[governance] In Multistakeholderism, those who would be Lobbyists become Legislators, & nobody else has a vote

[Paul Lehto]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 27/10/2012, at 1:02 AM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
> The critical - and illegitimate - move in the above is to redefine
> democratically elected representatives as merely ONE stakeholder among
> many.  This radically demotes the only legitimate form of governance -
> those that derive their authority from the consent of the governed via
> elections - to just one voice among many (undemocratic) voices.
>
> So governments are the only legitimate stakeholders in Internet
> governance?  I don't think you can just wave away the practical problems
> with this - the democratic deficits in all intergovernmental bodies, and
> the fact that there are transnational (border-crossing) interests that
> governments have no democratic mandate to take into account - so even in
> theory, they are not adequate representatives of the public interest.
>

Jeremy just answer the question: What gives any individual or group the
right to force other people to do their will by calling it "law"?  Without
this legitimacy, law is just force expressed by the powerful against the
powerless.

Does inheriting a throne confer legitimacy?  Being annointed by God?
Historically, through modern times, it's been considered very important to
establish legitimacy of rule, so much so that royal bloodlines or myths
were created in order to establish the right to rule.  These are
historically discredited in the vast majority of areas of the world,
including those that feature ceremonial monarchs.  The only method of
obtaining legitimacy that has any significant appeal over a broad area is
that of democracy, where the right to rule is derived from the consent of
the governed via elections.

Not being legitimate in the authority to rule is a huge practical problem.
Why should anyone listen to or obey the rules of outfits lacking democratic
legitimacy?  Because they are enforced at the point of a gun, ultimately?
That's rule through intimidation, and it doesn't help much if the rules are
arguably wise if they are simply the product of force.

On the other hand, if after a fair process of elections, either direct or
through representatives, a result has been reached, the losing minority has
participated and had its chance and must abide by the result and its
enforcement.

Question back to you Jeremy:  What gives you, or any MS governance outfit,
the right to force other people to do your will?  If you can't trace your
authority back to some election (e.g. being appointed by elected
legislators, etc), then the public power you purport to exercise is
illegitimate.

No matter how weak, or strong, one considers the democratic monopoly on
legitimacy to be, all other claims to legitimacy are significantly more
fragile, much more questionable.  If the claim is based on wisdom or
expertise, why not make following the rules derived from that policy
totally voluntary and based on persuasion of others and at all on enforced
rules or standards?

Paul Lehto, J.D.

>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:*
> http://consint.info/RightsMission
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4965 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121026/2cb47f26/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