The Multistakeholder Model, Neo-liberalism and Global (Internet) Governance
I’ve commented elsewhere on the sudden emergence and insertion of the “multistakeholder model” (referred to here also as multistakeholderism or MSism) in Internet Governance discussions some 2 or 3 years ago. The term of course, has been around a lot longer and even has been used within the Internet sphere to describe (more or less appropriately) the decision-making processes of various of the Internet’s technical bodies (the IETF, the IAB, ICANN).
What is new and somewhat startling is the full court press by the US government (USG) and its allies and acolytes among the corporate, technical and civil society participants in Internet Governance discussions to extend the use of the highly locally adapted versions of the MS model. The intent is to move the use of the MS model from the quite narrow and technical areas where it has achieved a considerable degree of success towards becoming the fundamental and effectively, only, basis on which such Internet Governance discussions are to be allowed to go forward (as per the USG’s statement concerning the transfer of the DNS management function). Notably as well “multistakeholderism” seems to have replaced “Internet Freedom” as the mobilizing Internet meme of choice (“Internet Freedom” having been somewhat discredited by post-Snowden associations of the “Internet Freedom” meme with the freedom of the USG –to “surveille”, “sabotage”, and “subvert” at will via the Internet).
In the midst of these developments there has been a subtle shift in presenting MSism initially as a framework for Internet Governance consultation processes to now presenting it as the necessary model for Internet Governance decision-making. Moreover it is understood that this new application of MSism would be taking place not only within the fairly narrow areas of the technical management of Internet functions but also and fundamentally within broader areas of public policy where the Internet’s significance is both global and expanding rapidly.
Most importantly the MS model is being presented as the model which would replace the now “outmoded” and “obsolete” processes of democratic decision-making in these spheres–in the terminology of some proponents, providing an “enhanced post-democratic” model for global (Internet) policy making.
So what exactly is the “multistakeholder model”?
Well that isn’t quite clear and no one (least of all the US State Department which invoked the model 12 times in its one page presentation to the NetMundial meeting in Brazil) has yet provided anything more than headline and elevator pitch references to the MS “model” or examples of what it might look like (a difficult, if not impossible task, given the need to contextualize individual MSist instantiations–processes and practices).
But whatever it is, a key element of MSism is that policy (and other) decisions will be made by and including all relevant “stakeholders”. This will of course include for example, the major Internet corporations who get to promote their “stakes” and make Internet policy through some sort of consensus process where all the stakeholder participants have an “equal” say and where rules governing things like operational procedures, conflict of interest, modes and structures of internal governance, rules of participation etc. etc. all seem to be made up as they go along.
Clearly the major Internet corporations, the US government and their allies in the technical and civil society communities are quite enthusiastic — jointly working out things like Internet linked frameworks, principles and rules (or not) for privacy and security, taxation, copyright, privacy etc. — is pretty heady stuff. Whether the outcome in any sense is supportive of the broad public interest or an Internet for the Common Good, or anything beyond a set of rules and practices to promote the interests of and benefits for those who are already showing the most returns from their current “stake” in the Internet, well that isn’t so clear.
What I think is clear though is that the MS model which is being presented, is in fact the transformation of the neo-liberal economic model which has resulted in such devastation and human tragedy throughout the world into a new form of “post-democratic” governance. (This connection between the a neo-liberal economic model and multistakeholder governance is presented most clearly in a document published by the Aspen Institute with numerous Internet luminary co-authors and collaborators–“Toward A Single Global Digital Economy“. This paper argues for, outlines and celebrates the dominance of the Internet economy by the US, US corporations and selected OECD allies and provides a plan of action for the implementation of the MS model as the supportive governance structure for the extension of this current technology and commercial dominance as the basis for creating the “single global digital economy”.)
So for example. while there are clear and well-regarded opportunities for participation by private sector stakeholders, technical stakeholders and civil society stakeholders in the Internet policy forums (marketplace) there is no obvious “stakeholder” in the process with the task of representing the “public interest”. Thus no one has the responsibility for ensuring that the decision-making processes are fair and not subverted or captured and that the range of participants is sufficiently inclusive to ensure a legitimate and socially equitable outcome. Nor in the multistakeholder model, as in the neo-liberal economic model is there any external regulatory framework to protect the general or public interest in the midst of the liberalized” (i.e. non-regulated) interactions and outcomes resulting from the interactions between individual sectional interests.
Similarly whereas in a normal democratic process (or a non-“liberalized” marketplace) the underlying framework and expectations of participation would be that the actors would be pursuing the “public interest” (with of course, different interpretations of what that might mean) and further there would be some basic social contract to provide a “social safety net” for all individuals and groups and particularly those least able to defend their own interests. In the MS model there is no promotion of the public interest, rather somehow the public interest is a (magical) bi-product/outcome of the confluence (or consensus) processes of each individual stakeholder pursuing their particular individual interest (stake). Government, may or may not be an (equal) stakeholder in this model but in any case the overall intention is to remove if possible government altogether (even as the protector of rights and ensurer of equitable processes and outcomes).
