Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
stake in democratic politics and of the dynamics of constitution of political identities
and, as we shall see, it contributes to exacerbating the antagonistic potential existing
insociety.(2005,1-2)
Itisthisabsenceofanexplicitattentiontothepoliticalthathasbeenperhapsthe
Achilles'heeloftheIAASTD.heformalassessmentprocessdidnotconfrontcontro-
versy head-on, even if the micro processes in author groups and review interactions
certainly did. No procedures or mechanisms appeared to exist to either surface or deal
withsuchdebatesanddivergentviews.A lackofrecognitionofantagonisticpolitics—
overknowledge,identity,andtheconstructionoffutures—meansthatthecosmopoli-
tan,deliberativeidealthattheIAASTDpresentsasitsmodel,suppresses,diverts,and
bottles up such tensions; or, at least, it relegates them to off-the-record debates within
text-writing and reviewing groups rather than making such issues central and explicit.
How can this be addressed?
On a practical level, a key lesson for the IAASTD—and similar assessment pro-
cesses—istheurgentneedtoinjectsomesystematicrelexivityintotheprocess,one
that involves all parties. This requirement is an explicit way of meeting the challenge of
Mouffe and others of ensuring that politics are central. As she argues:
. . . the belief in the possibility of a universal, rational consensus has put democratic
thinking on the wrong track. Instead of trying to design the institutions which,
through supposedly “impartial” procedures would reconcile conlicting interests
and values, the task for democratic theorists and politicians should be to envisage the
creation of a vibrant “agonistic” public sphere of contestation where different hege-
monic political projects can be confronted.
(Moufe2005,3)
Infocusingontheconceptof“relexiveinstitutions”andthegovernanceprocesses
they require, this chapter highlights the challenge of finding ways that design elements
canbeintroducedintotheproceduresandpracticesofassessmentssuchastheIAASTD
in ways that allow this type of explicit confrontation of politics, perspectives, values,
and interests. While the design of the process, its governance, and institutional form
canbecriticizedforlackofrelexivity,thebehind-the-scenesnegotiationsoverfram-
ings, values, and politics have, as we have seen, been heated and continuous. However, a
key starting point is to make the framing of assumptions around diverse positions and
knowledge claims more explicit: placing them front-stage, not just backstage. This of
course does not mean that the examination of scientific issues should not take place;
instead,suchrelexivityhopefullyresultsinincreasedrigor,avoidingthedangersofa
false,fudged“consensus.”I wouldarguethatopeningupboththeinputsandoutputs
of the assessment process, including an acceptance that consensus and agreement may
not be appropriate or desirable, can result in more effective, rigorous and more widely
acceptedoutcomes(Stirling2005).heIAASTDhasbeenanambitiousattempttocre-
ateaforumforcross-stakeholderdialogueofacriticalissueatthegloballevel.Ithas
inevitablybeenfraughtandlawed,buttherehavebeensomeimportantlessonslearned,
Search WWH ::




Custom Search