Tag: collective decision making

Categories
- Empowerment Development Justice Oneness

10% of Humanity’s Population is Young People in India

25% of the world's population
25% of the world's population

Putting aside, for a moment, the truth that young people are characterized by having a “desire to bring about constructive change”, by having “a capacity for meaningful service”, by having “all the hope in their hearts that, through strenuous concerted effort, the world will change”; setting aside, for a minute, the fact that youth have an “eagerness to take on a measure of responsibility to aid the spiritual and social development of those around them”, and that they “share in the desire to dedicate their time and energy, talents and abilities, to service to their communities”; and ignoring, for a second, that “loving fellowship, mutual encouragement, and willingness to learn together” are properties of groups of youth and that young people possess “altruism, an acute sense of justice, eagerness to learn about the universe and a desire to contribute to the construction of a better world” – why is it that so much emphasis is placed on young people?

 

In 1920 in the United States, Congress amended the Constitution to give women the right to vote.  Prior to this, it was state dependent.  Granting this contribution to the national society for roughly 50% of the nation’s population was a matter of justice – the principle of justice demands universal participation in collective decision-making, for justice is the only means by which unity is to be achieved.  Equality of men and women in the affairs of society is a prerequisite for progress and central to any advancement, not only at the level of the principle of equality – that the rational soul, a human being’s true nature, has no gender and denial of right based on sex is unfounded – and not only based on the principle of justice – because the contributions of all is required for unity, and unity is necessary for progress – but also simply because of sheer numbers.  Half of the people making decisions for the whole?

 

 

So let’s look at statistics.  50% of the current world’s population is under 30 years of age.  The percentage has been gradually increasing, and is projected to continue.  As the population grows, more humans are born, and these humans start out under the age of 30.  So it makes sense that over the past few decades the percentage and number of young people have risen.  Those under 30 now outnumber those over 30.  Of course, not all this 50% of humanity’s population are able to speak in complete sentences or are even fully conscious (ie, the infants and toddlers).  However, on both the level of the principle of justice and based on sheer statistics, it makes sense to involve the contribution of young people to the future progress and prosperity of humankind.

 

Some more statistics.  The average age of nations across the world ranges from 15 years old to 49 years old.  There are around 33 countries in which the average age is between 15 and 18, and another 29 countries in which the average age is between 19 and 21.  There has been a 14% increase in those aged 15 to 24 in the last 20 years – currently 18% of the world’s people are between 15 and 24; while 20% are between 5 and 14.   People 14 years old and younger currently make up about a quarter of the world’s population.  Those 15-30 also make up 25% of human beings on earth.  How can these large numbers contribute to advancement of humankind?  Perhaps one-quarter (15-30) can become empowered by responding to the spiritual aspirations of another quarter (those 14 and younger)?

 

We are in the midst of a youth movement – whether coordinated or not, whether purposeful or not, whether towards laudable aims or not, whether united or not – the movement is gaining and growing.  What will be its direction?  What will be its influence in the affairs of humankind?  Their contribution will be needed in order to even begin to strive for universal participation, without which there can be no justice, without which no unity, no progress.

 

The Universal House of Justice is charged with the duty of ensuring the advancement and betterment of the world.  50% of the world’s people are 30 and under, half of them youth between 15 and 30.  Now we can go back to all the characteristics of young people mentioned in the first paragraph – combining this with the percentage of humanity they represent, little wonder, then, that the House of Justice is working to coordinate and unify this youth movement, to instill in them a “twofold sense of purpose that impels them to take charge of their own spiritual and intellectual growth and contribute to the welfare of society” and make a decisive contribution to the fortunes of humanity.  Towards this end there are currently happening 114 youth conferences, to spur on this mighty youth movement – the first world-wide, unified, purposeful, commendable youth movement in the history of humanity.

 

http://news.bahai.org/community-news/youth-conferences/

 

Categories
- Consultation - Education - Language Discourse Knowledge

Coherence in Conversations

Recently, a gathering took place in which friends from diverse backgrounds, ages, geographies, and experiences came together to explore participation in discourse.  Coherence, it seemed, was the key.

