[governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

Ian Peter ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Fri Oct 24 15:48:18 EDT 2014


Thanks for posting that Gabrielle. I think it puts clearly why relying on 
traditional fora of nation states (aka democracy in some peoples language) 
is problematic. There are enough examples below to cause significant concern 
for anyone who wants civil society participation.

I think the article makes a telling point when it says " I am convinced that 
the traditional approach to multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st 
century, an era where people are more connected, more informed, and more 
aware of the impact that multilaterals can have upon their lives. 
Multilaterals institute development projects, spur economic and political 
reform, help shape international law, and more. Ordinary people need a 
channel to influence these critical decisions, or their anger and 
frustration will boil over."

I think multistakeholderism was/is an attempt to overcome these problems. 
However, its track record to date is not brilliant when it comes to making 
progress on important matters, nor is its inclusiveness brilliant. As 
Charles Nevile put it on another list, "It takes a certain kind of 
stubbornness not to recognise that there are extremely serious limitations 
to the capacity of a "multi-stakeholder approach" to be guaranteed to 
represent all the people".

So in my mind, we are comparing Tweedledum and Tweedledee.  Particularly 
when the real power of corporations to influence (and change) so called 
democratic governments is take into account.

When we move beyond that we might be able to develop solutions.

Ian Peter



-----Original Message----- 
From: Gabrielle Guillemin
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 10:27 PM
To: michael gurstein ; 'Avri Doria' ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU 
Plenipot joint recommendations

Hi all,

I thought you might be interested in the Maina Kai's thoughts on 
multilaterism in the 21st century. For those of you who may not be familiar 
with his work, Maina Kai is UN Special rapporteur on freedom of peaceful 
assembly and association.

I have reproduced his blog post below for ease of reference but you can also 
find it on A19's blog:http://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/188/view/

Best,

Gabrielle


Earlier this month, officials from more than 50 countries gathered in 
Indonesia for the Bali Democracy Forum, a multilateral event styled as a 
venue to promote “the principles of equality, mutual respect and 
understanding.”

The idea behind the Forum is noble. But conspicuously absent were those whom 
these democratic leaders supposedly represent: the people.

A few days before the meeting, Bali police announced that all protests in 
the area would be banned to “ensure the event runs smoothly”, according to a 
report in the Jakarta 
Post<http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/10/07/protests-banned-during-bali-democracy-forum.html>. 
Eight prominent Indonesian civil society organizations later pulled out, 
calling the 
Forum<http://www.rappler.com/world/regions/asia-pacific/indonesia/71307-activists-reject-bali-democracy-forum> 
a “ceremonial event”.

It’s tempting to label Bali an anomaly, but unfortunately, it’s symptomatic 
of a broader trend within multilateral organizations today – whether at 
formal bodies like the United Nations or informal alliances such as the Bali 
Forum. Multilateralism is mired in its mid-20th century origins, dominated 
by an undemocratic, state-centric approach and tone-deaf to the concerns of 
people who actually comprise the member states.

On October 28, I will present a 
report<http://freeassembly.net/rapporteurreports/report-multilaterals/> to 
the UN General Assembly arguing that it’s time to address this shortcoming. 
The thrust of the report is simple: multilateral institutions must 
democratise themselves by fully respecting the rights to freedom of peaceful 
assembly and association, both inside their halls and within their spheres 
of influence. Above all, this means allowing ordinary people effective 
participation and input.

To be clear, my recommendation isn’t simply about boosting civil society’s 
profile. It’s also about multilaterals preserving their own legitimacy.

I am convinced that the traditional approach to multilateralism is doomed to 
fail in the 21st century, an era where people are more connected, more 
informed, and more aware of the impact that multilaterals can have upon 
their lives. Multilaterals institute development projects, spur economic and 
political reform, help shape international law, and more. Ordinary people 
need a channel to influence these critical decisions, or their anger and 
frustration will boil over.

As my report demonstrates, multilateral institutions are not doing enough to 
ensure that people outside the state power structure have their say.

