[governance] Principles

[David Allen]

On Oct 1, 2012, at 6:10 PM, Koven Ronald wrote:

> Dear All --
>
> This discussion really can't be serious. It opens up an incredible  
> can of worms and seems to be posited on the notion that the Internet  
> has revoked the 2,500 previous years of political philosophy and  
> history. The nation state is going to be with us for the foreseeable  
> future (that is to say, our lifetimes) as the source and locus of  
> law and power. The Internet has not put an end to the nation state,  
> much as some people on this list would like to believe.

Amen.

> Try telling a traffic policeman that he can't arrest you because  
> you're not a citizen but a netizen,  and see where you end up.

- ! -

> Cheers, Rony Koven

Cheers, indeed!  David

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu>
> To: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Sent: Mon, Oct 1, 2012 11:41 pm
> Subject: Re: [governance] Principles
>
> hmmm ...
>
> > We have to think about how in the 'post-democratic' order (in the
> > sense of post-nation state-based democracy) order legitimacy can be
> > conveyed in the process of producing norms.
>
> and
> > ... in post-democratic trans-national constellations ...
>
> So, we _presume_ a post-democratic order - so that we can legitimize
> something besides 'democracy'?
>
> I don't think so.  Such logic is circular.
>
> And:
>
> > We need to focus not on democracy as a concept, but legitimacy as a
> > goal.
>
>
> As Norbert has pointed out, the Nazi's were legitimate - to use the
> case, which is cited now, all over the web, ad nauseam.  To go beyond
> that case, Stalin still has many, many adherents in Russia.  A man who
> saw to the slaughter of millions and millions.  I can come up with
> some heinous American examples, I am sure, with only a little effort.
> How about the Ku Klux Klan, who just for instance ruled the US state
> of Indiana (where I am a native) through at least the 1930s?  And of
> course saw to lynchings, and all manner of the ugliest and most
> despicable acts.  They had legitimacy.
>
> Legitimacy, as the target?  I don't think so.
>
> On the other hand:
>
> > human rights-based, accountable government (and good governance)
> > based on real, periodic, secret elections.
>
>
>
> > We need to ensure that the rules we aim for are materially
> > reflective of the needs of those to whom they are applied.
>
> These could be first elements in a potentially productive discussion,
> to address the serious problems of greater scale and so complexity.
>
> _If_ they do not presume answers, but instead are in a spirit of real
> investigation.
>
> For instance:
>
> > Just as good democracy does nationally, multistakeholder-baesd
> > decision-making have heightened input legitimacy and lead to
> > normative outcomes that are materially reflective of the
> > individual’s central needs ...
>
> While counter cases simply abound - and so invalidate the proposition
> - at the same time there are successful, working instances which could
> be useful in thinking about possibilities, going forward.
>
> Once again, only if in a spirit of investigation, oh so early on in
> the process, without presumption of conclusions (which is the bane of
> successful intellectual work ... which dooms any such effort before it
> is begun).
>
>
> Certainly though, any useful discussion will begin and end with the
> interplay of power relations.  As I memorably heard Kenneth Arrow say,
> oh so many years ago, (of course the Kenneth Arrow of last century's
> mathematical neoclassical microeconomics, perhaps the first Economics
> Nobel, certainly one of the first):  After he had spent an hour
> explaining the calculus of perfect competition, he turned and said
> (words to the effect):  Or maybe, this result is rendered immaterial
> by the ability of two men to overpower one person.
>
> Democracy is about the little person retaining power, even in the face
> of power accumulations, be that by economic forces such as corporate
> behemoths who disenfranchise the little guy, or by autocrats bent on
> taking from their populace for their own benefit.
>
>
> Notwithstanding, with the greatest respect for a thesis about to be
> published.
>
> David
>
> On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at
> ) wrote:
>
> > Dear all
> >
> > though I enjoy this discussion I think there are two underlying
> > problems. 1) Most notions of democracy used in this (and a lot of
> > other) debate(s) are state-centred. They are no longer tenable as a
> > legitimating basis for the production of rules in transnational
> > constellations. To ensure that they are legitimate, we need a new
> > concept of democrac. 2)  Discussants often mix  up two different
> > notions of democracy: the formal and the material one. Formally,
> > democracy demands that each vote be counted. But that's not enough.
> > Over the years there has been developed an international cumstomary
> > law basis of what democracy materially truly means - human rights-
> > based, accountable government (and good governance) based on real,
> > periodic, secret elections.
> >
> > What does this mean for our debate? We need to focus not on
> > democracy as a concept, but legitimacy as a goal.
> >
> > How does this work? First of all, we need to look at the material,
> > not the formal, notion of democracy. We need to ensure that the
> > rules we aim for are materially reflective of the needs of those to
> > whom they are applied.
> >
> > Second, 'one (wo)man, one vote' is a nice slogan, but it's just no
> > enough in our post-national constellation. We have to think about
> > how in the 'post-democratic' order (in the sense of post-nation
> > state-based democracy) order legitimacy can be conveyed in the
> > process of producing norms.
> >
> > Now, what does this mean for the Internet Governance debate? We need
> > to identify the best process of how to convey legitimacy. This
> > process, as has been pointed out, is multistakeholderism. But
> > multistakeholderism is not a form of participatory democracy; it is
> > a new form of conveying legitimacy in post-democratic trans-national
> > constellations.
> >
> > Just as good democracy does nationally, multistakeholder-baesd
> > decision-making have heightened input legitimacy and lead to
> > normative outcomes that are materially reflective of the
> > individual’s central needs (and thus have high output legitimacy).
> >
> > This is one of the points I'm making in the published version of my
> > PhD which Eleven International will publish in autumn.
> >
> > So less talk about democracy, and more talk about legitimacy.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Matthias
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard)
> > Institute of International Law and International Relations
> > University of Graz
> > E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at
> > Blog | internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com
> > ________________________________________
> > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>
> > ] im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch]
> > Gesendet: Montag, 01. Oktober 2012 22:23
> > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > Betreff: Re: [governance] Principles
> >
> > Dear all
> >
> > I'm rather alarmed by Wolfgang's assertion that "Multistakeholderism
> > *IS* the highest form of participatory democracy".
> >
> > I would suggest that the main point of democracy is to safeguard the
> > public interest against being overpowered by powerful particular
> > interests.
> >
> > By contrast, multistakeholderism allows all stakeholders to
> > participate
> > without restriction. This implies that it cannot contain adequate
> > processes for making decisions on those questions which, due to
> > significant conflicts between different legitimate interest,  
> cannot be
> > resolved by rough consensus.
> >
> > It is true that democratic governance systems tend to have
> > imperfections, and I'm all in favor of working on fixing any and all
> > bugs that can be clearly identified and for which a known solution
> > strategy exists. One of these bugs is the current tendency of
> > governments (including in particular the judicial branch) to make
> > Internet related decisions without understanding what they're doing.
> > As you know I'm proposing to address this bug by means of a
> > multistakeholder process to create informative recommendation
> > documents to inform them better.
> > ( http://enhanced-cooperation.org/RFA/1 )
> >
> > But please let's avoid talking about multistakeholderism as if it in
> > itself somehow were an improved form of democracy. It isn't.
> >
> > Further, I agree with the points made by Michael Gurstein and David
> > Allen.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
> >
> > David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/b083da6d/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