This of course, has to be seen as an overall “privatization” of governance where for example, major Internet corporations have an equal standing in determining Internet governance matters in areas such as regulation (where such is allowed to occur) alongside other stakeholders. In this model there is no space for the Internet as a common good; or as a space or resource equally available for all as a tool for general economic and social betterment (including for example for the marginalized, the poor, those from Less Developed Countries and even those who are not currently Internet “users”). “Stakeholders” get to make and even enforce the rules and anyone who isn’t or can’t be a “stakeholder”–well tough luck.
Similarly there is a refusal to accept even the possibility of a regulatory framework for the Internet (the argument most forcefully articulated in the course of the Internet Freedom campaign) or that the Internet might be of sufficient importance as a fundamental platform for human action in this period that it can no longer be seen as a domain of solely privatized action and control.
The now highly visible damaging effects of neo-liberalism through
- its promotion of the privatization of public services such as education and health care in Less Developed (and Developed) Countries with the consequent significant increases in non-schooling and deterioration in health among the poor, the marginalized and the rural;
- undermining the social contract and social safety nets in Developed Countries with the associated increases in child poverty, homelessness, and hunger;
- the promulgation and wide imposition of the “Washington Consensus” and externally imposed austerity regimes from which many countries around the world are only now recovering (and which the International Monetary Fund (IMF) itself has recognized as a serious and highly destructive mistake);
- the actions of the IMF and World Bank in insisting on privatization and deregulation and thus decimating numerous local enterprises in favour of multi-nationals; and
- overall in providing the ideological drivers (and models) for a significant social and economic attack globally on the poor and vulnerable is very well known.
This is the mode of governance which through multistakeholderism, its counterpart in global (Internet) governance and beyond, is to be the basic governance model for the Internet promoted quite unsurprisingly by the corporate sector and the US Government but equally and astonishingly by wide elements of civil society and the technical community as well.
The real significance and ultimate target for this neo-liberalization of governance is of course, not with narrow technical Internet Governance matters but rather with issues such as taxation of Internet enabled commerce and ultimately of the need for revenue sharing with respect to Internet related economic activity in a world where income inequality is growing at an unprecedented rate on an Internet and global digitization platform. The current context where global Internet giants such as Google or Amazon are completely free to transfer/allocate revenues and costs anywhere they choose within their multinational empires so as to minimize tax exposure is rapidly reaching a critical point where some sort of intervention is likely. On the longer term horizon the significance of both global and internal national income polarization much of it having some linkage to digital technology and the Internet will at some point need intervention and rebalancing if social unrest is to be avoided.
In a multistakeholder governance regime of course, Internet giants such as Google or Amazon will presumably be equal partners/stakeholders in the determination of matters of Internet regulation, taxation, and the possible allocation/reallocation of overall benefits i.e. those matters which are of direct financial concern to themselves and their shareholders/owners. And these determinations will be taking place in policy contexts where there are no obvious champions/stakeholders representing the broad global public interest. That such an arrangement is directly supportive of US and other Developed Country interests and the interests of dominant Internet corporations i.e. those most actively lobbying for the multistakeholder model, is clearly not an accident.
Equally of course, the citizens of Less Developed Countries whose governments lack the knowledge and often the resources to act as effective stakeholders in MS processes; whose national Internet corporations are either sub-units of global corporations or too weak to be effective in such environments; and whose Civil Society organizations have in many cases been captured by means of the cheap baubles of international travel, the flattery of “participation” in discussions with Internet luminaries, along with the crumbs of localized organizational benefits; will (as with the disadvantaged populations in Developed Countries) be completely at the mercy of those in the Developed Countries and in those small segments of their own countries who have already achieved success in the global Internet sphere and stand to benefit enormously in prestige and otherwise through the dominance of multistakeholder governance processes.
Thomas Lowenhaupt
March 26, 2014
Michael,
I agree with your post. But what’s to be done?
My experience with the efficacy of ICANN’s new TLD program leaves me dubious about the current governance structure, and very concerned about an independent multistakeholder structure. (For my recent encounter with the ICANN’s implementation of the IANA functions see http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/blog/2014/03/24/icann-the-iana-functions-accountability/.)
I’ve recently had thoughts on a “solution.” Its premiss is that adding more more voices to the review processes will lead to better decisions. It proposes two small enhancements to suffrage. To reach a suitable state of democratic governance, many additional ones will be required, as well as constitutional structures.
Here’s a portion of my proposal from a “Cities,Citizens, and Internet Governance” a paper I submitted to NETmundial. The complete document is here: http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/blog/2014/03/08/260/.
