21
3.1.4 Broader Conception of Stakeholders
In practice, however, the stakeholder perspective could be harmful for the evolution
of democratic society. If one employs a narrow definition of stakeholders and limit
the political participation to those who actually have the power to influence the decision or the access to redress, those who might be influenced by the decision but have
no formal right to appeal are likely to be excluded simply because of the arbitrarily
defined boundary of legitimate stakeholders.
For instance, future generations might not be considered as a legitimate category
of stakeholders, leading to unrecoverable environmental damages. Indigenous people without political influence would be neglected as marginal actors. Such narrow
conceptions of stakeholders might lead to a solution that strengthens the incumbent
power structure that might not be “democratic” or “sustainable” at all.
Thus, the stakeholder perspective, if it is misconstrued, can be employed as a tool
for the incumbents to amass their political influence. Meanwhile, those poor people
who have no access to the political arena would have less access to policy-making
processes where they could voice their concerns. Such concerns have led to the criticism about the conventional liberal conception of bargaining-based approaches to
policy-making.
We, however, take a different approach. We assert that stakeholders should be
conceptualized in a long-term and global perspective. Any strategy that merits the
current generation and demand insurmountable burden on the future generation is
not sustainable at all, as the Brundtland Commission concluded in its statement on
sustainable development. Indigenous people deprived of political access under the
current regime might gain political power with help of international actors, such as
international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), in a long run. Citizen’s revolutionary movements, as we saw in some of the northern African countries in 2011,
can lead to a dramatic change of domestic power structure.
In this regard, a concept called “activist mediator” is instructive. Conventionally,
mediators try to resolve conflicts between specific parties under certain conditions.
Forester and Stitzel (1989) argue, however, mediators in the public sector dispute
resolution efforts take more proactive roles in resolving conflict. For instance, they
try to involve stakeholders who are not necessarily identified as the main parties to
the dispute. They also try to encourage the disputants to consider “other” stakeholders, such as future generations, so that their agreement can be sustainably implemented in the long run.
We take an activist mediator’s approach to the stakeholder perspective. We argue
that the conception of stakeholders should not be bounded by the current power
structure that surrounds the policy situation of concern. Instead, anyone who tries to
identify the range of stakeholders should imagine how the structural constraints,
which define the range of stakeholders, might change in a long run. He/she should
also give up being totally objective in the analysis and take a stand in involving
those who should, instead of who can, participate in a democratic
decision-making.
3 Stakeholder Perspective and Multilevel Governance
3.1.4 Broader Conception of Stakeholders
In practice, however, the stakeholder perspective could be harmful for the evolution
of democratic society. If one employs a narrow definition of stakeholders and limit
the political participation to those who actually have the power to influence the decision or the access to redress, those who might be influenced by the decision but have
no formal right to appeal are likely to be excluded simply because of the arbitrarily
defined boundary of legitimate stakeholders.
For instance, future generations might not be considered as a legitimate category
of stakeholders, leading to unrecoverable environmental damages. Indigenous people without political influence would be neglected as marginal actors. Such narrow
conceptions of stakeholders might lead to a solution that strengthens the incumbent
power structure that might not be “democratic” or “sustainable” at all.
Thus, the stakeholder perspective, if it is misconstrued, can be employed as a tool
for the incumbents to amass their political influence. Meanwhile, those poor people
who have no access to the political arena would have less access to policy-making
processes where they could voice their concerns. Such concerns have led to the criticism about the conventional liberal conception of bargaining-based approaches to
policy-making.
We, however, take a different approach. We assert that stakeholders should be
conceptualized in a long-term and global perspective. Any strategy that merits the
current generation and demand insurmountable burden on the future generation is
not sustainable at all, as the Brundtland Commission concluded in its statement on
sustainable development. Indigenous people deprived of political access under the
current regime might gain political power with help of international actors, such as
international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), in a long run. Citizen’s revolutionary movements, as we saw in some of the northern African countries in 2011,
can lead to a dramatic change of domestic power structure.
In this regard, a concept called “activist mediator” is instructive. Conventionally,
mediators try to resolve conflicts between specific parties under certain conditions.
Forester and Stitzel (1989) argue, however, mediators in the public sector dispute
resolution efforts take more proactive roles in resolving conflict. For instance, they
try to involve stakeholders who are not necessarily identified as the main parties to
the dispute. They also try to encourage the disputants to consider “other” stakeholders, such as future generations, so that their agreement can be sustainably implemented in the long run.
We take an activist mediator’s approach to the stakeholder perspective. We argue
that the conception of stakeholders should not be bounded by the current power
structure that surrounds the policy situation of concern. Instead, anyone who tries to
identify the range of stakeholders should imagine how the structural constraints,
which define the range of stakeholders, might change in a long run. He/she should
also give up being totally objective in the analysis and take a stand in involving
those who should, instead of who can, participate in a democratic
decision-making.
3 Stakeholder Perspective and Multilevel Governance