[governance] Principles

[Riaz K Tayob]

I am always open to optimism of the will and pessimism of the intellect 
(ok I try...often unsuccesfully)...

The contextual issues in MSG at IGF are missing from the commodious term 
democracy (of which there are many)... let me put it blunty from a CIR 
perspective... we have a non-binding IGF with MSG but are effectively 
precluded from discussing CIR in large order... one would have expected 
a non-binding inclusive process to be just the opposite... perhaps more 
work is needed with some guidance from critics otherwise we just a half 
glass full while others drink up the water while we are not looking...


On 2012/10/01 05:07 PM, Norbert Klein wrote:
>
> 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/20121002/b3339cb0/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