AW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Civil society activism andCommunication-information policy

[Liss Jeffrey]

A comparison with Canada may prove useful on the US question. there are 
substantial differences rooted in part in differences between US and Canada 
on whether government should fund advocacy groups. (Many cdn groups think 
so, and often see private sector as more dangerous than government, quite 
different from picture in US).

Soon I will be able to read your full report Milton, and also to send more 
notes on our off-line thinking about governance and civil society, as 
promised in previous message.

I wonder whether the test is "focused, ideological positions." Perhaps, but 
that may miss the forest for the trees. Mass appeal advocacy groups often 
get fuzzy around the edges, much to the chagrin of their more 
fundamentalist supporters - take the spectrum of views in the environmental 
movements (pardon my pun). Some of us of course are not too keen on narrow 
ideological views. If democracy is in part a pattern of disagreement, then 
the more specific your position, the more opposition you are likely to 
attract. Sticking to generally accepted values, for the sake of agreement 
and general appeal, and elevating style over substance is the prevailing 
pattern everywhere ( if they can get away with it, what party in what 
country post TV is not doing this lowest common denominator dance, I ask?)

It is also important to note the difference in Parliamentary systems 
between first past the post and the variety of proportional representation 
systems. In the latter, more  focused, even extreme groups can go 
somewhere, but in a first past the post system like the Canadian (where the 
issue of proportional representation is very much in debate now), the 
"left" party, The New Democrats did not win so many seats despite an 
increase in popular vote, because they tried to appeal nationally and 
appear credible as possible contenders for federal power,  while the Bloc 
Quebecois did very well by remaining regionally focused (and slyly quiet 
about their ideological slant, pro separation until election night, after 
the votes were counted.).

Sorry if this is too off track -- over and out
back soon with cs and governance ideas
Liss Jeffrey
eCommons/agora


At 03:05 PM 15/07/2004, Milton Mueller wrote:


> >>> kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 07/15/04 11:55AM >>>
> >But we have to look also beyond US and Congressional Hearings.
>
>Definitely. That is Phase 2 for us. In the current phase of the project,
>we concentrate on transnational collective action and international
>institutions, including WSIS.
>
>I suspect that there are major differences in interest group
>organization in Europe, Asia and the U.S. The absence of a
>parliamentary system in the U.S. means that focused, ideological
>positions cannot be represented by parties and so must be
>represented by advocacy groups.
>
>Your theses on NWICO as the end of "top-down" and WSIS as "bottom up" 
>approaches are interesting, and if you feel like working in English I 
>invite you (in my role as associate editor of The Information Society)
>to submit something along those lines.
>
>--MM
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary