[governance] Principles

[Norbert Klein]

Interesting and important.

My question relates to this part: “the degree to which such processes 
could at all be called ``democratic`` at least within any definition of 
the term that I (or I would expect most of us) would understand.”

There is an assumption what “most of us” would expect – but it is not 
defined.

So I assume – maybe wrongly? - it is a kind of “one man (or woman) one 
vote”? If not – so what? Please elaborate.

This surely was a good principle – it was used a lot arguing, for 
example, against the South African Apartheid regime which rejected it.

Was it a triumph of democracy when the National 
Socialists*(*the*“Na*tionalso*zi*alisten*” = Nazi”),*with the help of 
the German National People's Party 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_National_People%27s_Party>, were 
victorious in elections inMarch 1933 –starting a dark age of German 
history, tremendous damage on many others too.

“Demo-cracy” hints at a concept that the will of the people governs. But 
how?

The Cambodian People's Party has gained more and more seats in the 
National Assembly through every vote since 1993 – but the UN Special 
Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Cambodia has raised 
serious concerns becausethe electoral system – especially the National 
Election Committee – is controlled by government appointees, NOT 
representing the plurality of parties in the National Assembly. And 
thousands and thousands of people forcefully evicted from their 
traditional areas of residency have not only lost their homes, but they 
are no longer on residency related voter lists.

Is the one-country-one-vote - on the UN level – more democratic, where 
14 million Cambodia havethe same vote-weight as 235+ million of Indonesia?

The question is not only: What is democratic? – In the actual situations 
where we live it meansalso: How do we move towards the good goal that 
“the people's” benefits (not the majority of the people who voted in the 
Nazis in Germany, I add, without offering at the same time a rationale 
for my personal opinion here) are central?

It is on this background that I well understand theshort statement 
(which is open to misunderstandings) about Internet Governance:

“Multistakeholderism**IS**  the highest form of participatory democracy”

If it is not – so what else, and how?


Norbert Klein
Phnom Penh/Cambodia

=

On 10/1/2012 7:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> Wolfgang and all,
>
> I`ve just had an opportunity to observe at somewhat close hand a series of
> multi-stakeholder processes at work (in Agriculture planning) in several
> African countries... I was quite impressed for a number of reasons which I
> won`t go into here (I`m currently working on the report...
>
> However, one conclusion that I would draw is that while
> `multi-stakeholderism` is in at least some instances very effective as an
> inclusive, let`s say `participative` management tool it is very far from
> what I, or I think almost anyone would call ``democratic`` (unless, as in
> some I think, quite perverse instances, one chooses to conflate the notions
> of management with democracy).
>
> The problem is that while multi-stakeholderism is inclusive of interests it
> is not necessarily accountable or representative of or for those interests.
> So for example, while a national or reagional farmers` union might be a very
> effective stakeholder representative of the interests of small holder
> farmers the precise process of accountability and representivity is in many
> instances a very open question subject to for example, the personailities of
> individuals, literacy, access to media and information, political
> interference etc. etc. The latter caveats do not preclude the former
> affirmations but they do strongly bracket the degree to which such processes
> could at all be called ``democratic`` at least within any definition of the
> term that I (or I would expect most of us) would understand.
>
> I think your broad objective of pursuing a framework for multi-stakeholder
> governance of the Internet is a worthwhile one and one I hope to contribute
> to in Baku, however, I think a useful outcome of that initiative would still
> leave open the question of overall democractic governance and accountability
> of the Internet.
>
> Best,
>
> Mike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121001/7ed08bae/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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