[governance] Re: What else is discrimination?

Thu Apr 11 02:12:53 EDT 2013

Unfortunately, many people's stand is where they sit. Arrogant communications which can instigate anyone is old time bad politics and zero intimidating in current environment.

I really hope Suresh to bear all this with dignity & courage. I have seen him taking the causes in a few yet very effective words. 

Regards

Naresh Ajwani

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:41 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?

If some people here insist on treating the recent episode of first a warning and then suspension of the posting rights of a member as one of political bias by co-cos, then perhaps it is worth having a discussion on the subject of political biases on this list.

It is interesting to note how easily, and somewhat unceremoniously, such deep allegation have been made against the co-cos, and I understand that it is mostly Norbert who is being targeting. Being an avid supporter of democratic and accountability seeking processes I do not really have any major issues with these 'accusations'. If some people do feel this way well let them say it (although preferably substantiate it better). Norbert has responded to each  of these accusatory points in good details also pointing to the avenues where further recourse lies. I also encourage the disaffected parties to pursue these avenues. 

Meanwhile, let me  contribute my views on the proposition that has been put forward regarding 'two sides of a political spectrum' and corresponding political biases on this list. Yes, there is a strong political bias coming from an entrenched 'structure of power' on this list. That bias is in fact exactly the opposite direction to what has been made out by the recent accusations. Although anyone who has tried to pursue with any seriousness a counter-hegemonic view on this list knows only too well what this 'structure of power' here is and with what kind of devastating effectiveness it works, a few recent examples may still be useful because entrenched social power also has this thing about quickly getting invisible, although no less potent for that.

Taking again from the serious attacks against the integrity of Norbert - our duly elected co-coordinator -  one is reminded how very recently some questions were raised on this list about very important constitutive processes of multistakeholderism (MSiism) - with regard to definitions and selection processes of representatives of the so-called technical and academic community. In that case, the integrity of the concerned 'high officers' (as in holders of a public duty, somewhat like our co-cos) was never questioned by anyone. Simply some definition clarifications were sought, and some corresponding arguments made. And what happened? The concerned person gives one indirect response, which includes a gross personal accusation against Michael, which was confirmed later to be false, and refuses to engage from there on, even to withdraw the false accusation (of what has now come to be known as 'double dipping'). Meanwhile, and see how the 'structure of power' operates on this list, numerous contributions came down harshly on those who had raised the process questions, attributing all kinds of personal motives to those who raised the questions (please note at which point a discussion is rendered ad hominen). Inter alia, I was accused repeatedly of having a 'gotcha mentality'. Now, I can assure you friends, that when a concerted 'shut up' attack of this kind is launched, using an elaborate rank and file arrangement, and often employing sophisticated English/ slang by native speakers, it is mostly enough to 'shut people up'. I still want to know from the 'right thinking' but perhaps silent people on this list why should such 'shutting up' tactics be accepted and condoned, which is where the shift to ad hominem first takes place, whereby political arguments are ascribed to personal characteristics of the dissenting people.  

To continue with explicating examples, a little later, I asked for a discussion about the processes employed by civil society focal point for CSTD selection, and even before anything substantial could be said or discussed at all, words like 'gotcha thinking' and 'be careful' etc begun flowing on the list. (Compare this with the unguarded allegations against Norbert.) Rather amusing, but also very instructive of what are the 'structures of power' on this list, and what political biases have their way. (One member even asked me to be careful not to say anything that may 'irritate him' - what cheek! Can anyone from the other side of the 'political spectrum' ever aspire to such a high social standing whereby such smug pre-warnings can be issued !!) While I wanted a simple discussion, some process clarifications, and to contribute to codifying procedures for the future, the fact is that the discussion simply could not take place. Neither I have the clarifications I wanted, nor could we codify good processes for the future. Such multifarious pressures and tactics get brought into play, all of course based on the existing 'structure of power'.  Now if this is the fate of an effort initiated by me who by any standard is rather hardened after all the skirmishes and battles on this list (no doubt very tough to survive) one can predict what may happen to any such move from other likely 'dissenters'. Well, they mostly dont speak up. People recognise and work within the 'structure of power'. Not that they are necessary compromised thus, just that the cost in terms of time, personal exposure etc becomes too much for most.....