 

The weekend began with a study of a message of the Universal House of Justice dated 4 January 2009, which encourages examination and conceptualization of the community’s work in terms of three broad area of action – “enabling the protagonists of collective effort to strengthen the spiritual foundations of villages and neighbourhoods, to address certain of their social and economic needs, and to contribute to the discourses prevalent in society”.  All of these efforts require coherence in methods and approaches, something that was implicitly, as well as explicitly, explored during the weekend.

 

Next, a message dated Ridvan 2010 was studied, particularly the paragraphs regarding “two interconnected, mutually reinforcing areas of activity: involvement in social action and participation in the prevalent discourses of society.”  Though the content was overtly about social action as a field of endeavor, under a framework of coherence the same concepts and principles are easily applied to discourse.  For instance, discourse, too, requires efforts to draw on insights from Revelation as well as tap into the accumulating knowledge of the human race; involves the application of the teachings of the Faith toward improvement of some aspect of society, keeping in mind a dynamic coherence between the material and spiritual requirements of life; is built upon the principle that access to knowledge is a right of all human beings; fosters universal participation in the generation, application, and diffusion of knowledge; is not the provision of insights and principles, but is concerned with building capacity to apply and reflect upon the application on concepts; is not a series of conversations one group of people does for others, but includes insights and perspectives from all; is founded on the immutable conviction that every human being is a mine rich in gems of inestimable value and can contribute to discourse.

 

While coherence was explicitly the topic of discussion, as demonstrated by the Ridvan 2010 and 4 January 2009 messages, the structure of the weekend sought to be implicitly coherent in approaches and methods with, say, what has been learned from the institute process.  In efforts of community building all throughout the world – through “meetings that strengthen the devotional character of the community; classes that nurture the tender hearts and minds of children; groups that channel the surging energies of junior youth; circles of study, open to all, that enable people of varied backgrounds to advance on equal footing and explore the application of the teachings to their individual and collective lives” – Baha’i communities are learning about how to “raise capacity within a population to take charge of its own spiritual, social and intellectual development”.  One of the methods and approaches toward this end is that all participate in the generation of insights.  Reality is multifaceted, and therefore a sincere investigation of reality, or truth, requires the harmonization of diverse perspectives from all.  In fact, the culture of protest that has come to characterize much of political activity is a predictable reaction to lack of ability to voice opinions in political decision-making processes, a clear injustice – for justice demands universal participation.  A weekend gathering regarding discourse used the same participatory method and approach as has been learned from institute campaigns and study circles.

 

Another principle that this first area of endeavor – community building – is founded upon is the wedding of study and service.  True education is the process of revealing the gems latent within all human beings so that mankind can benefit therefrom.  Study and service.  Neither is effective without the other.  In such a short period of time, such as a weekend, study becomes the overwhelming emphasis.  Yet, multiple times were participants asked to each one voice an insight through their subjective mind to enrich the collective understanding.  And on the last day, individuals and pairs presented insights from specific-subject discourses that they had studied that morning, each presenting something unique that others didn’t have a chance to study.

 

By all accounts, the result of this coherence was highly energizing.  These participants, who had been used to attending lectures and presentation, who considered the norm a 50 minute talk with 10 minutes for irrelevant Q&A, and who felt that they needed to muster up energy for any conference since all collective activity was draining, all verbalizing feeling charged by the end.  Clearly, the galvanizing effects of participation in collective knowledge generation coupled with such a simple act of service as sharing insights with others was evident.  Participants left animated and inspired to share their understandings of the conceptual framework they studied.

 

* * *

 

At a foundational level, all areas of endeavor – whether a grassroots educational process aimed at the spiritual empowerment of large numbers, involvement in social action projects seeking to raise capacity, or participation in public discourses and humbly offering one’s perspective illumined by the Faith – are built upon conversations.  It follows, then, that all the conversations we are having in these diverse areas and fields must be characterized by a high degree of coherence.  In fact, in this way, the methods, approaches, principles, and framework will be more naturally coherent.

