[governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland"

[Avri Doria]

On 23 Mar 2013, at 04:56, parminder wrote:

> It is important we develop some principles for civil society representation and selections.

Fair enough.

> 
> And here I will like to start with  top level issue highlighted in Michael's list of questions about the 'role of the focal point'. Frequently, based on their recognised work and presence in the area, some CS individuals/ organisations are asked by 'authorities' to provide civil society representatives as speakers, members of WGs and committees and so on. We should have clear principles and guidelines for how anyone who is given such a responsibility should carry it out.

Though I would start by looking at some of the principles that have been used by those selected as focal points over the years.  I think that generally the choices made by these focal points have been done in a principled manner, so we may already have a set of principles.  They just aren't gathered in one place as a reference or guideline.

So I think it is more an act of discovering and gathering than developing.

> 
> Along with other principles for representation and selection, we can get a set of guidelines and principles for 'focal points' adopted by the IGC as a resolution, and then get then perhaps also adopted by other CS networks in the area and have these principles well documented and publicized so that everyone in the future do goes by them. That would be an important tangible step forward.

As long as we don't go beyond guidelines to rules.  Each of the situations that call for a focal point to take some action will be different.  One of the problems with principles and guidelines is they sometimes become stuck as rules that allow no deviation and are used as weapons against the focal point.

> 
> I suggest some such principles and guidelines for 'focal points'.
> 
> Whenever anyone or any organisation is given the role of 'focal point' (or a similar role by another name), such a role needs to be seen as a responsibility to be taken on the behalf of civil society, and not as a privilege.

fair enough.

> 
> Being put into any such role -whatever be the communication from the concerned authorities -  should be seen as given the duty to 'organise a selection process' and not taken as the privilege 'do the selection'.

That depends.  If a speaker is needed in an hour, that process might need to be quite abbreviated and may indeed look like a selection.  And sometimes, even if is look more like a selection, that does not mean that one is doing it is considering it a privilege, but rather that they are accepting a responsibility to their best of behalf of CS and accepting the reality that they may be punished by CS, no matter what they do..

> 
> The communication about being given such a role should be immediately publicised among all civil society networks.

In principle I agree.  But what does 'immediately' mean?  Does it mean one gets berated if someone else published the notification before the focal point has the chance to do so?

Words like 'immediately' are useful for the gotcha mentality that makes sure that no matter what someone in a focal position does it is open to righteous attack. 

> 
> Their may be special circumstances (mostly, shortage of time) that do not allow the possibility of organising an ideal selection process (basic principles of which are provided elsewhere), in which case some ad hoc measures may be used (some principles/ guidelines for which are also provided separately), which should however be minimal and reasons thereof fully accounted for. Shortage of time should not be used as an excuse to avoid organising all aspects of an  'appropriate selection process'. As much of the ideal selection process as possible should be organised, and as little of it as absolutely required should may replaced by ad hoc process(es).

While I recognize that one should have reasons for deviating from accepted practice, to call it an excuse is once again to set the focal point up for an attack.

> 
> Any ad hoc measures obviously leave some matters to the discretion of the concerned person/ organisation. They should however be fully willing and available  to have them debated and to defend them. For this purpose, all information about such ad hoc matters should be made public, unless clear reasons against such transparency can be provided. Even for such ad hoc measures, some basic self-guidelines should be developed and documented. While the focal point needs to fully justify resorting to any and every ad hoc process, all information about them in any case should be made publicly available so that others can form an independent opinion on them.

Again: ' to defend'.  why not 'to explain'.  The presumption seems to be that the focal point will do something wrong and will be the target of attack.  Why build this notion into the principles and guidelines?  Yes, they should expect questions about what they do, but to have it defined from the start as a need 'to defend' seems to put the process on the wrong footing as an adversarial process.

What 'to any and every' ad-hoc process mean?  To me it looks like yet another way to setup the focal point for criticism.  I can already hear "You forgot to mention xyz - you are a bad focal point" in the future if we adopt principles and guidelines with such terms and attitudes.

> 
> Maybe we can also add something to the effect that:
> 
> Civil society has strong traditions of a deliberative culture, and extreme transparency and accountability. In any post -selections discussion it is but normal that some may not agree with some processes that were employed, especially if some ad hoc arrangements were involved as per above. Any focal point that would have chosen would and should be strong enough to stand such critical comments and provide justification from its side, and stand by it. While undue personalised comments should not be made in such discussions (and will not be accepted in any discussions), it is also important that genuine engagement, even criticism, of the process should not be construed as personal criticism or targeting.

While anyone who does anything in CS needs thick skin, especially on the IGC, I think building in a notion of there being  'due personalized comments' (assuming the word undue implies a notion of due) is problematic.  I read this as warning any focal point who dares accept such responsibility that they will need to run the gauntlet.  Not a good way to start in my opinion.

> 
> There are other issues but well, the above is one set. More later.

One thing that worries me in this note and in this conversation taken at this point is that some may decide that there is implied criticism of the process that was used in CS this time around.  I think the relatively established processes, though it had its adhoc moments, followed by IGC  and the crafted for purpose process followed by Anriette where both very well done and are above all forms of criticism other than nitpicking.  I think they make good exemplars.

And although I have already sent thanks to both personally, I want to acknowledge here how honored I was to be picked in both of these processes for candidacy.

Thanks

avri


- CS - Civil Society
- Run the gauntlet -  A form of medieval punishment (still used in various secret societies today) where a person would need to run between two lines of knightly who took their opportunity to beat you as you ran by.  Generally taken today to mean "To go through a series of criticisms or harsh treatments at the hands of one's detractors."
- Gotcha mentality - Basically a form of argument where a speaker sets up situations and questions in such a way that it becomes impossible for a respondent to respond without fueling an responding attack.  Good examples of this can be seen in the interrogative modes of conversation used by groups such as police forces, regulators and senate committees.


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