the unbearable lightness of full participation in a global ... · the unbearable lightness of full...
TRANSCRIPT
The Unbearable Lightness of Full The Unbearable Lightness of Full Participation in a Global ContextParticipation in a Global Context
Bart Cammaerts (phd)Media @ London School of Economics & Political Science
Nico Carpentier (phd)Free University of Brussels/Catholic University of Brussels
Paper presented at the seminar “Reflections on the Civil Society Agenda”
10 December 2004Oxford Internet InstituteOxford, UK
IntroductionIntroduction
Generative, Restrictive and Resistance Practices within the WSIS Consultation ProcessEvaluation of the WSIS from a Civil Society perspective
Bart Cammaerts
Theorizing power and participationNico Carpentier
IntroductionIntroduction
UN-Resolution 56/183 encouraged:“intergovernmental organisations, including international and regional institutions, non-governmental organisations, civil society and the private sector to contribute to, and actively participate in the intergovernmental preparatory process of the Summit and the Summit itself.”. (UN, 2001a: 2)
Civil Society Division of the WSIS Executive Secretariat was given the task to:
“facilitate the full participation of civil society in the preparatory process leading up to the Summit”
IntroductionIntroduction
Participation is a key-concept within the WSIS-discourses and the so-called multi-stakeholder approachAlso in the final declaration and action plans ‘participation’ is a notion that is often used:
– As inclusion; participation in the IS– As referring to empowerment of women; their ‘full participation’– As referring to skills and knowledge, actively participate in the IS– As economic participation; developing countries, sustainable
development– As the participation of different stakeholders; IPR-protection,
ICANNIt is therefore useful to theoretically frame the notion of participation, as well as the underlying power-mechanisms that enable or disable participation.
What is participation?2 approaches to participatory communication
1/ Freire
• a focus on the transformation of the educational system and the struggle against illiteracy and injustice• the role of the media is only minimally present• pedagogy of the hope and the oppressed • reform traditional (parternalist and non-participatory) educational system to allow students to develop (together with their teachers) valid knowledge through a process of ‘conscientisation’
Participation:
‘Participation implies a higher level of public involvement in communication systems. It includes the involvement of the public in the production process and also in the management and planning of communication systems. Participation may be no more than representation and consultation of the public in decision making. On the other hand, self-management is the most advanced form of participation. In this case, the public exercises the power of decision making within communication enterprises and is also fully involved in the formulation of communication policies and plans.'
2/ Unesco-debates• gradual transformation• neutral phrasing of audience (in contrast to the oppressed)• institutional focus (Thussu)
Access:
‘Access refers to the use of media for public service. It may be defined in terms of the opportunities available to the public to choose varied and relevant programs and to have a means of feedback to transmit its reactions and demands to production organisations.'
Defining through categorisation / typology development
• AIP: access, interaction and participation (2004)• Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (1969)• OECD three stage model (2001)
Defining “Real” participation• Full and partial participation
• Pseudo-participation (Verba)• Manipulative participation (Strauss)
Participation and em/power/ment
Pateman on full and partial participation:
Full participation: 'a processwhere each individual memberof a decision-making body hasequal power to determine the outcome of decisions.' (Pateman, 1972, p. 71)
Partial participation: 'a process in which two ormore parties influence eachother in the making of decisions but the finalpower to decide rests withone party only' (Pateman, 1972, p. 70)
The key role of power:
People's participation in development in which the control of the project and the decision-making power rests with the planners, administrators, and the community's elite is pseudo-participation. […] When the development bureaucracy, the local elite, and the people are working cooperatively throughout the decision-making process and when the people are empowered to control the action to be taken, only then can there be genuine participation'. Deshler and Sock (1985)
The ‘real’ form of participation has to be seen as participation '[that] directly addresses power and its distribution in society. It touches the very core of power relationships.' (Servaes, 1999: 198 - our emphasis)
'it appears that power and control are pivotal subconcepts which contribute to both understanding the diversity of expectations and anticipated out-comes of people's participation.‘ White (1994: 17)
Giddens: dialectics of controland structuration theory
transformative capacity linked to agency structural quality linked to domination
Foucault: productive power
MobileMulti-directionalPractised / not possessedNonegalitarianIntentionalNon-subjective
Foucault & Giddens
Power does not exclude dominationPower will be resistedComplex dialectics of control: Power practised / not possessed Positive/generative and Negative/repressive aspectsDialectics will imply production of
knowledge, discourse and subjects
Productive power
a
g
e
n
c
y
s
t r
u
c
t u
r
e
dialectics of control
resistance
Generative/positive power
Repressive/negative power
Field of negotiation
Instrument
• both the more localised and the more generalised power practices can be taken into account• bypass some of the problems that complicate the use of the notion of participation • instead exclusive focus on the degree of structuralised participation, here localised and fluid (micro)power practices and strategies without ignoring the overall (political) structure
analysis of the dialectics of control & the comparison of the generative and restrictive (or repressive) power mechanisms allows establishing the depth and quality of civil society participation
But:• unequal power relations exist
• full participation = democratic imaginary or utopia
• “not-place” and “never-to-be-place”• ultimate anchoring point • always remain an empty place• phantasmagoric realisation serves as the breeding grounds for civil society’s attempts
• social imaginary of full participation can be applied to legitimate our plea for the maximisation of generative and the minimisation of restrictive power mechanisms.