 

Coherence entails reflection on what we are learning about “meaningful and distinctive conversations” in the area of community-building, where we are seeking out receptive souls “who are willing to engage in a conversation about the world around them,” in order “to undertake with them an exploration of reality that gives rise to a shared understanding of the exigencies of this period in human history and the means for addressing them.”  If we are striving for coherence across all three fields of endeavor, then the nature of our participation in the discourses of society will share some of the same qualities as conversations we are learning to have in our community building efforts.

 

Categories
- Consultation - Governance - Oppression - Religion - Science Discourse Knowledge Oneness

Climate Change and Political Partisanship: Why is the Truth So Divisive?

Every intelligent mind that evaluates the causes for global warming concludes that human-induced green-house gas emissions are responsible for Earth’s atmospheric average temperature increases. The only people who disagree with this are fringe scientists and few in number. For mysterious reasons, politicians are highly polarized on this debate. This scientific question has therefore become politicized. Since the early 1990’s the debate has typically fallen along partisan lines. The question needs to be asked: ‘Should we raise awareness of the facts surrounding climate change and risk igniting partisan warfare?’

To investigate the scientific validity of an issue, to raise awareness and form thoughtful opinions, and to act on these views as citizens with our purchasing-power and electoral choices — all this seems a human duty and a moral responsibility. However, what if we also hope to avoid becoming embroiled in partisan conflict, and consider exacerbating its divisive character, by throwing fuel onto a fire, equally unacceptable? An alternative is to refrain from speaking altogether. This however, would imply remaining silent on matters of conscience.

To many it would be unconscionable to hold their peace on matters of importance to one’s community, the environment, and the world. As responsible citizens of one common homeland, if we know something we would wish to share it, especially if  it is of betterment to the world. Who wouldn’t want others to benefit from it, to stimulate large numbers to investigate it, to improve collective conditions and avert disaster?

Pursuit of truth is natural. The desire to teach it is equally natural. The facts compel our conscience to declare that human fossil fuels and deforestation are responsible for climate change and truly threaten life on earth as we know it. How can public information and unbiased investigation into the topic be promoted, while not attracting the label of partisan bickering? How can one be true to one’s conscience but at the same time avoid being drawn into conflict with partisan representatives and economic special interests?

Partisan demonizing carries with it a debilitating affect on intelligent discourse. Climate change is after all, an issue of global importance and collective human destiny. Is it possible to contribute wisely whilst remaining free of quarrel in a social environment charged with partisan bickering and economic second agendas?

Holding discourse hostage with the threat of demonizing and castigating alternative viewpoints undermines the truth-discovering power of consultation, cooperation, and collective action.

Dear Sandy: Will humankind put aside partisanship before the Earth overheats our species?

.

Categories
- Consultation - Education - Empowerment - Governance - Language - Oppression - Prevailing Conceptions - Religion - Three Protagonists Development Discourse Human Nature Justice Knowledge Oneness

Summary: Ridvan 2012 Message

Paragraph#:

1. Abdu’l-Baha’s Temple-ground piercing Centenary. Diverse participants then and now.

2. Divine civilization beyond mere adjustments to present order.

3. Erroneous assumptions of human nature, justified by failings, disallow spiritual potential.

4. Imprisonment enables sympathetic hearts. 5-Year Plan (5YP) features grasped. Intensify application.

5. Signs: individual transformation, divine communities, administration promotes human welfare. Protagonist’s mutual support.

6. Citizens, body politic, societal institutions struggle for power. Cooperative Baha’i alternative emerging: responsible individual, nurturing institutions, eager community.

7. Revelation recasts societal relationships. Economic injustice tolerated; disproportionate gain emblem of success. Eschew dishonesty, exploitation.

8. National Mashriqu’l-Adhkars to be raised in Democratic Republic of Congo and Papua New Guinea. Remarkable response to Plans.