——
Cities are amongst the oldest and most complex entities we encounter in our daily lives. They house more than half our planet’s population, with U.N. estimates projecting that will rise to 75% by mid-century. Cities are the places from which a preponderance of ideas and economic development emerge. And there’s growing acceptance that a sustainable planet is likely to arise from the efficiencies of urban areas.
To date, the digital needs of cities have been given short shrift by Internet technologists and the Net’s governance ecology. As remedy, we offer the following suggestions.
o The Roadmap should recommend a more robust process for issuing city-TLDs. This should include a recommendation that the TLD issuing entity provide an informative and enlightening application process for cities considering TLD acquisition. While the “letter of non-objection’” required of the 2012 city-TLD applicants held the spirit of informed consent, the inclusion of a detailed scoping of a city-TLDs utility to residents, local businesses, quality of life, government operation, and global identity would better contribute to their efficacious planning and development.
o Cities do not have a formal place in the Internet governance ecology. While a City-TLD Governance and Best Practices workshop was held at the 2010 IGF in Vilnius, follow-up has been scant. At ICANN, there’s a move to include city-TLDs within the Registry Constituency of the GNSO, but only as part of a broader geographic representation. However, considering their size, their unique needs, and their importance to the global economy and a sustainable planet, we urge that cities be considered a full stakeholder within any multistakeholder regime.
A Message From The Bottom
Our lives are increasingly affected by digital activities enabled by the Internet. Yet Internet users have modest access to the “bottom-up” governance structures that establish the policies, standards, and practices that guide the Net’s operation.
Here in New York City we’ve experienced a small inkling of the potential of bottom-up participation in Internet oversight and management through two At-Large Structures. One is operated by the New York Internet Society, a chapter of the global Internet Society, and another by Connecting.nyc Inc., an advocacy and education organization focused on the development of the .nyc TLD. For those not familiar with the role of the At-Large Structures within ICANN, here’s a brief history.
In its early days ICANN provided for strong representation of individual Internet users in its decision making processes. It did so by allocating 5 seats on its board of directors to be filled by Internet users, with each of ICANN’s regions selecting one member via a direct election. One such election was held and, for a time, 5 ICANN board members were selected by individual Internet users.
The corporation found fault with the selection process and replaced the user-selected members with an appointed At-Large Advisory Committee and a Nominating Committee charged with selecting several board members.
In recent years the At-Large was reconstituted and now participates in selecting one (1) voting member to ICANN’s board of directors. This member is selected via a multi-staged process that provides for each At-Large Structure (organizations with membership and other structures) casting a vote for its preferred board member.
While one board member is better than none, by any measure, under today’s governance formation, the world’s 2+ billion individual Internet users and the At-Large Structure’s impact on ICANN’s governance decisions remains tenuous.
In our role as an At-Large Structure Connecting.nyc Inc. has observed a significant improvement of the At-Large’s operation over the past several years. As one example, this past year the At-Large made significant contributions more than a dozen ICANN policy considerations.
But far more can be achieved by expanding and enhancing user engagement the through the following actions.
o The number of seats selected by individual Internet users on ICANN’s board of directors should be increased. Reverting to the original 5 seats seems a reasonable short term target.
o The new board seats should be allocated as of old, one per ICANN region.
o The new seats should be selected by direct vote of each region’s At-Large Structures. (There are currently 180 At-Large Structures in the 5 regions.)
o The number of At-Large Structures should to be increased with additional resources provided to facilitate their operation.
o Care should be taken to assure that participation by the poor and the marginalized is facilitated.
o Concomitant with this resource allocation there needs to be improved transparency and accountability measures for the At-Large.
o In those instances where At-Large Structures exist in cities with TLDs, city government should be provided with ex officio participation.
For those interested in learning more about the At-Large, an At-Large Summit is to be held during ICANN’s June 2014 London meeting, with a representative from each of the At-Large Structures in attendance.
If is our belief that engaging cities as stakeholders and expanding the At-Large will democratize and enhance the ICANN’s operation.
——
Tom Lowenhaupt
Michael Gurstein
March 27, 2014
Thanks Tom!
M
Dixie
March 27, 2014
There are interesting elements of your argument but other elements remain unexplained. You repeat a number of times that there will be no one in the process with the role of defending the public interest. Given that governments are involved in the process, are you saying that it is not the role of governments to defend the public interest? And if so, who are you expecting to defend the public interest in multi-lateral system?
I can, however, see how multi-stakeholder participation means adding actors to policy processes whose primary motivation is not the public interest into the debate, i.e. businesses. However, to a large degree, it’s not a question of adding them because they usually already have a seat at the table… only it’s in secret and unofficial. So in some ways multi-stakeholder models are trying to bring some transparency and balance to those lobbying relationships.
