[governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)

Sun Feb 9 12:52:07 EST 2014

A
> So, I really do not understand what you mean to say about  'same
> danger'... You cannot rise and claim corporatist MSism as you can claim
> democracy. Is it a small difference. Recently, a group, less than a year
> old, which was protesting corruption on the roads, and being openly
> ridiculed as useless and powerless, took control of the government of
> New Delhi by wining elections. This was done entirely through crowd
> sourced money and volunteers.  Can you think of a similar process for
> taking over Davos!

Yes, I can think of an example. Perhaps you find this parochial but 
after World War II, the German government introduced a system of 
co-determination in the German coal and steel industry in order to 
democratize an industry that had played a crucial role during the Nazi 
period. This codetermination law gave unions seats on the boards of the 
big corporations. After some decades, however, one couldn't really 
distinguish the union reps any longer from the commercial board members. 
They were wearing the same suits, flying around in the same helicopters 
and the worker' voice in corporate politics seemed a faint echo of what 
it used to be in the 1950s.

I agree with Ian. What matters in the long run is less the form (public 
or private governance) but rather the actions and the public attention 
that hold public and private actors to account.

jeanette

But, if you are talking about just the global level
> democracy or the absence of it, yes , lets talk about it. I am ready for
> the most drastic proposal, as long as it does not involve giving
> privileged positions to the already extra-ordinarily powerful global
> corporations. Ian, I really mean it. Lets discuss global democracy. That
> is the discussion to have.
>
> But before that let us issue a clear statement that we are against what
> is happening in the name of MSism, which is really WEF-ism or Davos-ism.
> That we are against giving any special political privilege to global
> corporates.  That we strongly condemn and disassociate from all those
> who openly say (including on these lists) that google should vote at the
> same level as a country government in global policy making. Lets get
> together and say all this... And then also say what is wrong with the UN
> and what we want changed. That is the discussion we need to have.
>
> BTW, whenever some people, Wolfgang for instance, have sought that G 20
> - which includes India - takes up a special role in global IG, I have
> opposed it, This is where UN is more democratic than a Davos or G 20.
> Therefore our critiques and positions should be context specific and
> pragmatic, to push things in the right direction rather than the wrong
> direction. That is our political responsibility. Simply put, going for
> Davos kind of governance solutions - which, sorry to say, I think most
> IG civil society is abetting - is the 'wrong direction' to push. UN
> reform on the other hand is the 'right direction' to push. The choice,
> as actually presented, I see is between the two. And as responsible
> political actors we have to negotiate our way - however idealistic in
> its final form - through the given landscape where are situated at the
> moment, and taking stock of the forces that we can see and feel at work.
>
> If you or someone else has a third directions, clearly different from
> the two above, please mention that... I see MIlton's proposals, Jeremy's
> MIC proposal, some proposals from Joana's organisation, etc, all of
> which give corporates a voting role, really simply going in the
> direction that Davos-ists want things to go. They - the Davos-ists -
> know that it is tough to simply wipe out the few hundred years of
> history behind democracy, and the strength it therefore posses.. To
> them, these civil society proposals, where there is a lot of
> goodly-goody stuff, but the basic point is that corporates have policy
> votes, is just the thing to go for... Once there, they know how to make
> it entirely their show with some bones thrown occasionally here and
> there to those who need to be co-pted. A historic point like the present
> one requires a response that fits contextually, and nudge things in the
> right direction. Each of us has to convince ourselves whether our acts
> are contributing to the right direction or the wrong one.. And we have
> also to convince others and the world, as a group with privileged access
> to policy process, which we claim on behalf of the people of the world.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>> In my country at least (Australia), we have a history of Murdoch media
>> telling people who to vote for, and they follow. We also have a long
>> history of governments of all political persuasions bowing to
>> corporate interests in determining policy, with all too frequent
>> outbreaks of corrupt payments to politicians and political parties.
>> The power of corporate "donations", from what I can see, is even worse
>> in some other countries.
>>
>> And of course the history of the UN is hardly one of real equitable
>> arrangements between these corruptible nation states either.
>>
>> The article you quote alludes to this problem, stating  as regards
>> nation states ; "A ‘global redesign’ is no doubt needed, but one that
>> should genuinely reflect “everybody’s business” by preventing business
>> interests from crowding the public out of the tent ".
>>
>> I couldn't agree more.
>>
>> For us I think the lesson is that multistakeholderism is, like any
>> form of governance, highly corruptible .
>>
>> The term multistakeholder appears to have entered or vocabulary in
>> about 2004. As Markus Kummer points out, "it is worth mentioning that
>> in the discussions on Internet governance during the first phase of
>> WSIS, the term usually used to describe the existing arrangements was
>> “private sector-leadership”, in line with the language used in the
>> setting up of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>> (ICANN)".
>>
>> It should be remembered then that the term multistakeholder was
>> retrofitted to existing internet governance, rather than being a
>> central design element.
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: parminder
>> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:02 PM
>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms
>> (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>>
>>
>> please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about
>>
>> http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business
>>
>> The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic..
>>
>> Hope civil society  groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late,
>> and history questions its role in subverting democracy.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday 08 February 2014 12:10 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>> I also have concerns with those who don't insist on full
>>> accountability and transparency for multistakeholder processes or who
>>> equate an insistence on accountability and transparency as somehow
>>> being "opposition" to those processes.
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:34 PM
>>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms
>>> (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>
>>>> that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to
>>>> multistakeholderism)
>>>
>>> Thanks you for include the parenthetical.  To be honest that is my
>>> greater concerns.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>

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