Zoller's piece on the TABD again slices through the notion of dialogue as a form of civic participation and legitimate tool for public progress. What can we expect from state and TNC operators, a body that eases the flow of capital between countries or that actually seeks to involve consumers and work for the public good? Dialogue as a term simply props up the oligarchs' status quo and anesthetizes any real resistive potential in the masses. There is a dialogue going on, but its not the dialogue that the public is interested in or dialogue that has any substance. As Zoller puts it, "TABD draws on this theory of dialogue to argue for a credible competition among civil society groups and business organization. The TABD invokes the concept of a pluralistic, democratic dialogue to justify its relationship to government."
The TABD however in my opinion is not a mere front group with a placard of 'dialogue' but a facilitator for big business and governing elites. In reality, they are interested in pluralism, just not pluralism for interests that don't possess the capital to join the conversation. In the dialogue, it's only money that speaks.
This is just one case study, but does it do enough to remove all legitimacy of dialogue in the current system? I do think dialogue has a role to play, a position that may draw some scorn from my classmates. But that dialogue only works on a more level playing field. The challenge is to reach the point where powerful stakeholders have no choice but to react to concerns. Dialogue as a tool should not be scrapped altogether but used concurrently with other methods to combat the larger interests. If you are against dialogue for the sake of dialogue, I am with you there. Talking heads produce a lot of hot air.
The TABD however in my opinion is not a mere front group with a placard of 'dialogue' but a facilitator for big business and governing elites. In reality, they are interested in pluralism, just not pluralism for interests that don't possess the capital to join the conversation. In the dialogue, it's only money that speaks.
This is just one case study, but does it do enough to remove all legitimacy of dialogue in the current system? I do think dialogue has a role to play, a position that may draw some scorn from my classmates. But that dialogue only works on a more level playing field. The challenge is to reach the point where powerful stakeholders have no choice but to react to concerns. Dialogue as a tool should not be scrapped altogether but used concurrently with other methods to combat the larger interests. If you are against dialogue for the sake of dialogue, I am with you there. Talking heads produce a lot of hot air.
Comments