9. Mashriqu’l-Adhkar weds worship and service, reflected in devotionals and educational process, correlates with size and SA. JYSEP fuels SC’s and CC’s. Learning site fortifies E&C. Erection of Local Houses of Worship: Battambang, Cambodia; Bihar Sharif, India; Matunda Soy, Kenya; Norte del Cauca, Colombia; and Tanna, Vanuatu clusters.

10. Temples Fund established. Sacrificial contributions invited.

11. Seven countries breaking Temple-ground. Every city prelude. From these Dawning-Points peal out anthems of His praise.

The Universal House of Justice

 

“…extraordinary reservoir of spiritual potential available to any illumined soul…”

 

Abbreviations:
5YP – Five Year Plan
SA – Social Action
JYSEP – Junior Youth Spiritual Empowerment Program
SC – Study Circle
CC – Children’s Class
E&C – Expansion and Consolidation

 

 

Categories
- Consultation - Governance Discourse Justice Knowledge

Post-Partisan Politics

Identifying aspects of political discourse that is partisan in nature and to be avoided is challenging and will call for a higher caliber of insight and self-mastery as issues become increasingly engrossing and complex and as noble ideologies arise to prominence within the context of partisan systems. The boundaries may not always be clear, and our understanding of these boundaries in turn may evolve over time as the community synthesizing and advocating noble, selfless, and unifying ideologies 1) learns from the global experience, 2) synthesizes collective learning into tangible guidelines, 3) initiates more radically when responsibilities are low, and then consummates more reservedly as responsibilities and powers grow,  and finally 4) as issues available in the data itself evolve and humanity unitedly breaches new frontiers in the study of phenomena related to modern governance. World conditions change, and as such, engagement in partisan politics must change its off-limits demarcations – always keeping true to the axiom that what promotes unity is best, and any discourse involving combativeness, conflict, or competition, must be eschewed behind. In our struggle to apply our keenest insights into unraveling these boundaries, perhaps some controversial issues will unintentionally be engaged, however, rapid real-time delimitation of what is considered valuable and allowable discussion will suggest itself and can be modified distinctly and quickly, retracting said involvement, and supplanting it with non0involvement – as a policy most conducive to unity. Damage will by this means be minimized and any controversy will be pre-emptively avoided.

Future collective understanding of these boundaries will be able to benefit from the synthesized experience of others who engaged in discourse of a similar learning nature and whose results, quickly synthesized in a globalized learning process, feeds its respective experience of controversial boundaries into a centralized, canalized, web of communication that extends inwardly collecting experience from near and far policy-discussions. Subsequently, dissemination of information regarding which topics, structural arrangements, language insensitivities, particularistic proposals, and bigoted sentiments conduce to public discontent, fueling contention. This information is data that can be synthesized into a guideline for political activists seeking to avoid encroachment on elements that create disunity, constitute partisanship, inadvertently support campaigning, or constitute a breach in voting secrecy. Generation of knowledge takes places through experimentation at city and village centers; the collation of information from localities will proceed inwardly and upwardly toward a world nerve center for synthesis and crystallization of collective experience into a distillate of statistical averages, constructive coincidences, complementary tendencies and identification of strategies of benefit. Finally, recommendations can be formulated by induction, insofar as cultural and contextual considerations allow, for the dissemination and diffusion of guidelines in a retrograde direction, towards diverse cities and hamlets, on a global scale. The process of the generation, application, and diffusion of knowledge therefore has its dawn at the grassroots level, sees its meridian glory emerge in the metropolitan nerve center that synthesizes global experience, and reaps its golden luster in the distant goal lands it warms in the political landscape which undergoes a global re-organization of its structure and re-education of its culture. Knowledge and praxis of political science will be equipped to assist and not invalidate human progress.

We know that we can minimize our mistakes, maximize our systematic learning, and revolutionize structural insufficiency  if we deliberate together on the synthesized global experience, study the resultant guidance, and consult together with unity. So powerful is the light of unity, that it can illuminate the whole earth. The power of fraternity, camaraderie, and prosperity through unity surpasses the light of the sun, and turns earth into a lustrous homeland for a prosperous people. As a species, we learn how to apply knowledge, have faith in the collective, scientific, knowledge-generating and synthesizing process, and ultimately take action informed by such experience and empowered by such loving unity. After one cycle of experimentation, collation, synthesis, recommendation,  application and diffusion – we return to reflect on what we have learned through such action. Please, offer some recommendations that inform the structure of a post-partisan political world. Outcome measures include considerations of practicability, merits and nuances in application, prohibitions and descriptions of internal dynamics. Let us keep in mind the complexity and difficulties that are involved in prosecuting such a charge.

