AW: [governance] MSism and democracy

Wed Jun 8 08:14:05 EDT 2011

Hola Roxana,

comparto tu punto de vista!

Saludos desde Múnich,

Lorena Jaume-Palasí

___________________________________________

Wiss. Mitarbeiterin

Lehrstuhl für Politische Theorie (Prof. Dr. Karsten Fischer)

Geschwister Scholl Institut für Politikwissenschaft. LMU

www.gsi.uni-muenchen.de/personen/wiss_mitarbeiter/jaume-palasi

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Im Auftrag
von Roxana Goldstein
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Juni 2011 14:08
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
Betreff: Re: [governance] MSism and democracy

Genial esto, pero si no empezamos a tener debate en otros idiomas no vamos a
cambiar las preocupantes tendencias de las que se habla acá.

Lo vengo diciendo siempre en todos los espacios de la sociedad civil del
IGF, con nada de éxito.

Desde latino américa, Argentina específicamente,

Roxana Goldstein

2011/6/8 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

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 business in 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/MinutesofmeetingNationalR
olloutofe-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

____________________________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110608/0159b858/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, 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