[governance] Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

+1, I said much the same in an earlier post, but what you say here puts it much better

Dominant reasonable views are a consensus, not a "hegemony". Hegemony is more like the attempt to forcibly impose unacceptable minority views on a majority (like say a nation forcing the adoption of a particular religious or political ideology, all the way to the assiduous pushing of a proposal like CIRP that explicitly does not have consensus or acceptability).

If an individual or group's participation can be seen to guarantee power politics and oneupmanship, conflict with / attempts to exclude a class of peers with shared goals, and the advocacy of proposals that actually veer towards multilateralism, civil society remains much better off not choosing such people or groups to represent them.

--srs (iPad)

> On 26-Dec-2013, at 11:47, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 23 Dec 2013, at 11:38 pm, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
> 
>>> and need to be the sort of people who can be expected to work with their fellow CS representatives, and not at cross-purposes.
>> 
>> Avri,
>> this is a very dangerous argument for pushing the continued dominance of a narrow set of perspectives on IG. What one disagrees with can be characterised as being at 'cross purposes'. Give a dog a bad name and hang it! whereas the very strength and even legitimacy of CS lies in enabling diverse and even conflicting views to emerge and to be listened to.  Every time I read about such arguments I fear that CS may be only ending up supporting 'dominant reasonable views' ('dominant reasonable views' = hegemony)
> 
>    Guru - are you arguing that we should select representative specifically regardless of whether they are able to work with their fellow CS representatives? Given the very limited number of CS representatives, it is hard to see how that is helpful. 
> We should, of course, be mindful of the need to represent minority views - but not so much that it interferes with the ability of our very limited number of representatives to represent majority views, and indeed minority views other than their own. 
>    I appreciate the argument to represent the views of those under-represented in IG processes - but all of CS is under represented in IG processes. 
>    I do not think that asking those selected to represent the views of civil society do their best to represent the views of all of civil society is unreasonable. I'm quite surprised to find that it is. 
> 
>    Cheers
>        David
> 
> 

-------------- 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