[governance] democratic processes (was Re: Internet as a commons/ public good)

[Norbert Bollow]

Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote on 25 Apr 2013, in reply to
a posting from me:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > 
> > Even if IETF's processes do not follow the traditional patterns of
> > democracy (in particular, they do not involve voting, and they make
> > it hard for non-techies to participate) really the only major
> > hurdles to effective participation in the decision-making processes
> > that have been shaping the Internet (in the sense of the
> > communication network, not talking about the broader sense of
> > "Internet" right now that includes the epiphenomenon) have been
> > willingness to engage and having a sufficient understanding of the
> > subject matter under discussion to actually understand the
> > suggestions and the relevant arguments.
> > 
> > The technical development of the Internet in its significant early
> > formative stage was not driven by special interest type business
> > interests, but by people who truly care about what I'd call the
> > public interest.
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] So let's summarize your argument. There was
> nothing like "democracy" in the internet's early technical
> development,

That is not what I wrote.

In my view, there are processes that do not involve voting (and
hence do not conform what I called “the traditional patterns of
democracy” but which can nevertheless appropriately be called
“democratic”.

Specifically I would suggest that this is the case for appropriately
institutionalized consensus processes, and that it is also the case
under some circumstances for exploratory technical development
processes where forking (*) is legally and practically possible.

By the way, the Tunis Agenda seems to also use the word “democratic” in
such a broader sense where voting does not seem to be involved in what
is meant:

“The international management of the Internet should be multilateral,
transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments,
the private sector, civil society and international organizations.”

“The Internet Governance Forum, in its working and function, will be
multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent.”

> [Milton L Mueller] I'm sorry, but those processes were democratic
> only in relation to the very, very small group of men (about 95%) who
> participated in them. Who by the way were also about 95% American and
> European.

In ancient Athens, only a small minority was legally allowed to
participate in the democratic processes. That does not invalidate the
fact that the male citizens of Athens have made an important
contribution to the development of democracy.

Of course I agree that any and all barriers to the participation of
people who would otherwise be interested are serious problems,
especially when there are barriers that have a systemic discriminatory
effect.

However I disagree with the view that the removal of barriers to
participation will automatically make a decision-making system more
democratic. For example, it is often mentioned that corporations pay
taxes, but they are not represented in parliaments. Would it make a
system of parliamentary democracy more democratic to change it so that
half of the members of parliament are elected by corporations and only
the other half is elected according to the public vote of the citizens?
Of course not! The resulting “multistakeholder”(?) system would IMO not
even deserve to be called democratic at all.

> The game is much bigger, many more people are involved, and
> now it is MORE democratic in that sense, and as a consequence of
> being more democratic, people bring their economic interests to the
> table. That is inevitable. It is part of democracy, you cannot
> insulate society from that. To a farmer, farm subsidies may be in the
> public interest, and certainly you cannot deny that farmers are part
> of the public. Any concept of democracy that has no role for the
> negotiation of economic interest is irrelevant.

In negotiations those who have more power typically have more influence
on the result.

I don't object e.g. to the negotiation of coalition treaties that
occurs regularly in some systems of parliamentary democracy, because
the relevant kind of power there is of democratic origin and it will
last only until the next election.

If we move from traditional democratic governance to some kind of
governnance that involves multistakeholder processes, I think we need
to be very careful to avoid structures that effectively give any
political power on the basis of economic power. 

> By the way, where does market-based governance figure in your world
> view?

In every area where markets produce good results that can be reasonably
viewed as being in the public interest, and to the full extent that
that is the case, it is from my perspective the preferred form of
governance to simply allow private enterprises and the markets to do
their job.

> Granted that markets need to be checked (but so do democratic
> processes), they provide individual users and suppliers a great deal
> of freedom to interact in mutually acceptable ways. Why does this
> form of governance - which has played such a vital role in making the
> internet accessible and innovative and beneficial - NEVER show up in
> your discussions?

I don't think that I would be telling anyone anything new if I were to
write about that non-problem.

There are however some problems that need to be addressed, and there is
a need for appropriate mechanisms and appropriate concepts for doing
that.

> Repression of unpopular groups and views can be democratically
> popular.

Repression of unpopular groups and views might be popular, but unless
this is about groups and views which are somehow illegitimate to
the point of being actually harmful to someone, I think that it is clear
that such repression cannot qualify as being democratic. Even in
contexts where democracy is implemented by means of majority voting, if
a majority desires something that would violate the fundamental values
on which democracy is based, actually making that decision cannot be
democratic because it cannot be democratic to violate the foundation of
democracy. For example, the state-sanctioned murder of Socrates may have
been popular among the 500-man jury of Athenians that sentenced him to
death, but it certainly wasn't democratic.

Greetings,
Norbert

(*) Note: For some information on forking in the context of software
development, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29
A similar freedom to fork also exists in regard to technical
developments pertaining to the Internet that are not encumbered by
patents and that are conducted in the open e.g. by means of discussion
via Internet-Drafts.

-- 
Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC:
1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept


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