[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