"Ever tried. Ever failed. Never mind. Try again. Fail better.“(Samuel Beckett)
Generative Power/AccessGenerative Power/AccessPhysical Access (1):
– 75% of the CSOs active within the WSIS-process were present in Geneva
– Most CSOs only became ‘active’ at a very late stage in the process
– Very active CSOs tended to remain involved throughout the process
– Only 7% of active CSOs attended all PrepComs and the summit
Outflow: 49 (8 %)
PrepCom2(17/02/03) Prepcom3(15/09/03) WSIS-03 (10/12/03)
102
Inflow: 102 (17%) Inflow: 105 (18 %) Inflow: 243 (41 %)Inflow: 123 (21 %)
Outflow: 71 (12 %)
176
Outflow: 46 (8 %)
224 453
PrepCom1(01/07/02)
Re-inflow: 14 (2 %)Re-inflow: 32 (5 %)
Generative Power/AccessGenerative Power/AccessPhysical Access (2):
49%
67%
45%38%
43%
11%
17%
22%
6%15%
23%
6%
11% 8%
10%
8%
7%
1%
9% 11%
57%
17%27% 23%
10%14%
2% 1% 2% 1%1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1%1% 1% 1% 1% 0%
5%
3%
5%
4% 4%3%0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tot. Act. CSOs(N=595/100%)
Int. act.CSOs(N=161/27%)
Regional Act. CSO(N=47/8%)
Local Act. CSOs(N=302/51%)
Active Academic(N=82/14%)
World Population
Europe North-America Latin-America Asia Africa Middle East Oceania Unknown
Generative Power/AccessGenerative Power/AccessVirtual Access:
– Submitting written contributions to be posted on the WSIS-website
– All interventions made by the different stake-holders during WSIS-03 were put online
– The alternative Civil Society Declaration linked to on the official ITU/WSIS-website
– Besides this, • UNESCO held an online-forum and • the Civil Society Caucuses developed a very useful virtual ‘WSIS CS
Meeting Point’ giving amongst others access to its discussion mailing-lists.
PrepCom1 PrepCom2 PrepCom3#CSOs that submitted an own document (a) 2 29 51#CSOs that co-signed a document (b) 15 46 19#CSOs with an own or co-signed document (c=a+b) 17 75 70
#CSOs with doc that did not attend PrepCom (d) 0 38 29#CSOs attending PrepCom (e) 102 176 227#CSOs active within PrepCom (f=d+e) 102 214 256%CSO with doc of #CSOs active within Prepcom (g=c/f) 17% 35% 27%
Generative Power/ParticipationGenerative Power/Participation
(1) Rules that allow civil society to participate in the formal process
– Rule 55 of the WSIS-rules of procedure (based on the ECOSOC 1996/31 -resolution):
ÒR u le 55R e p resen tat ives o f n o n -gove rn m en ta l o rga n iz a ti ons , c ivi lsoc ie ty a n d b us iness sect o r en ti t ies1 . N o n-go v e rn m en tal or g ani z a tion s, civ i l s o ci et y and bu s ine sss e ct or en tit ie s a cc re di ted to p ar tici pate in the C o m m it tee m a yde si gnate repr es enta tiv e s to si t a s ob s e rv e rs at pub lic mee tin gs o fthe P repa ra to ry C om m itt ee and its s ub c om mi t tee s .2 . U p on the in v ita tion of th e p re s id ing of fic e r of the bod yc on c e rned and s u b je ct to the appr ov al of tha t bod y , s u c h ob s er ve rsm a y m a k e o ral s ta te m ent s on que s t ion s in wh ic h the y h a v e s pe ci alc o m pet e n c e . If the nu m be r o f reque sts to s pea k is too la rge , thenon -go v e rn m enta l o rgan iz at ion s , c ivi l s o c ie ty and b us ine ss s e c to ren tit ie s s hal l be reque st ed to fo rm them s e lv e s in to c on st ituen ci e s ,s u c h c on s t itu e n c ie s to s pea k th rough s po k e s pe rs on s .Ó (W SI S ,2002a , e mpha sis a d ded)
Generative Power/ParticipationGenerative Power/Participation
(2) Generative mechanisms at play in terms of informal networking
– Informal participatory processes and network processes have played a very important role
