[governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting)

Sun Feb 17 06:39:04 EST 2013

On Sunday 17 February 2013 08:43 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> That term progressive, in the 'right' hands seems to produce, as 
> parminder himself says, a distrust of multistakeholder processes, and 
> I personally can't think of anything more regressive.
>

Only becuase i am (mis) quoted by name, I must correct it - i spoke of 
mistrust of normatively loose conceptions of multistakeholderism, and 
not necessarily of multistakeholderism..... Since in the very next 
sentence i say that such kind of normative loose-ness is the biggest 
enemy of multistakeholderism, it is obvious that i am not opposed to any 
kind of multistakeholderism but only some kinds.....
>
>
> So please, I know where the term originally came from, but avoiding 
> repurposing a much older English word to mean something entirely 
> different would be a very good thing indeed.
>
> Has it ever been considered that the opposition to this brand of 
> politics (a focus on control of words, terms and if possible 
> governance structures) as opposed to policy, comes more from people 
> who work on the ground, hands on, in multistakeholder groups on 
> whatever cause?
>
> In such a case, it may then be quite arguable which side is actually 
> representing public interest, or whether there can be one true 
> perception of such interest on more nuanced topics. So, that test 
> fails if you try to seek positive proof, rather than 'negative'
>
> --srs (htc one x)
>
>
> On 17 February 2013 12:23:56 AM "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" wrote:
>
>> carry on! slice and dice until you're alone! you'll be at the top of 
>> the hill. Much of a top but not much of a hill.
>>
>> leave any claim to diversity and any chance for tech-knowledge based 
>> input by the wayside.
>>
>> What a waste of Roland's, Suresh's and McTim's good will, honesty and 
>> energy expense.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Alejandro Pisanty
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>> Facultad de Química UNAM
>> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>>
>> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>>
>> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
>> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
>> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, 
>> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
>> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
>> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Desde:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de parminder 
>> [parminder at itforchange.net]
>> *Enviado el:* sábado, 16 de febrero de 2013 02:52
>> *Hasta:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> *Asunto:* Re: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus 
>> contribution, consultation and MAG meeting)
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 14 February 2013 01:26 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> <snip)
>>> And that sounds like it includes my recent activity, which has been 
>>> working with interest-based charities, volunteers etc who have a 
>>> focus on one particular aspect of social justice, human rights and 
>>> the rule of law: Prevention of violence against women - in 
>>> particular those who are tracked and harassed via their Internet 
>>> footprint (commonly on social networking sites).
>>>
>>> However, I'm also aware that in order to achieve the goal of 
>>> protecting women, some people might characterise the techniques 
>>> involved as forms of selective censorship and attempts to strip away 
>>> anonymity (in both cases with respect to their attackers).
>>>
>>> So not every part of Civil Society necessarily has the same view on 
>>> core issues such as these.
>>
>> No, congruity of views in not the test. Working for public interest 
>> is. Although there can be different and contested notions of public 
>> interest - and that space of contestation, negotiation and possible 
>> resolution/ harmonisation is called politics, (No, Suresh, politics 
>> is not what you think it is. It is a good word, although it, like 
>> almost anything else - markets for instance, can involve bad/ 
>> manipulative practises as well as outcomes.)
>>
>> There is ages old distinction between public interest and private 
>> interest, including organised private interests, and this distinction 
>> holds now as ever. Any non-governmental body involved in public 
>> interest issues/ advocacy is a civil society organisation. In fact I 
>> will accept a definition broader than the one used by Council of 
>> Europe and quoted by Norbert. I will include organisation that dont 
>> believe in the concept of 'social justice', may in fact decry this 
>> concept as dangerous to people's liberties, (there are so many of 
>> them, esp in the US - BTW, Milton has said on this list that there is 
>> no thing like social justice) as long as such organisations truly 
>> believe that they are working in the larger public interest, and not 
>> narrow private interests of defined parties. (No, working, say, on 
>> disability rights cannot be called as working for private interests 
>> of defined parties. It is public interest work, and 'disabled people' 
>> are here to be considered as a distinct 'public group' and not a 
>> private group. Dont have space or time to argue the basis of this 
>> distinction any further here.)
>>
>> These distinctions are hallowed norms of democratic public life for 
>> decades now, if not centuries.... The extent of anti-democratic 
>> thought that has permeated into many people's conception of what is 
>> presented as a new political model of multistakeholderism is the 
>> reason that many progressive groups have begun to look at (such 
>> conceptions of) multistakeholderism itself with suspicion. It is this 
>> kind of normative loose-ness - that works for the interests of the 
>> more powerful rather than the less powerful, for whom democracy is 
>> supposed to work) - that is multistakeholderism's biggest enemy.
>>
>>
>> The normative basis and boundaries of and within multistakeholderism, 
>> and its relationship with democracy, have to saved, as well as 
>> expounded very clearly, for  it to be seriously considered as a form 
>> / system of participatory democracy. (If that is what MSism really is 
>> in the minds of its proponents.)
>>
>> In the end, when such discussions as this one takes place, I can 
>> hardly ever stop myself from re(quoting) the father of free market 
>> thinking, Adam Smith, who said...
>>
>>         "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for
>>         merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a
>>         conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to
>>         raise prices…. But though the law cannot hinder people of the
>>         same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do
>>         nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render
>>         them necessary. "
>>
>>
>>         "To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always
>>         the interest of the dealers…The proposal of any new law or
>>         regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought
>>         always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought
>>         never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully
>>         examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the
>>         most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men,
>>         whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the
>>         public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even
>>         oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many
>>         occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
>>
>>
>>
>> What a profanity it is to utter something like this in any 
>> multistakeholder environment... nay, it now seems it may be 
>> inadmissible even within a IG related CS group.... Adam Smith I 
>> understand may have been unceremoniously evicted from such spaces. 
>> Poor guy - and he thought he was trying to make (or mark) market 
>> thinking and economic-logic as a/ the premier force in our social 
>> systems.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/a2cacb7d/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