All this of course has a long and ongoing history. A few months back, some of us trying to discuss problematic practices of google were told to back off, and in rather harsh terms. This is the 'structure of power'. People learn to estimate the cost of opening up certain issues on this list, and that is what has the chilling effect. A list of taboo issues has thus been created - and the cost of breaking these taboos is clear. If a few hardier ones still persist, then they can be pulled into personalised exchanges (employing some people relatively good at such techniques) and the real options before those who seek to carry on doing the required political work become rather difficult. I wont elaborate, but one needs to be in such positions to know what it takes to persist with ones political convictions and political work in such a situation. It is rather too easy (and sometimes convenient) to take narrow moralistic positions from rarefied heights on these issues, in a manner that could be blind to the operation of the 'power structure' which seeks to control the nature of debate in this civil society group. 

The fact that accusations of political bias on Norbert are being made so easily and repeatedly also follows the contours of such a power structure. Were it that a person from the 'other side of the political spectrum' had done but a fraction of what the 'offending member' did in the present instance, he would have been chased off the list months back. For the last many months almost anything I post on the list is responded to almost immediately by the concerned member in a most personalised ad hominem manner - of the kind ' you and/ or your organisations is like this or that'.....  For months now I never reply to his emails (please check archives). However, such a behaviour does considerably constrain my ability to do a meaningful discussion on this list. Still, neither did I seek his removal from the list or even suspension, nor I do so now. He can stay, and we would manage rather well despite him.

Our elected co-coordinator can so easily be subject to rather serious allegations, and he responds to all of them without taking offence. On the other hand, there are others from which even to ask clarificatory questions leads to volleys of personalised accusations against those who dare question, and other, often sophisticated, stonewalling tactics.... So if there indeed are political biases and power structures on this list, the nature of them is quite evident. 

It may be difficult to judge who is right and who less so in a debate, or between two sides of a 'political spectrum'; however it is much easier to judge who resists some kind of discussions and debates and who and what kind of perspectives are victims of such resistance. Such an exploration may be the best way to begin understanding what is happening on the list, and what all the 'right thinking people' must stand up against. Norbert merely acted against the steep gradient of existing power structure in fulfilling his duty. The kind of allegations of political bias that are pouring in is just the minimum he has to face. He has also earned various kinds of black marks vis a vis the powerful of the IG comity, and he will have to contend with the negative consequences of concerning any kind of standing and growth in the global IG space. But some people just take the attitude - what the heck, simply stick to the principles, and ones political convictions. I congratulate Norbert for that. 

parminder 

On Wednesday 10 April 2013 12:36 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote:

Thanks for this clarification, and since we are in a phase about turning over a new leaf: 

The allegations against the coordinators is indeed a serious one, of bias (understanding of course your decision was made not on one incident). On the one hand it may be the usual tenor of the list - for instance calling ad hominem as in one instance with a post by Gurstein, that was followed the allegation, then promptly onto substantive discussion. On the other, it is an allegation posted on the list for consumption.  

As this applies to the conduct of the co-co's as being biased against a particular view on the political spectrum, this is very serious indeed. As such I would like to know what you intend to do about these serious allegations made against you that reflects not only on yourselves but the IGC as well. IMHO a matter like this needs to be escalated so that we all are comfortable with the process and continued role of the co-co's. If an important constituency feels this way, left unaddressed, it can only have a chilling effect. 

So outside of the particular case that spurred this allegation (its merits being a separate matter, detached but not unlinked), could you please now deal with this serious allegation as we simply cannot have people on this list feeling this way. As one Third Worldist I know all too often the effects of marginalisation, and hope these allegations are dealt with seriously, in strict accordance with the Charter and that it is not left to fester. If handled correctly, it will go a long way to chilling what ought to be limited, spurious allegations, and provide all with the comfort that these kinds of allegations will be made in circumstances that have an objective probability of success in 'prosecution'. 

I am sorry to put you on the spot about this, but needs must. Thank you for making this attempt, it cannot be easy, but I am sure many on this list would like decorum on this list that is comfortable... 

Riaz 

On 2013/04/10 12:03 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: 

[with IGC coordinator hat on] 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130411/7e58a158/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