20140413 - M. Gurstein: My Thoughts on NETmundial
As a preamble I should say that, as I believe it was Neelie Kroes pointed out, as Internet Governance goes so goes the future of global governance or perhaps better, governance in the global context. It is for that reason that for most purposes I write about global (Internet) governance since I (and I’m quite sure the good folks in the US State Department) see Internet Governance as a surrogate and testing ground for what, if they had their way, would be the dominant mode of global governance for the future.
First let me say that I agree with those who argue that there are problems, even severe problems, with the current form and operation of "democracy"...
I think those problems vary in content and severity from country to country (in the “West” the term “Democratic Deficit” is often used) and from circumstance to circumstance--I think the problems are worse and becoming even worser :) daily. In some of the developed countries notably the US we are seeing the rise of a one dollar one vote style of politics, and in my own country Canada we see the current government hell-bound (more or less literally) to pass legislation that will seriously undermine (in their own specific interests) the operations of one of the most effective and fair electoral systems in the world.
But I think it is unreasonable (a euphemism for downright stupid) to project those problems onto the rest of the world as seems to be the habit of many of the commentators on this and related lists who can't get beyond their US based libertarian fantasies to see how parochial are their critiques and recommendations in the context of the world outside of the US of A (and the rest of the 5 Ayes).
I think that democracyits practices and methodslike a lot of institutions (universities, churches, public administrations etc.) has not adapted very well (or quickly enough) to the very rapid changes in communications, information management practices, cultural and social norms that the tech/Internet revolution have visited on the world. This doesn’t mean that Democracy is obsolete (the Internet evidently has been having somewhat similar impacts on the institution of marriage but not a lot people are arguing that marriage is obsolete or that we should move into some type of post-marriage conjugal framework).
It does mean that significant efforts by fair minded people including, one would hope, a lot of the people gathered here needs to be put into helping democratic practices and methods evolve and adapt including figuring out useful, effective and fair ways of integrating the opportunities presented by the Internet and digital technologies into democratic practice.
That doesn’t mean that you go whoring after the first piece of fluff (MSism) that passes your periscope… who knows what (ideological or other) diseases they may be carrying… J
What it does mean is that it is a hard slog to work through these adaptations and evolution. Whatever is done in those areas needs to be done with full recognition and participation from the variety of modes of and requirements for democratic institutions and practices globally i.e. what is needed (and or acceptable) in the US is not necessarily what is useful and acceptable in India or South Africa or Brazil or…!
All that is preamble to what I said below in response to Avri i.e. “In complex, technology intensive, rapidly changing environments it is clear, that there is a need and an opportunity for broader inclusion in decision making processes in particular including those with specific technical expertise (for technical decisions) and those most directly impacted/involved/holding "stakes" in democratically derived decisions (for many other instances).”
How to do that is of course, your question and I have no pat answers to that. I think that what must be done is to find ways to bring democratic practice up to speed for the Internet age – something that is as vital and timely on a national level as on a global level. Some of it in some contexts will, I think, involve a multistakeholder approach… From what I have seen the MS approach particularly at the national level and particularly in many LDC’s is an extremely important contribution and enhancement of democracy by giving previously non-included voices an opportunity to participate in policy formulation. This to my mind works because there is a deliberate attempt to provide resources/training and opportunity for useful and effective broad-based participation (I’ve discussed this at some length in a blogpost.)
In other instances I think it involves designing structures which link bottom up and inclusive policy processes (particularly concerning policy issues where there is a direct local impact) to broader publicly accountable (democratic) structures through methods that Avri refers to as “participatory democracy”. Here experiments like Liquid Democracy I think may have considerable merit given the extremely creative way that they have linked the capacities of digital and online systems with dynamic policy processes and in a manner specifically addressing some of the emergent issues often described as the “Democratic Deficit” (feelings of ineffectiveness, distance from decision making, lack of access to expert knowledge etc.etc.).
In other areas, perhaps more directly relevant to our IG discussions (although I think Liquid Democracy might possibly have relevance here as well) we are in new territory and I think we should proceed in an experimental and information seeking mode… Including with a lot of discussion, research, experimentation among the various actors (and in IG including a much broader range of actors than is currently being included). I think the worst thing we could do would be to allow ourselves to get locked/stampeded into one model (eg. MSism) without having a very clear sense of the issues we are trying resolve; what the implications are of the various solutions that are being proposed; and what the options might be for responding effectively to the problems that have been identified.
So what do we do about Internet Governance tomorrow or at NetMundial or the day after that. I think two things:
- At NetMundial the output statement must make a clear commitment to the notion that the Internet is to be governed as a global Commons/in the public interest! – this would help to ensure that whatever governance strategies were arrived at were at least in some manner accountable to the broader global community (and yes I know that also requires definition and elaboration); as well as going some way to ensuring that global (Internet) governance outcomes are in the “global public interest” rather than being a cabalistic concatenation of private or national interests and/or subverting ideologies.
- Another meeting/process should be convened along the lines of NetMundial (maybe the world’s largest democracy India could host/sponsor it) to discuss global democratic governance in an Internet age. MSism would certainly be one of the topics which should also include how to adapt the extremely creaky post-WWII deliberative and decision making structures of the UN into the Internet age OR what alternatives there might be to the UN for global democratic governance structure at a global level. (Those who want this governance to look like the World Economic Forum could have their say, but then so could everyone else …
Hope this helps, and thanks for asking…
Mike