The push for multi-stakeholder governance is also (and for some actors this is a driving goal) a push to bring civil society to the table. And this is an attempt to expand the constituency defending the public interest. It’s not unproblematic, there all sorts of issues with civil society legitimacy etc. but there is a lot of potential there. One of the primary jobs of civil society (and many groups do a fabulous job) is as watchdogs of governments to make sure they actually fulfill their role of promoting the public interest. Another important job is to stand up for the marginalised groups who might not have strong power in a democratic model (e.g. ethnic and religious minorities). And, more and more, civil society are becoming a watchdog of businesses too as governments are proving unable and/or unwilling to exercise control over businesses. This is true also in fields which are not governed in multi-stakeholder way, so it would be a fallacy I believe to think multi-lateralism is by definition the solution.
There’s also a point to be made about democratic lines of accountability being extremely, extremely weak at the international level. And so in same ways multi-stakeholder participation is a way of trying to bring citizens closer to global discussion and decision-making processes.
A problem I see is with ownership of the term “multi-stakeholder”. As with any term, different constituents are trying to mould it to their interests and win the “ownership” war. I agree that some parties who fight for multi-stakeholder participation are indeed using it in a very cynical way to protect their own interests and status quo-ism. For example, the USG who simultaneously leads on the TPP process in a non-transparent and definitely not multi-stakeholder format, and the UK who lead on the definitely not-multi-stakeholder London Process. But that does not mean that their interpretation of multi-stakeholder participation is the correct one. It is much an argument that the existence of TPP is evidence of the dangers of multi-lateral processes which often end up being less-transparent and inclusive in terms of the interests that are included. And the arguments of those fighting for multi-stakeholder participation are then not about protecting the status quo but about challenging how imperfectly and insufficiently multi-stakeholder participation is practised at present.
The main sticking point is, however, decision making. Again, I think this is in part a question about who gets to define what “multi-stakeholder participation” is. If it’s a business of course they will say they get a position at the table to decide tax matters. But many of those who fight for multi-stakeholder participation don’t think that all decisions need to be made with all stakeholders given an equal footing. There is a realisation that on some issues this is completely inappropriate. For example, I have often heard Anja Kovacs say that if a multi-stakeholder process calls for a treaty, a governmental process then begins. Rather, this is an area where practices and theories are developing, and rather the starting position for these debates should be should be that all decision are made in a multi-stakeholder way and then when issues or processes arise where it’s not appropriate look to other mechanisms; rather than starting from the position that all decisions are multi-lateral,. Because if you start with that line you are relying on the good will of governments to share information, invite consultations, respond to input etc. and you are likely to end up in a less beneficial position.
I’m sorry if I haven’t put this very succintly or elegantly. It’s still something I argue with myself a lot about inside my head!
Michael Gurstein
March 27, 2014
Thank you for your very thoughtful comments Dixie and let me reply to your points although not necessarily in the form or order that you have presented them in.
First: I must say that I’m getting rather weary of discussing these matters and having the overall reply being “well that isn’t really MSism” or “well that isn’t what i/we mean by MSism”… Either the MS model is something or it isn’t and this constant shape shifting whenever there is a challenge is really not sufficient.
Second: The overall intent as I understand it is to get governments out of the MS/decision making process to the degree possible. It then isn’t I think, reasonable to argue that governments can be expected to maintain a role in ensuring the probity of the process and supporting the public good. Either governments have a role or they don’t and my understanding of the MS model is that whatever role they have is residual and primarily in looking after their “stake” whatever that might mean (and I, and I think governments are quite unsure as to what that might mean in practice).
Third: Most certainly governments are quite inconsistent in their behavior in support of the public interest and are often subverted and captured in that process. That is a problem for democracy and needs to be addressed in many democracies. However, abandoning even the possibility of actions in support of the public interest in favour of processes where there is no obvious public interest element doesn’t seem to me to be an appropriate response.
Fourth: You seem to be suggesting that Civil Society would in the MS model have the role of protecting the public interest. Certainly individual Civil Society organizations are undertaking those roles extremely effectively by reinforcing and supporting democratic processes. However, I have yet to see any CS organization take that role in a MS process. Rather I see them supporting their sectional interests some of which have a broader public significance (Human Rights for example) but most of which do not–filling CS representational roles in MS activities, supporting their own organizational development, providing thematic expertise in support of various MS activities. I have yet to see any CS interventions which for example are evidently supporting the public interest or for example ensuring an effective role for the grassroots and the marginalized (rather than self-interestedly attempting to insert themselves as “champions”).
This latter point is about to become acute as inequalities resulting from digital and Internet processes, digitally induced joblessness, global fiscal imbalances move directly into global visibility. I see little or no interest in any of these issues by CS currently active in the Internet Governance area and in fact CS actively is supporting the resistance to dealing with these issues which is coming from the corporate and technical communities.
