[governance] Reconciling Democracy & Multistakeholderism: Having a Voice vs. Having a Vote

[Paul Lehto]

2011/11/3 McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>

> Historically, the way decision have been made in the "governance" of
> the Internetwork, is that we don't vote, we reach consensus after
> hearing all voices.
>
> This is reflected in the IETF credo "“We reject kings, presidents and
> voting...."
> [snip]
> Surely it is better to listen to all voices and have a consensus
> emerge (or not).
>
> Is that not the more democratic process?
>
> At least my online dictionary defines democracy as:
>
> "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme
> power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them..."
>

Actually, McTim, no it is not democratic.  It is a hyper-conservative
status quo-protecting non-democratic procedure, and here's why:

A concensus procedure means that every individual or business has an
effective veto power (or whatever level of minority dissent it takes to
create "non-consensus" has this same veto power).

Given that vast amount of internet law and policy are created by contracts
and terms of service that are not negotiated but "take it or leave it."  If
one wishes to change this status quo, in a real democracy that takes 50%
plus one vote.  In a hyper-conservative "consensus" based model, it takes
something as high as 100% of the vote to perhaps 80%, depending on how
"consensus" is defined as a practical matter.   To me, "consensus" means
basically 100%, though on this list I've seen it defined at lower levels
than that, but still large super-majorities.

A fundamental problem in democracy law is the right of past or dead
generations to pass Constitutions or laws that bind future generations
SPECIFICALLY with the necessity of super-majorities to reverse or change
those provisions.  What right does a past generation have to bind the
present generation, on pain of a consensus or a super-majority, when
democracy means majority rule???

I acknowledge that democracy as most know it is representative democracy
that contains certain constitutional or fundamental provisions changeable
only by supermajorities via a difficult amendment procedure.

The consensus model you are trying to call democracy means the burden of
changing the system, on every issue big and little, carries the difficulty
with it that approximates the difficulty of amending a constitution.  That
is very conservative, whereas democracy is more tolerant and encouraging of
change.

It's not like I don't understand the beauties of certain processes in which
consensus is ATTEMPTED to be reached via real constructive dialog. I
actually advocate for that kind of process.

But here again, just as with Voice vs. Votes, there's a fundamental
distinction between Consensus-Process or Consensus-Voice, and the
requirement of consensus as restricting the power of the vote.

If one loves the status quo, it's a smart strategic move to support
consensus voting procedures, but it is not a democratic procedure if
consensus supermajorities are required for change.  That's not to say that
one should not aim to achieve harmony or consensus whenever possible, which
is always a good goal.

Put another way, even dictators must ultimately yield to consensus public
opinion, at least if that public opinion has any force and staying power
behind it.  The fact that consensus can usually change things even in a
dictatorship does not mean consensus driven processes FOR VOTING constitute
democracy.

There's no consensus on consensus, McTim.  :)

Paul Lehto, J.D.

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>



-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111103/f7937f69/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