[discuss] [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model validity

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

That makes a lot of sense to me Jeanette...

CLO from my Mobile phone
On 19/01/2014 8:51 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> The concept of representation is usually linked to national democracies
> and thus to a quantifiable number of voters. Even in this context,
> representation is a contested issue since it is by no means clear how to
> fairly represent the voters' opinions which might depend on context, change
> of time etc. To date, there are so many different voting systems and not
> one of them can claim to have found the ultimate solution to this vexed
> problem. Each voting system privileges and disadvantages certain groups.
> What is more, fair representation is just one issue. Another issue is to
> create more or less stable majorities, select competent people etc.
>
> If the concept of representation has many issues on the national level,
> how can we expect to create representative structures on the transnational
> level? Under the circumstances of a global constituency representativeness
> will remain a fiction!
>
> The open question to me is about functional equivalents to representation.
> Representation is supposed to lend legitimacy to political processes. What
> other mechanisms can create sufficient trust in the process so that people
> who are not chosen for one of the committees still accept their existence,
> processes and outcomes?
>
> Transparency is an obvious source of legitimacy, so might be the
> reputation of candidates (i.e. those known for being open-minded,
> constructive, competent and able to take other opinions than their own on
> board. I am sure we can come up with ways to integrate views and
> perspectives into the process that ensure are broader range than those held
> by committee members.
>
> In short, I think we should drop representativeness as a criteria of
> legitimacy and focus on other means of creating legitimate processes.
>
> jeanette
>
>
> Am 18.01.14 22:01, schrieb Norbert Bollow:
>
>> John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
>>
>>  I understand how an _open_ multistakeholder approach allows for
>>> everyone (who wishes) to present their views on a given topic, have
>>> those views considered based on their merits, and allow all to ponder
>>> and revise their understanding based on the information exchanged.
>>>
>>> I fail to understand how an _representative_ multistakeholder
>>> approach fairly provides for the "represented" to have their
>>> positions considered in a manner that allows for all participating to
>>> revise their views based on the discussion that occurs, and if this
>>> does not occur than one may argue that there isn't actual
>>> deliberative consideration going but simply a dance of posturing and
>>> negotiation.
>>>
>>
>> In my view, representative multistakeholder approaches are not about
>> creating a broad discourse, but about populating, in a reasonably fair
>> and balanced manner, committees and the like which for practical
>> reasons have only a quite limited number of seats.
>>
>> I posit that a reasonable way to implement a process for selecting
>> representatives is for each stakeholder category to organize a
>> randomly selected NomCom process, with each NomCom being tasked to
>> seek to choose a set of representatives who jointly represent the
>> breadth of perspectives of that stakeholder category as well as
>> is possible under the circumstances.
>>
>> Individuals who are close to one of the unavoidably fuzzy boundaries
>> between stakeholder categories would get to choose which one of
>> the stakeholder category that are on offer in that particular context
>> fits them best.
>>
>> I don't claim that this kind of approach would yield perfect
>> representation, but at least the imperfections would be random rather
>> than systematic, and any bias in the pool of people who tend to
>> volunteer for serving on NomComs can be addressed by the very
>> democratic process that anyone who is concerned about such bias is free
>> to seek to convince other qualified people (who don't have that bias)
>> to volunteer for future NomCom pools.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140119/e9bae6e4/attachment-0001.html>