Categories
- Governance Knowledge

A Learning “State”

Continuing the discussion on governance and some principles that it is informed by, the last post on consultation leads to a key attribute that should characterize effective governance.  We know that human society is diverse, that its dynamics are becoming increasingly complex and interdependent, and therefore, that structures and organizational models must evolve in order to serve the needs of humanity.  It is crucial, then, that governance be approached in a mode of learning.

Previous posts have already discussed a culture of learning, and it is extremely important in the context of government.  Collective decisions made by institutions are always limited by the best insights available at the moment and by the individuals involved.  The limited factors seem to be 1) number of individuals, and 2) insights of individuals.  In order to make better and better decisions, all the plans and policies need to be tested against reality, within a social context or the community.  This will involve a large portion of people and generate immense insights.  Over time, decisions are refined as knowledge is advanced.  It is helpful to, again, use the analogy of a path of learning – and to view decisions as points of this path.  Institutions, just like individuals, can periodically reflect on decisions in light of experience, consult on them, adjust, create new policies, and test them.  Without adopting a humble posture of learning, any structure of governance will become obsolete and useless as quickly as social change.  And how fast is society changing?

Relevant to a learning mode within the context of governance is the idea that unity facilitates learning.  Current structural models of opposition and protest sabotage learning efforts.  If interest groups or factions are constantly competing and fighting against each other’s decisions and policies, then any attempt to learn from action is undermined.  (Not to mention all the energy dissipated in power struggles that could be used towards learning from action).  To properly implement policy within a mode of learning – action, reflection, consultation, and revision – requires a degree of unity to then scientifically and reasonably analyze the results of any plan without being biased by efforts to undermine it.  Otherwise, nothing looks like it works – and no strength can be built upon.

How do we foster a spirit of unity to enable social structures to operate in a learning mode?  

What are other characteristics required for governance to adopt a culture of learning?  

Do you see examples of organizations which learn?

.

Categories
- Consultation - Governance

Consultation and Governance

The practice of consultation has been a theme of multiple posts on this blog.  It is, obviously, a vital concept for governance, for it is the operating expression of justice in a way that empowers.

As the last post pointed out, a conception of governance that is informed by the principles of Oneness, Justice, and Power that were discussed in the last two posts, and that seeks to exercise a collective trusteeship over an interconnected and unified social body is dependent on effective consultation for collective decision-making.  Society’s current models of dispute and debate, of interest group competition, of “us” and “them” mentalities are entirely inadequate to meet humanity’s challenges in an age of social interdependence.

Consultation, in the setting of governance, needs certain prerequisites.  Those members of institutions must be sincere and systematic in seeking truth; they must be frank and loving when putting forth their views; they must be detached from their words, for once put forth, they belong to the whole group – to be altered, critiqued, discarded, or accepted.  Unity is to be valued above opinions, for it is unity that leads unto truth.  And diverse perspectives must be sought from all individuals, for a multi-faceted reality is illumined more by more insights – the minds of many is preferable to the minds of few.  Their goal must be the well-being of all humanity; their means the application of spiritual principles and a spirit of fellowship with the community in which they serve.  Finally, their mode of operation is a humble posture of learning, in which reflection on decisions made helps constantly improve and refine policies and their implementation.  This reflection is not simply a judgement of “good” or “bad”, but rather, “what did we learn?”.

From these thoughts and from previous posts on consultation:

How can these qualities be nurtured in organizations and in the area of governance?

How can these mature approaches to collective decision-making inform relationships between and among individuals, communities, and institutions?