Certainly there are significant flaws in existing multilateral processes and I think they should be dealt with directly and where possible decisively. However, substituting elite driven multistakeholder processes for a mixed bag of multilateral processes doesn’t seem to me to be a huge advance and in fact by shifting power to the already powerful (corporations, technical community, certain elements of CS) probably represents a step backward in overall accountability and responsiveness to the needs “of everyone else”.
Dixie
March 27, 2014
But of course the parameters of multi-stakeholder participation are up for the debate, just as the parameters of most things are up for debate. I certainly have heard people arguing that things are or are not democracy!! And especially when the term/system is very much still under development. It does seem strange to me to be tired of these discussions. I certainly wasn’t trying to forestall debate, but further it. Because I think certain approaches towards the MS argument are used as straw-men arguments to prevent more detailed argument.
The role of governments is a precise example of this. My idea of MS (and from the discussions I’ve seen, the ideas of many people) is not in any way for governments to be removed from decision-making process. The idea is to explore to what extent this can be opened to involve other actors, certainly in discussion and deliberation and moving up to decision-making perhaps in some issues and/or some stage of the decision-making processes.
I also don’t see how supporting some forms of MS is abandoning even the possibility of actions in support of the public interest? I certainly wouldn’t support a process which I felt had not even the possibility of being decided in support of the public interest. I mean, surely that’s the challenge we are all trying to answer – to ensure the system has the best chance of supporting the public interest. At least among civil society, and, presumably, democratic governments.
Just to clear my role of civil society – representing public interest in MS role (and it would be the same role in a multi-lateral system, just from a much more difficult position). I don’t see this as the exclusive role of cs though, I definitely think it’s something that governments are responsible for too, and part of cs role is to hold government’s up to those standards. I do feel improving the chances for the grassroots groups, for example, would have a better chance through raising funds and integrating such groups into open processes, rather than instituting multi-lateral processes and then trying to get them to feed in from the outside.
I have to go now so sorry if I can’t reply immediately!
Dixie
March 27, 2014
I meant to also say thank you for the post, and for taking the time to respond to my comments.
Very best,
Dixie
Michael Gurstein
March 27, 2014
Unfortunately I don’t see “the parameters of multi-stakeholder participation” as being up for debate anywhere. Rather what I see are processes where the parameters are effectively set by elite in-groups and primarily structured to serve their own interests. That’s why it would be good to have a proper and somewhat settled definition so these processes in fact can be held accountable. If there is the use of “strawmen” it is because of an absence of any flesh and blood in the processes which are being proposed. What I hear are a lot of “trust us” arguments i.e. trust us and we’ll work something out.
The issue of the roles of the various “stakeholders” including governments and the private sector is of course, crucial to the specifics of the MS model. What you have indicated is another instance of “trust me/us” and we’ll work something out. But I see no particular reason to trust in this instance since for example, I’ve seen little transparency among the various existing stakeholders, no due process, no accountability, no transparency and certainly no visible concern for the public good and so on.
Yes, of course, decision making processes should be opened up to broader consultation and so on and those immediately impacted should have a role in decisions which impact them but how the rules for this are set (and by whom and to whose benefit) are questions that need to be addressed by MS proponents rather than sloughed off in the “trust me” process.
What I see is an attempt to transfer somewhat idiosyncratic decision making processes from quite narrow areas involving very limited range and overwhelmingly technical decisions to much much broader areas of public policy with no obvious justification or open consultation–as I discussed in my blog post a pure power grab toward the neo-liberalization of public policy by certain interests who stand to benefit hugely if such an outcome were to be successful.
I challenge you to take a look through two of what must be among the most definitive discussions of MSism, the Aspen Report and the St. Amour/Tapscott report and show me where and how the protection of the public interest and more specifically the interests of the grassroots and the marginalized are being addressed let alone protected or promoted. Or where or how discussions of social justice which I think will rapidly emerge in the Internet context could be usefully accommodated (everything I read in those documents and elsewhere is all about the protection of individual and corporate interests and nothing about collective goods and common interests… the very essence of the neo-liberalism which Civil Society stands against in other spheres.
Juan Fernández
March 27, 2014
Michael,
Good article.
It is very important, as you do in your article, to relate “multistakeholdersim” (whatever it may be) with neoliberalism and privatization.
I also did it in an article I wrote last week (in Spanish):
http://www.cubadebate.cu/especiales/2014/03/20/la-gobernanza-de-internet-ensayo-de-la-gobernanza-del-mundo/#.UzSJpG0pCeU
As the title of my article implies: “Internet Governance: Rehearsal of World Governance?”, this could be a decisive step towards the “corporatization” of international relations.
And then, everybody (except transnational companies) will lose, …including civil society.
