[governance] Principles

Mon Oct 1 15:24:30 EDT 2012

How many times has this list been around this track ...?

Norbert Klein rightly brings to attention the difficulties to which  
democracy can be prey.

And Winston Churchill helped us understand - in that very sober light  
- where we stand today:  "... democracy is the worst form of  
government except all the others that have been tried."

By no stretch of the imagination does so-called multi-stakeholderism  
hold out prospect to be a replacement.

That does not of course remove the terrible blemishes democracy may  
create.  In fact, another Churchill quote holds that:  "The best  
argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the  
average voter."

What is clear is that we just might benefit from some quality thinking  
and some hard, collaborative work, to try to understand how  
representativeness may be instantiated, in a much-more-connected  
world, and especially in a world that now truly becomes global.  Where  
agreement among very many, and many very different, actors is now  
often urgent.  But more and more difficult to cobble together, because  
of the scale and attendant complexity.  Yet, ultimate power in  
individual citizen hands is therefore all the more paramount, as the  
starting point.

Rather than shibboleths, as seemingly easy - but really just facile -  
answers, we might apply ourselves to the serious work at hand.

As Michael Gurstein has encouraged.

David

On Oct 1, 2012, at 10:36 AM, michael gurstein wrote:

> Very good question Norbert and I well accept your cases and I don't  
> have any easy answers (but nor I think, does anyone else…
>
> Two things though, I know for sure that governance by self- 
> appointed, essentially unaccountable "stakeholders" is not  
> "democracy" at least by any definition I understand, and also that  
> we probably need to have some sort of collective rethinking/ 
> redefinition of what we do mean by democracy in an age of  
> instantaneous and essentially free and massified communication and  
> information, the capacity for borderless (and defenseless) action at  
> a distance, mass literacy, and other manifestations of the  
> technologically transformed world that has emerged and would be  
> completely unrecognizable to the conceptualizers of representative  
> democracy in the 18th and 19th century.
>
> Issues of scale and unit (macro and micro the neighborhood, the  
> tribe, the province, the nation, the world);  issues of  
> accountability and transparency (increased opportunity for and  
> increased means to avoid), issues of efficacy (personal, collective,  
> associative) and a wide range of others need to be accounted for and  
> I think "we" as a species have only just started that rethinking  
> process…
>
> In the meantime abandoning something that we do know and understand  
> and have some experience with for leaps in the dark seems to me to  
> be a not very useful place to begin.
>
> M
>
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 10:08 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Principles
>
> 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  
> “Nationalsozialisten” = Nazi”), with the help of the German National  
> People's Party, were victorious in elections in March 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 because the 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 have the same vote-weight as 235+ million  
> of Indonesia?
> The question is not only: What is democratic? – In the actual  
> situations where we live it means also: 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 the short 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121001/8ac9d342/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