Categories
- Governance Power

Alternative Elections

The idea of humanity as one, interconnected, interdependent, social body implies that each person is born into this world as a trust of the whole.  The role of governance, then, comes as an exercise of the power of collective trusteeship.  This idea of governance is irreconcilable with its current characteristics of competitive groups struggling for power to advance their own interests.  As our world has become highly socially, ecologically, and economically interdependent, the well-being of each part is dependent on the well-being of the whole.  The conception of government that is modeled after a contest for power – susceptible to economic corruption, diminishing the voice of the marginalized, and disregarding the interest of non-constituents including those unborn – has ceased to promote prosperity, has failed to address the needs of an evolving humanity, has served to oppress and divide.  Why continue?  Why cling?  Why allow humankind to suffer to keep an obsolescent system built on an anachronistic assumption?

One example of an alternate system is presented here, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that systems of governance don’t have to be contests of power.  The Baha’i community is developing a system that has proven effective in every culture, geographic location, and level of government.  It has an electoral process that is purely democratic yet free of competition – every adult is responsible to vote, is eligible for election, and has the duty to serve if elected.  There are no nominations, no campaigns, no parties; no manipulation, no slander, no economic influence.  Voters have the complete freedom to choose those who they think will serve the role the best – and these names are cast with secret ballot.  Those who are named most frequently on the ballot are then elected to serve on consultative institutions – and it is in these bodies where decision-making authority resides, and not with any individual elected member.  Of course, this system is evolving within a learning mode, and only works when certain conditions are met – for instance, that it is adopted in a voluntary manner and that certain values and commitments are cultivated in those participating (such as truthfulness, detachment, selflessness, and support of majority vote in decisions, just to name a few).

Where have you seen alternative models of governance that employ mature conceptions of power?  

What are ideas of how governance can be unifying?  How is power exercised in unifying and cooperative systems?

.

Categories
- Consultation - Governance - Human Body Justice Oneness

Oneness, Justice, and Governance

As has been a central theme throughout the discussions on this blog, our current stage of human history is defined by global interdependence.  All forms of government and organization that divide one group against another are simply outdated, ineffective, and frankly detrimental.  Progress requires harmony and coordination among and between all levels of society; and thus, the practice of governance – which is an institution that serves to facilitate progress – must be informed by a recognition of humanity’s oneness and interdependence.

The vision of our social body is analogous to the human body, in which diverse elements are integrated together in a unified whole – each achieving well-being through striving for the well-being of the whole, while the well-being of the whole allows the full realization of each parts capacities.  As demonstrated with an organism, organic unity is not uniformity – it is harmony of diversity.  Similar to biological life, diversity is a source of strength, of creativity, of resilience, of productivity, of adaptation, of beauty; and real prosperity will be achieved when all the diverse elements and segments of society contribute towards governance within a unified and integrated framework.

The means to achieve unity is through justice.  The role of a just government, then, is to allow every individual and group the opportunity to build capacity to contribute to the advancement of civilization; as well as to guide collective goals and collective decision-making processes with the aim of the well-being of the whole, and not of one part at the expense of the whole.  This necessitates a consultative approach to governance, to allow for diverse thoughts to become harmonized into unity of action.  Justice is how unity in diversity occurs.

In your daily life, what are some forms of governance and organization that you encounter? 

How are they informed by oneness and justice?  How can they be informed by these concepts?

.

Categories
- Consultation Discourse Knowledge Oneness

Truth, Civility, and Consultation Part III

Any minority pursuing development on behalf of the collective foists its values onto, and often disturbs, the very population it purports to serve.  Subsuming collective prosperity to their personal values of progress, and sacrificing the participation and engagement of whole segments of indigenous population, this minority allows little room for feedback from efforts as they are made, learning in action, or real-time adjustments to suit realities in the field. These feedback loops would involve acknowledging those indigenous populations as equals to the developers conducting the development process – empowering them. Maintaining a power dynamic has historically been the priority of the ‘global development’ community. Increasing industrial and technological resources are needed to advance the agenda, implement the plan, and placate an unwilling and unsuited local community. Alone and isolated, a driven minority commits itself to increasing scales of intellectual and technocratic sophistication (personal accomplishments) in pursuance to its commitment to a personal vision of prosperity. Soon, corporate investments are needed to bolster ailing engagements, exploitative incentives are needed to motivate corporate bottom lines, a marriage of convenience between idealism and corporate exploitation seems necessary. Right becomes wrong, success in industrialization becomes justified at all costs, ends justify means, cultural and sociological tragedies of all kinds abound, struggle for power becomes end in itself, idealistic ideology is subordinated to camp warfare for competitive contract bidding, development has become imperialism, idealism has become opportunism, and disunity becomes religion.