Best regards
Juan Fernández
Michael Gurstein
March 27, 2014
Thanks Juan, interesting paper (via Google :).
Mike
William Tibben
March 27, 2014
Thanks Michael for your thoughtful piece. There is much to what you have written about MSism which rings true for me. Despite the apparent flaws of the process MSism has proved far more effective in engaging grassroots Internet constituency in the Asia-Pacific than the alternative of occasional ITU meetings that engage mostly with government ministers and bureaucrats. The enthusiasm for MSism, I believe, is partly reflected in the feeling that governments do not serve the public interest. In some respects there seems to be a coalition of interests between the ‘neo-liberal entrepreneur’ and the ‘civil society advocate’ who both have energy to burn on making the Internet work for their customers/community. I’m not sure how you can define the public interest but I think that most will point to MSism rather than the ITU – if given a choice. I think its probably too early to trash the idea of MSism but your article has presented a very useful basis on which to move forward.
Michael Gurstein
March 28, 2014
Thanks Will and yes, these issues look somewhat different depending on things like location and particularly current practices/approaches to democratic decision making. Perhaps what I’ve written in response to an email on my blogpost might be appropriate here as well.
What seems new about Multistakeholderism as it is currently being promoted is
*the intent to formalize MSism as a method of formal decision making in areas very much outside the narrowly technical
*the intent to substitute this for other methods of formal decision making
*the presentation of MSism as an update on other forms of decision making for example as “enhanced democracy” or “post-democratic”
*the identification of MSism as a specific response to a wide range of problems with current democratic processes rather than one tool/method among many for enhancing consultative processes
*the attempt to implement this method across the board in a specific sphere, Internet Governance, but with strong implications of it being applicable in much much wider spheres
*the launching of a widely based seemingly coordinated campaign in support of the above
In short, as has been pointed out, the MS model of (usefully) broadening the base and methodology of consultation is a very old one, turning it into an “ism” and a movement is something very new.
A simple opposition between the MS model and representative democracy is a strawman argument. Certainly, MS processes have their place and representative democracy has its problems particularly with somewhat complex (technical etc.) and fast moving issue areas.
However, the attempt to stampede the world towards a radical broad scale substitution of MSism for current democratic practice would appear to have motives much beyond an improvement in the management of the IANA function, for example, or responding to flaws in current democratic processes—motives perhaps (as per the two papers I pointed to) of finding a way to formally include global Internet corporations in global Internet decision making.
If responding to flaws in existing practice were the only concern then the appropriate approach would be to address the flaws rather than a complete substitution as is evidently being promoted at least by some.
Bill Mullins
March 30, 2014
Kudos to everyone for their thoughtful input.
I’m with Dixie in the proposition that we, here at least, are in the formative stages of the conversation we all take to be vital. I also share Michael’s sense of anxiousness about the global trend of neoliberalism thought and action. I think we can agree that the internet is but one domain in which this movement is on the march.
That said, I’d like to offer one “governance systems” perspective on this immediate exchange among like-minded persons and along the way revisit the key issues you’ve raised in a way that hopefully can further clarify what is wheat and what chaff.
As an axiom I take: “There is nothing new under the Sun.” That is not proposed as a fact in the sense of gravity, but as a very reliable and widely acknowledged truth. It holds precedence in developing explanations; I fully expect to find historical precedents when I set out to make systems sense out of some developments in the internet and surrounding environs.
From this axiom I anticipate making refinements to earlier dynamic models; from my early physics training I’m predisposed to expect conservation of fundamental dynamics. Few commentators in the general discourse seem to depart from this stance. That’s a problem – while difficult there is a solution.
In the three recent years I’ve been closely following the digital scene I find a largely unchallenged assumption that the digitization of communication represents a categorical departure from the general state of culture pre-Internet. Upon careful examination there is little evidence for a conclusion more dramatic than that the baud rate of today’s information exchange is quite a bit higher than was the case with Morse Code 180 years ago.
This assumption confuses novelty in presentation possibilities with the notion that there is a functional difference between a spreadsheet and a multi-color graphic display. We can note that the recent multi-$B acquisitions made by Facebook were primarily for the purpose of acquiring spreadsheets of subscriber information and the presumptive commercial intelligence those contain. The actual software involved with the acquisition is nondescript.
From the global history of the past millennium I take a second axiom: The single most important development toward a civil society was the rebuke of feudal hierarchy in favor of constitutional democracy. From a systems perspective this represents a paradigm shift (I’m using that term carefully) in governance architecture – principally in the change from a few “stockholders” to many “stakeholders.”
Neoliberalism as Michael points out is the modern mechanism for small minority accumulation of wealth and political power. Hierarchical corporatism is the modern incarnation of the feudal state’s governance architecture. I take as self-evident that the 0.1% of the most wealthy are driven to preserve and extend the grip of their feudalist benefits. Doing so involves reversing the hold of representative government and particularly trade union organization of professional and worker Communities of Practice.