First, multilaterals’ engagement strategies are typically weak. Very few 
give civil society full participation in agenda-setting and decision-making. 
Access to information policies are spotty, and most institutions lack 
mechanisms whereby people can file complaints if they feel they have been 
wronged by multilateral action (the World Bank being one notable 
exception<http://ewebapps.worldbank.org/apps/ip/Pages/Home.aspx>). Sectoral 
equity is an issue as well, with the private sector playing an increasingly 
dominant role in implementing the global development agenda, often at the 
expense of civil society involvement.

Even those multilaterals that have implemented engagement policies for civil 
society have often done so clumsily.

The UN, for example grants “consultative status” to some NGOs, allowing 
these organizations to participate in select UN processes – a rare bright 
spot. But the process of accrediting these NGOs has been dogged by crass 
politicization. As of April 2014, at least 48 NGOs have seen their 
applications continually deferred. Perhaps not surprisingly, 46 work on 
human rights. One of them, the International Dalit Solidarity 
Network<http://idsn.org/news-resources/idsn-news/read/article/idsns-fight-for-un-consultative-status-a-case-of-reprisal-against-a-human-rights-ngo/128/>, 
has been waiting for accreditation since 2008, having seen its application 
unilaterally blocked by repetitive questioning from India.

Reprisals by states against activists who cooperate with multilateral 
institutions are another area of grave concern. One of the most noteworthy 
instances was the case of Cao 
Shunli<http://freeassembly.net/rapporteurpressnews/cao-shunli/>, a Chinese 
activist who was arrested in 2013 just before boarding a flight to attend 
China’s Universal Periodic Review before the UN. She died in custody, after 
being denied medical care.

Multilateral institutions must react aggressively when such reprisals take 
place, including by intervening in specific cases and publicly condemning 
the member state involved.

Multilaterals don’t rank much better when it comes to protecting assembly 
rights, a valuable channel for constructive engagement when properly opened.

There have been numerous reported violations to the right of peacefully 
assembly during multilateral institutions’ summits in recent years, notably 
those organized by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the 
Group of Twenty (G20). At least one – the International Olympic 
Committee –bans peaceful 
assemblies<http://www.olympic.org/documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf> at their 
events altogether.

No one is expecting multilaterals to police assemblies themselves, but they 
do have obligations with respect to how local authorities do so. This starts 
with setting standards to ensure that states follow international best 
practices when policing multilaterals’ on their behalf.

It’s a fallacy to say that governments already provide “enough” 
representation for their people at the multilateral level. We don’t 
eliminate other forms of political participation at the domestic level 
because people elect representatives, and we shouldn’t do it at the 
international level either.

The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are among the 
best tools we have to promote pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. 
These rights satisfy people’s fundamental desire to take control of their 
own destinies. And I emphasize that these rights are indeed fundamental – 
not simply because they are inscribed in the law, but because they speak to 
something present inside each and every one of us as human beings.

When people are denied these rights – whether at the local, national or 
international level – no good can follow. It is time for multilateralism to 
fully account for this, by expanding beyond state action alone and including 
the effective participation of a variety of voices within those states.

Multilaterals are undoubtedly citadels of power, but they need not be 
impenetrable fortresses.

Maina Kiai is the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful 
assembly and of association. Find out more about the role of the UN Special 
Rapporteur by visiting the Free Assembly<http://freeassembly.net/> website 
or following at MainaKiai_UNSR<https://twitter.com/MainaKiai_UNSR> on Twitter.



________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
[bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of michael gurstein 
[gurstein at gmail.com]
Sent: 23 October 2014 20:57
To: 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU 
Plenipot joint recommendations

You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define 
anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your 
reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of 
Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia


Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad 
participation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_%28decision_making%29> 
of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. 
Etymological roots of democracy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy> 
(Greek demos<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demos> and 
kratos<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82>) 
imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are 
participatory. …
Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a 
population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to 
broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities.
It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites 
(corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to 
participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members 
of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”.
But maybe I’m missing something.
M


From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU 
Plenipot joint recommendations


On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote:

If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the 
earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a 
form of global governance in competition with democratic governance.


I haven't read your blog.  But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as 
a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative 
democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the 
bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate 
into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme.  I define it as a form of 
democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct 
democracy.

I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory 
democracy definition.  So the frames of reference are really quite 
different.

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


More information about the Governance mailing list