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

Fri Nov 4 13:30:46 EDT 2011

I am enjoying the discussions and exchange of views etc on the subject
matter.This is my 2cents.

Firstly - take the word "stake" and replace it "interest". Just as property
can have different competing interests, for example,

   - legal interest (such as a title or a "charge" or hold eg.
   mortgage/charge/encumbrance);
   - equitable interest (no direct ownership - but interest is determined
   by the level of impact (good or bad) by those holding possession;
   - usufructory interest;
   - proprietary interest;

Because the Internet has so many diverse and complex "stakeholders" and all
> with varying degrees of "stake" or "interests" how does one when looking to
> see how you give a voice or vote or a combination of both to its complex
> governance processes. To this end there are two dichotomies, and
> potentially polar views.
>

We had a previous thread in which we had some interesting discussions on
perception. In that thread, there was a graphic image, where people were
asked what they could see. Where some saw an old woman, others saw a young
girl. Similarly, if we take the internet, because there are quite a number
of lenses (resulting from training/culture/context/socialisation etc), for
me I am embracing the diversity of perspectives on this single thread and
trying to appreciate the tapestry.

>From a real law perspective - I would agree with everything that Paul wrote
in his initial email. Yes, true democracies are through votes and there are
people who may not be able to speak (physically challenged) but may be able
to vote with their hand etc but within sovereign  territories, true
democratic rule is through free and fair elections where people elect their
people to govern them and perform all the functions of government which in
a nutshell is to serve and protect the people who elected them. On the same
token, you have governments who do not have these processes, recent case in
point is the Syrian Government shooting their own civilians and there are
other governments and examples.  The reality is that all around the world,
you have certain governments who have forcefully come into power. People
within those countries live in fear and they have neither a voice nor a
vote.

In a democratic country, one expects the three arms of governments are
equal and separate and able to check and balance each other to achieve some
semblance of the rule of law. There are many countries around the world
that struggle in this area as one of the arms, usually the executive arm
dominates the other two - Wolfgang pointed to one of those countries.
Another country, Iran was creating its own cyber army to hunt down
dissidents, this was in a previous thread, I think.

There is a country in the Pacific that has had 4 Coup D' Etats and a
Putsche, I have witnessed the imbalance of internal check mechanisms and
usually in countries that go through the same, you have things like the
removal of the office of the Auditor General and publication of Reports,
you see the Judiciary being taken over by one of the arms and on certain
issues - you cannot expect a fair trial. There are laws made without
consultation of the masses and it is not robustly debated in Parliament
because Parliament has been dissolved.  There are other countries who are
strong and vibrant democracies of course like the United States, Australia
etc. When inter-governmental bodies convene such as the United Nations for
instance, they gather irrespective of whether they were voted in or not,
they are there by virtue of one single fact, they hold office within
Government. This is regardless of how they got into office but for as long
as they hold office. Yes all governments have one vote [if we were to be
pedantic - how did some of them get into government? - does the IGO care, I
would say that it would not for one reason - every nation is sovereign and
so technically every country gets to determine their own destinies, after
all was'nt this what self determination all about? The IGO will only care
on a few rare grounds and on exceptional circumstances to justify an
"intervention", anything outside this is forgotten or swept under the
carpet, left for some activist somewhere to highlight etc.

So the question is ultimately, "*Should the Public Sector be given
unfettered power over global internet policy?*"

When the WGIG gathered to discuss the form of governance and explored the
"multistakeholder" concept (I can't say I know what was discussed) but I am
assuming that they would have had to see the internet universe or what some
call the global internet ecosystem. They would have recognised and
appreciated that infrastructure is often by far and large in liberalised
markets owned by the Private Sector.

So some may ask, "*Should the Private Sector be given unfettered power over
global internet policy*?"

The role of civil society is made up of ordinary citizens (in our case -
netizens) who organise themselves outside of government and the public
service to deal with specific issues and concerns that normal governmental
processes cannot address by itself. They play a huge role in the protection
of global public interest. There are instances where certain companies have
been known to violate rights of privacy for some end users and in some
jurisdictions, take the recent example of the German Regulator who gave
notice to Facebook to remove the "tag feature" - this was effectively a
"check".

So some may ask, "*Should Civil Society be given unfettered power over
global internet policy*?"
Also when there are human rights violations over the internet, the strong
voice of civil society advocating for those who cannot speak because they
are scared of the repercussions from within their countries. Here the voice
of civil society creates a sort of "check".

To this end I would say that in a sense these three Sectors have the
capability of acting as a "natural" check and balance mechanism for each
other. The wisdom, and diplomacy that is so evident in the way "internet
governance" within the 2005 WGIG Report to me imputes the significance of
the very different roles  that the public sector, private sector and civil
society play and it does not take away from any their roles but in the
world of internet governance, they are meant to function alongside each
other. If in terms of policy development, any of these three sectors had
too much power, and others weak, then the "theory of check and balance"
becomes vulnerable to abuse. I gave the example of where I have seen this
in the Pacific country.

Of course these raises other issues such as how should these checks and
balance work within the Internet Universe.

Kind Regards,
Sala

____________________________________________________________

> 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
>
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111105/44d439bd/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