I understand representative government mostly as a United States citizen and so it will be best I think if I use its history as the basis for explicating my main thesis:
The arrival of a ubiquitous Very Broad Bandwidth Access and Engagement (VBBA&E) Era is the fundamental disruptor of interest to proponents of civil society – for a variety of reasons, it is the prompt emergence of unbarriered access to highly enriched content (i.e. previously formed information) and the manner in which it support knowledge formation at the Pace of Conversation that represents both the possibility and the hazard to existing Constitutional Governance practices.
To the vested neoliberal this circumstance is the very definition of destructive chaos; in the US they have been uneasy with representative democracy since the Constitution was drafted in 1787. This was well before both the industrial age and the information age – then communication proceeded at the Pace of Stagecoach and on the scale of the American continent that provided ample opportunity for powerful interests to disrupt or control the “excesses of ordinary citizens in uneducated mobbery.”
In my historical precedent rules perspective, more than any other factor, it is not the speed of communication, nor even the richness of its content that has provided the battleground between democracy advocates and the feudalists – it is this issue: “Who gets to sit at the table of decisions?” The very issue we are discussing here.
One rather remarkable piece of evidence for this conclusion is the fairly recent decision by the US Supreme Court called “Citizens United.” The principal consequence of this decision was to give legal corporations “personhood” status with equal rights to spend money to advance political causes as previously was restricted to biological individuals.
As many recognize, with this decision, the principle of One Person – One Vote was subverted to that of One Dollar – One Vote. That distortion combined with the evident truth that corporations are designed to leverage division of labor into market leverage; and that once the representation principle of national governance becomes a “marketplace” (because that’s what for profit corporations exist to participate in); then the Neoliberal cause has effectively returned the character of the American democracy back to the neo-feudal state that existed under the Articles of Confederation between 1776 and 1787.
In this perspective of the trend of the neo-feudal cause, it is a given, that the emergence of a representative governance architecture for the internet, or for the larger VBBA&E domain in general is to be resisted for the “incipient chaos it surely portends.”
At this point many of us realize that discourse like were having here is encumbered by terminology inconsistently used. What isn’t always recognized is the extent to which the Neoliberal cause has embarked upon an explicit campaign to undermine hard won civil literacy by intentionally “re-purposing” terms to make ordinary discourse more viscous. The meme “multi-stakeholder” is being bastardized by direct extension of the victory of Corporate Personhood and One Dollar – One Vote.
They are doing this by using portions of the Broad Bandwidth spectrum that are only incidentally digital (e.g. Fox News, biased print medial, and etc.) – the reliance is upon appeals to visceral/limbic choosing – fear; indignation; and the historic class, race, gender, and age power gradients which had begun to abate, but now are being revitalized with self-servings applications of that One Dollar – One Vote strategy the neo-feudalists have been refining since about 1970.
Cutting to the chase: Enter the Era of the Cities. It seems likely that the original US Constitutional representation architecture of One Person – One Vote is up against a limit of some sort. “Citizens United” is a deplorable decision; but perhaps not because it subverts the Founder’s premise, but rather because it highlights that in 1787, it was not possible to envision how a pluralism of both individuals and well-formed Communities of Practice might be incorporated into a single representation scheme.
In the US, the Federal Republic representation architecture reflected such a compromise, but it was at best a narrow-band solution. That is because it only acknowledged capital property (almost entirely land-holding combined with various types of classist indenture) as the basis for participation in democratic governance.
While we privileged (male) settlers of European heritage have slowly and grudgingly granted equality of participation to others, we have not made corresponding progress in the democratization of the leverage on prosperity that well-organized knowledge brings. For that to happen, I suggest, we must adopt a more scale-free approach to diverse Communities of Practice being formally included in the composite governance architecture.
The neo-feudalists are determined this solution not be pursued let alone found – thus the relentless efforts to distract by subverting the lexicon with Potemkin Villages (this time with the Masses out front) like “multi-stakeholderism.” I suggest this means that unless some believe that there must be an unprecedented governance architecture invented, we do best to focus on reclaiming the legacy lexicon of constitutional democracy and then return to employing it rigorously to reflect how Voices form in the truly much complexified ecosystem in which most individuals carry on as members of several (or dozens) of discrete Communities of Practice.
In the US, I believe that definitely will involve a reordering of the representational weight accorded to Cities in relation to States, and the Federal Government; it seems likely that it may involve acknowledgment of the large trans-geographic professional constituencies such as Healthcare, Energy, Transportation, Non-Governmental Organizations and probably several others which are too historically-ordered to be considered under the One Person – One Vote model of political Voice.