“Simply by bringing so many stakeholders to the same place, WSIS helped stimulate partnerships. [...] Though this type of international collaboration is not reflected in the official paper trail, WSIS helped facilitate ground-level connection that will bring ICTs to a more prominent place on the world stage.”(Bridges, 2004)
– Summits like the WSIS are also part of a learning experience for Civil Society
Restrictive Power/AccessRestrictive Power/AccessPhysical Access (1):
In terms of the physical access to the WSIS, a number of restrictive processes are at play:
• Excluding the distant• Management through
accreditation• Management through
categorisation and conflation
• Management through separation and surveillance
Restrictive Power/AccessRestrictive Power/AccessPhysical Access (2):
– Excluding the distant: # of participants
Total West-Europe
East-Europe
North-America
LatinAmerica
Southern& SSAfrica
ArabWorld
Asia Oceania Unknown
# of CSO-participants
3205(100%)
1977(62%)
26(1%)
599(19%)
86(3%)
204(6%)
165(5%)
138(4%)
4(<1%)
6(<1%)
#of CSO 462(100%)
208(45%)
8(2%)
85(18%)
32(7%)
54(6%)
35(5%)
33(4%)
3(<1%)
4(<1%)
Average #Participants
/CSO
6,9 7,1 3,3 7,0 2,8 3 4,7 4,1 1,0 -
Median #Participant/
CSO
2 3 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 -
Restrictive Power/AccessRestrictive Power/AccessPhysical Access (2):
– Excluding the distant: Registered vs. Active CSOs
31%
49%
19%11%
10%
17%
8%
10%
8%
10%
7%
11%
57%
39%
17%
53%
14%
1% 2% 1%1% 1% 1%0%
5%
5%
6%
4%1%0%1%0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All CSO (N=1523/100%) Active CSO (N=595/39%) Non-Active CSO (N=928/61%) World Population
Europe North-America Latin-America Asia Africa Middle East Oceania Unknown
Restrictive Power/AccessRestrictive Power/AccessPhysical Access (3):
– Management through accreditation:
• Executive Secretariat and also States representatives in the PrepCom decide on accreditation.
– “The Executive Secretariat will review the relevance of the work of the applicants on the basis of their background and involvement in information society issues.” (WSIS, 2002b)
• No possibility for appeal and no need to give a reason for not accepting an organisation
• Very unclear which criteria are being used to decide upon accreditation of CSOs
Restrictive Power/AccessRestrictive Power/Access
Physical Access (4):
– Management through categorisation and conflation: • different caucuses by region and by themes CS• conflation of local authorities, business lobby actors
and civil society– Management through separation and security:
• Spatial separation • Security• Radio Frequency Identification chip
Restrictive Power/AccessRestrictive Power/AccessVirtual Access:
– Digital Divide is still a constraining factor
– In terms of introducing a document there are clearly also restrictions at play
– Little or no use has been made of the interactive potentialities of the Internet
– Nevertheless, the Internet has been an important tool, but its role and impact should not be over-emphasized!
Restrictive Power/ParticipationRestrictive Power/Participation
– Unlike the rhetoric's of official discourses ‘Real’ or ‘full’ participation of CS-actors in the decision-making process is far from being a reality.
– Participation was reduced to partial ‘observer’with the limited rights to speak.
– Internal voting procedure of CS to select representatives to speak at the WSIS, was to some degree disregarded by the ITU
Resistance to Restrictive PowerResistance to Restrictive PowerWithin the Formal Process
– By Civil Society• Bending the Rules• The alternative declaration ‘Shaping Information Societies for
Human Needs‘• By (co-)organising side-events taking place at the same venue,
but voicing a different discourse then the official one.
