[governance] MSism and democracy

Wed Jun 8 08:20:28 EDT 2011

Ya empezo el debate.. como lo seguimos..

Carlos

2011/6/8 Roxana Goldstein <goldstein.roxana at gmail.com>

> 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/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
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20110608/266bbd24/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