Michael Gurstein
March 30, 2014
Thanks Bill! This is a very very interesting and highly insightful analysis. I’m really intrigued by your observations concerning the role of “communities of practice” in extending democratic governance. Could you perhaps point us to some additional thinking in this direction.
Bill Mullins
March 30, 2014
Everyone,
I wish I could point you to an ongoing body of reflection on the challenge I’ve tried to describe regarding integrating “scale free Community of Practice” institutions into proven constitutional governance schemes. If this interdisciplinary field has congealed somewhere I’m as yet unaware of it. I can point to the precursors of such a field, but the integrative modeling seems to be a very sparsely populated territory at present.
Over the past two decades since I became sensitive to this evolutionary obstacle I’ve gathered a lot of anecdotal examples with which to illustrate how institutions under uncommon stress are successfully adapting in ways that increase the likelihood of maintaining a Sustainment Stance.
Here is one example of such thinking: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/A%20National%20Strategic%20Narrative.pdf – [I’d advise to ignore the Preface except to ponder if it doesn’t reflect a somewhat neo-feudalist perspective on the actual paper’s disruptive content].
While I can point to signal examples (my favorite is the post-Viet Nam arc of the US and UK defense establishments – which provides the insights for the paper above) in a number of different subject domains, these provide mostly pragmatist descriptions not analytical treatments in the fashion Kuhn did for the work of science.
More significantly, these examples are largely outshouted by ostensible analysis as provided by the Think Tank World offerings such as the Aspen Institute report you noted. Consider how it begins:
“Toward a Single Global Digital Economy: The First Report of the Aspen Institute IDEA Project
From the Program Director’s Preface:
“The formidable challenge was to reassess the international regime that facilitates the free flow of communications across borders on a unified Internet. Subsequent plenaries… produced spirited and thoughtful dialogue about the complex challenges of governing the flow and use of data in a single global digital economy.”
“Introduction
“The Internet is the most robust medium of information exchange in history. Two billion people are now connected, and at current growth rates everyone with Internet access will join the Internet community within a decade. Barring technological and political disruptions, the world’s populace will then be on a single common digital platform. The global medium can provide unparalleled personal well-being, economic growth and beneficial social change.”
The myopia of these statements is the more commonplace kind of discourse one reads; proposals for creation of a “reliable and resilient governance architecture, scale-free, with both individual and CoP representation across the VBBA&E domain” must compete for salience even before gaining a decent hearing. As yet I’m finding there are few resources for such work.
By any measure I can imagine, the Earth’s oceans and inland waterways remain the “most robust medium of information exchange in history.” Roadways, railways, airways, even grocery networks remain more robust mediums – unless one imagines that “it isn’t “information” unless its digitized. That is a simple category error in Freshman Logic.
As we get smarter it appears that the human compendium of biological and neurological mediums are vastly more robust as a class than the internet. Biophysical activity in every mammalian cell on the planet exchanges information faster than the internet.
And what autonomous social scientists believes for a moment that 1) digital exchange comprises a natural language, and 2) a “single global (communications) platform” – of any type – is likely to emerge under the auspices of utterly brittle strings of ones and zeros rendered as “flatworlds” on colorful screens. I take that people who come to such sweepingly grandiose conclusions are of dubious competence in relation to the challenge they’ve drawn for themselves. Most in the Foundation world don’t yet seem terribly open to that inference.
I particularly like the line “Barring technological and political disruptions…” Consider the timeline of the Arab Spring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Arab_Spring) which substantially overlapped the four plenary sessions that support this report. Is there any doubt about the role that digital communications played in these historic (albeit not unprecedented) events? What were the session attendees thinking; did the report writers preempt that thinking or was it missing “inside the digital bubble”?
The most exemplary influence on my global systems understanding has been the evolution of the US Department of Defense’s Acquisition, Training, and Logistics enterprise beginning after the withdrawal from Viet Nam. It is a long road that converges upon something termed the Department of Defense Architectural Framework (the UK MOD has a parallel one) described here http://dodcio.defense.gov/dodaf20/dodaf20_background.aspx .
The DODAF framework, and how it came to be – socially, technically, and politically – provides me with the best detailed model for thinking about CoP integration. I can use it to look at other large, complex, high-consequence circumstance domains (e.g. the Global Nuclear Energy Enterprise) for similarities and differences.
My sense is that the Digital Domain – as a subset of the VBBA&E governance challenge – is ripe with examples to sort through the fundamental issues – this synthesis is much more likely to emerge from some “skunkworks” type effort (imagine 4 or 5 running in parallel) than from endless conferences involving “the usual suspects” and their eager report writers.
Lest I sound cynical, let me say that I’m very hopeful that we can reverse the present “neo-fuedalist clawback” – its none too soon to begin; I suspect its going to take something like a Broadband Spring to get there.