[governance] Re: CIRP+

[David Allen]

This question - of what might be some new form of governance - is a  
perennial for IGC.  We have circled around it, by now several times.

To note some of points of discussion:

 From Wolfgang
May 13, 2012 4:59:24 AM EDT
> a body which is able to produce rough consensus


Consensus implies legitimacy.  In the case of civil society, that  
encompasses several billion folks.

A handful of individuals, debating on a listserve, just are not - in  
the end - able to proclaim, with any credibility, that consensus.

Very much more to the point - aggregating all the many, many views is  
one crux of the question.  As below.

> hierarchical thinking of the 20th century. What we need is a network  
> thinking for the 21st century


Hierarchy is gone, network is in?

Humans have been operating with social networks for thousands of  
years, at the least.  Most decidedly there is nothing new underlying,  
certainly not on account of a calendar system that by happenstance  
turned a triple zero number, 2000 ...  Nor have the hierarchical  
inclinations, also hard-wired into the genome, suddenly gone into  
hibernation.  Evolution does not work that way.

What could be new is some thinking that artfully understood, better,  
how these weave together.  To address, notably, the aggregation of  
views question.

As indeed Parminder asks
May 13, 2012 5:53:44 AM EDT
> tell us clearly what would be the structure of this new mechanism,  
> what functions will it perform, and how, what would be its outcomes  
> and how will they be implemented.



Then again from Wolfgang
> CS was invited to WSIS, now we are here and we want to participate  
> in Realpolitik. To give us a seat on the table


On the one side, Realpolitik alerts that power is the underlying  
issue. Those who have it - governments, particularly of the North;  
increasingly BRIC countries et al,; several large private actors;  
among others - will not be ceding that power without good reason.  As  
the interminable discussion of EC illustrates.

At the same time on the other side, the prospect for some new, more  
suitable arrangements - as Wolfgang brings up - do turn it seems on an  
appeal to “more democracy.”  A shibboleth that may, because its claims  
are sound, be more than a rallying cry for change.  Power may actually  
shift.

A robust democracy, built from understanding the mix of hierarchy and  
network, one that actually achieves legitimate aggregation of views -  
in other words, this could be a democracy that actually moves toward  
lofty goals.


As Paul Lehto has said more than once, but once again here
May 8, 2012 2:28:06 PM EDT
> the "stakeholder" stuff can at most only be seen as an intermediate  
> and transition-state to real democracy.



WSIS Forum week, MAG, IGF consultations, EC the end of the week -  
these will all take our time.  In the meantime these large questions  
will not go away.

David

____________________________________________________________
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