[IRPCoalition] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Oct 24 17:16:27 EEST 2014

On Friday 24 October 2014 07:25 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Does that mean 'people who step up to do real work'? That would be 
> stakeholders.
> There are other steakholders who don't have any sweat or other equity 
> invested in a process but still demand a stake..


In fact, the above is a very good, if somewhat inadvertent, description 
of the neolib approach to governance that the IG style multistakeholder- 
ism embodies.

Those who 'really contribute'  - read, the rich and the able - get to 
vote, and the free riders - read, the poor and the unwashed - do not 

One obviously  cannot directly say in this age that rich will vote and 
control governance and poor do not deserve a role or a vote... Instead 
of speaking of their poverty, it is their inabilities that get spoken of 
(which is considered the cause of their poverty). And if those who do 
not have the 'ability' are given a role in governance, they will only 
use to extract what is deserving not theirs. This is social darwinism, a 
well known doctrine of neolibs.

> On 24 October 2014 9:51:53 am "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> Thanks for this Sivasubramanian…
>> Can I/we take this i.e. that MSism (governance by self-appointed 
>> elites) is the “next evolutionary stage of democracy” is a generally 
>> agreed upon position among the proponents of MSism?
>> M
>> *From:*Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 6:12 AM
>> *To:* michael gurstein
>> *Cc:* Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for 
>> ITU Plenipot joint recommendations
>> Dear Michael Gurstein,
>> The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is 
>> viewed as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this 
>> phase, it is in its initial stages of evolution with some aspects 
>> being defined.
>> Sivasubramanian M
>> Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>> +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein 
>> <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 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> 
>> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/private/irp/attachments/20141024/72c130be/attachment.html>

More information about the IRP mailing list