential for broad participation, openness and 
"deeper democracy" (to use your formulation) than using only 
intergovernmental interaction in the UN or the G8 ? In a nutshell, what 
would you like to see that would be so different from what is being 
attempted in the IGF, for instance, that it would justify thrashing it 
instead of perfecting it ?"

First of all I agree that 'only intergovernmental interaction in the UN 
or the G8' is not at all a good model, and it requires huge huge 
improvements changes. This must be obvious from my contributions to the 
IGC and other forums. However, my contention also is that MSism as 
currently practised in the IG arena may actually be making things worse.

Deeper or participatory democracy is about getting in voices that are 
less powerful and less heard otherwise into the political processes. Can 
you honestly say that this is what the MS model in IG is doing 
currently? I do not think so. I think it has become a cover or a 
legitimising device for increased influence on policy making of those 
who are already very powerful, with which I mean the big businessin the 
digital/ IT/ Internet space. There are numerous examples of this, and 
what is more problematic is how such huge transgressions to political 
and democratic propriety are routinely responded to by 'deep silences' 
on the part of MSism upholders. Such silences favouring the interests of 
the powerful, as you will also see from the Spanish protests (as also 
earlier ones in the Arab world), are the very anti-thesis of new 
democratic processes that we would like to see take root. Following are 
but a very few examples of what MSism in IG space is really showing up 
to be....

1) Anyone who has seen MAG work know who almost completely dominates the 
discourse and the outcomes thereof. I wont go into specific details here 
but am happy to discuss this further if you so want. Developing country 
gov reps have consistently raised this issue in their private 
conversations about the IGF and the MAG. Very often this is the first 
and the main issue they raise, and I have to agree with them.

2) e G 8 forums, which despite our protests remained what it was 
supposed to. Then there is this French presidents digital advisory 
council made exclusively of big business.

3) Two mega digital corporations, most affected by the proposed 
regulation, together practically wrote the net neutrality legislation of 
the the county which is the digital capital of the world. One would, 
today, still think it impossible that the top drug company and the top 
private hospital chain in the US 'openly' (lobbying and pushing text 
secretively is a different thing) come up with the default  health 
policy draft, even in the US. This is an instance of the kind of 
'firsts' that the IG world is contributing to our political systems, and 
the MS discourse certainly has something to so with it.

4) The UN broadband commission was headed by someone who has  a 
practical monopoly on a major country's telecom business, and who 
acquired this business by buying off the incumbent public sector company 
through means that have been severely questioned. Again a first in the 
name of MSism.

5) Closer home in India, some proprietary software and digital content 
companies, interested in the huge public education 'market' of India, 
quite ingeniously managed to become the key and driving participants of 
an 'officially' mandated MS process of writing a draft for India's 'ICTs 
in schools' policy. The draft that came out was of course on the 
expected lines. It took a huge amount of work from organisation like 
ours to get the drafting process scrapped by the minister involved. But 
such things have not stopped.... So it is not for the joy of 
contrarinian-ism that I offer critiques to MSism, this has had central 
implications to my organisation's political struggles.

6) Dept of IT in India has a couple of advisory groups consisting only 
of big business reps apart form gov, and also frequently holds 
consultations where only these big business reps are invited. (see for a 
recent  meeting of such kind 
http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/MinutesofmeetingNationalRolloutofe-district2ndMay2011.pdf 
). This kind of stuff, thankfully, still does not happen in any other 
department in India.

The instances are endless. So when you say there are issues with MSism, 
to quote your email, 'such as the risks of capture, the weight of some 
actors, the north-south unbalances and the representation of the 
unrepresented' , one needs to know clearly what is being done about 
them. Merely mentioning them as a footnote is of little use to those 
whom these issues really bother. What I see is that there seems not even 
the readiness to debate these issues, much less do anything about them, 
which to me confirms my hypothesis regarding who holds the reins of much 
what goes for MSism in the IG arena.

Also, another question that MSists never seem to respond to is - are 
they ready to have their countries governed through the same kind of 
hazy MSism as they recommend for global governance? If not why this 
discrimination - democracy at home, MSism abroad. Is it because global 
democracy brings the danger of global redistributions with it, and MSism 
on the other hand helps promote Northern businesses establish even 
greater global dominance and thus creates transfer channels in 
directions opposite to what globally democratic political systems will 
tend to do. Is this not the actual reason for Northern governments' 
enthusiasm for MSism in the global IG arena (but not at places where 
they themselves make decisions), and what is really behind the 'friendly 
governments' discourse frequently heard on this list.

Happy to hear you responses to the above and engage further.

Parminder

On Thursday 02 June 2011 09:37 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> Dear Parminder,
>
> Thanks for sharing the article.
>
> Two points on your remarks:
> - fully agree on "new institutional possibilities of participatory 
> democracy" not fully explored yet; probably new tools can be invented;
> - I know your reticences - often voiced on the list - regarding the 
> current modalities of "multi-stakeholderism" and some of them do 
> deserve attention (such as the risks of capture, the weight of some 
> actors, the north-south unbalances and the representation of the 
> unrepresented); however, what I am missing in your very critical 
> comment ("/it is very much the wrong direction/") is the proposed 
> alternative; imperfect as they are, aren't the experiences currently 
> under way presenting more potential for broad participation, openness 
> and "deeper democracy" (to use your formulation) than using only 
> intergovernmental interaction in the UN or the G8 ?
>
> In a nutshell, what would you like to see that would be so different 
> from what is being attempted in the IGF, for instance, that it would 
> justify thrashing it instead of perfecting it ?
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110608/e7e48f03/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGF improvements - MSism related parts.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 44137 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110608/e7e48f03/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t