– By States• Most Heads of State or Prime-Ministers present came from
Eastern europe and especially Africa• US-representatives down-playing the importance of the WSIS
– By Business actors• Most CEOs from the growing IT-industry were not present • or they relied on their lobby organisations
Resistance to Restrictive PowerResistance to Restrictive PowerOutside the Formal Process
– WSIS?WeSeize• 50 dissident CSOs organised 5 days
of alternative events and actions• 4 of these organisations were also
active within the formal process (overlap)
• Problems with repression (cf. polymedia lab and demonstration)
Evaluation by CSEvaluation by CSHow to analyze the balance between generative & restrictive power relations?
Evaluation of the WSIS-process by civil society:
– Content
– Process
– Civil Society
Evaluation by CSEvaluation by CSContent:
– 'Taking into account the complexity of the operation, we couldn't do better without confrontation' (R-38, m - translation by the author).
– 'Specificity's are missing regarding how to implement the Action Plan and with which resources.' (R-21, m - translation by the author).
– 'We consider that the fundamental debate (between freedom of information and the right to communicate) that made the NWICO fail, was not addressed at all' (R-50, m - translation by the author).
– Another respondent criticised the lack of any reference to communication 'as the basis of social relations' and no strong position about the 'participatory and open and transparent dimension of knowledge societies' (R-51, f).
– 'it was about as successful as we expected - not much in it. The real focus
was the Civil Society Declaration' (R-16, m).
Evaluation by CSEvaluation by CSProcess:
– the consultation process was a 'very good approach' (R-12, f).
– 'Very significant effort leading to modest outcomes which we were content although not ecstatic about' (R-48, m).
– 'because the WSIS is a government summit, it is only normal thatstates have the last word. I think representatives from civil society are overly optimistic about their decisional weight.' (R-38, m -translation by the author).
Evaluation by CSEvaluation by CSProcess:
– 'Remained far behind the expressed innovative approach to the summit (process tri-partite); Civil Society in various regards was treated as a fig leave' (R-26, m)
– 'The consultation process itself was largely a disaster, and Civil Society was not brought in as a "partner" in the way described by the ITU' (R-49, f).
– 'Closed government working groups excluded us from what we had been informed would be open meetings for us to take part.' (R-36, m).
Evaluation by CSEvaluation by CSCivil Society
– 'through meetings and opportunity to engage in face to face discussions as well as agree on a lot of points, we developed our contacts and had a more insightful view on the international politics and networks of civil society organisations' (R-3, m).
– 'Being involved in the process, the way official documents stated,offered a fruitful occasion to discuss both issues of content (the issues at stakes) and procedure (civil society participation).Therefore a growing awareness of this aspect paralleled involvement in the process' (R-51, f).
Evaluation by CSEvaluation by CSCivil Society
– 'This has allowed already organised groups to strengthen their links, as well as those who are new to familiarise themselves with these kinds of activities. However, we also think that a large part of civil society has disengaged from the process, specifically the most militant groups as well as the new ones, leaving the 'professionals' of civil society to claim a central place in the movement.' (R-50, m ).
– 'Civil society networking was perhaps the 1 success story of the summit. Nevertheless, the mode of networking, which was guided largely by the more prominent NGOs strove for consensus in a way that buried what may be considered productive dissent and disagreement within Civil Society.' (R-49, f).
– 'too much western oriented' (R-23, m).
– 'The fragmentation of the claims made by civil society undermine its capacity to act.' (R-50, m - translation by the author).
ConclusionsConclusions
Generative– Access to the WSIS was all in all quite high– CSOs was able to voice their concerns– Networking did get a big boost, and an alternative declaration was drawn-up
Restrictive– The rhetoric’s of ‘full’ participation did not materialise– CS has had little or no impact on the formal declaration and even less on the
action plan
Resistance– CS was able to slightly bend the rules and WSIS was used as a forum to
discuss alternative strategies and idea’s– Disengagement from (some) governments and important business-actors is
potentially very problematic
ConclusionsConclusions
Dialectics of control as instrument: maximisation of generative and the minimisation of restrictive power as criterion for the depth and quality of civil society participation?
Playing with words: consultation or participation?
Civil society’s role: normalisation or utopia?
"it is only normal that states have the last word“
The Unbearable Lightness of Full The Unbearable Lightness of Full Participation in a Global Context:Participation in a Global Context:
WSIS & Civil Society Participation
FOR MORE INFO...
Bart Cammaerts (phd)– [email protected]
Nico Carpentier (phd)– [email protected]