We learn from this that communication must be made open, free, and inclusive. Consultation should be recognized as cure to these many difficulties. Discourse must seek out participation and respect for all people and perspectives. Diverse and dissenting views must be admitted. Honest and sincere contributions to the global discourse of human betterment are paramount and singular criteria. Manipulation or insistence on one line of action or reasoning must not be tolerated. Each offered thought belongs to the collective and is not attached to ego or camp. Offered for the collective good, and free from calculation for personal or particularistic advantage or gain, proposals are modified, refined, or discarded based upon consideration of global interest.  Truth in this way becomes a function of politeness and inclusivity as this ensures welcomeness in collective participation. Poise, equanimity, and civility have a mysterious relationship with truth. Politeness, dignity, and selflessness maintain the relevance of any one individual to the collective decision making, truth discovering, and knowledge generating process.

Categories
- Consultation Discourse Knowledge Oneness

Truth, Civility, and Consultation Part II

The history of philanthropic movements recounts many instances of people who believe in noble ideals and strive to fulfill their vision of what they think the world ought to look like. One may reasonably ask however, whether what they considered ideal could actually truly be considered a reliable pattern for prosperous order without incorporating the vision and experiences of the people needing ‘development’. Notwithstanding, ‘global developers’ implanted systems of industrial and economic production based on north american models and experience indiscriminately.

The twentieth century saw the collapse of this worldview; its ideals sagged under mounting historical evidence. Development seemed to be struggling as an ideal. Extensive efforts in line with the corrupt core of ideals it cherished met only with results to the contrary. Exacerbated stand all parameters and indices of the severity and profundity of social and economic pathology – 50 years and countless billions of dollars into the movement later.  The undoing of the nuclear family extended into previously untouched rural outreaches, the unprecedented brutality and depravity of criminality, the normalcy of dysfunction at the level of educational systems. The tragic fate of socio-economic development as a western export has eradicated in the global psyche the once-cherished hope that idealistic motives and material resources can correct the problems of planetary civilization. After D-Day and Hiroshima an age of globalization ushered in the consciousness of human interconnectedness and the nobility of co-existent constructiveness. Development emerged as the single most exorbitant and grandiose collective idealism manifest in corporate investment and political discourse to which the human race has ever turned its attention.

Its idealistic naiveté matched its financial and technological investment. Far from narrowing the gap between the minority that enjoys the benefits of western modernization and the vast majority of members of the human family mired in hopeless privation – ironically, the movement towards development that once boasted high hopes has seen the gap widen into an abyss. By its own standards the movement must be judged a disheartening failure, if not a direct contributor to our current predicament.

 

Categories
Development Justice Oneness

Approaches to Justice

In the collective life of humankind, justice manifests as a compass in decision making, protecting resources from being diverted towards extraneous values, and protecting groups of people from the oppression of a vocal and seemingly-powerful minority.

Justice cannot, then, be left to the “invisible hand” that is said to characterize our economic free market; cannot be facilitated through lobbying and partisan advocacy that characterizes our politics; cannot be a quixotic endeavor of struggling against a chosen injustice, one after another, that characterizes our humanitarianism.  Instead, justice requires mature approaches.

1)  If the purpose of justice is the appearance of unity, then its means and methods must be unified by definition – there cannot be a contradiction between ends and means.  Justice should be applied through a consultative approach, through cooperation, selflessness, and harmony.  All conflict and contention must be avoided as justice is applied and unity sought.  Obviously, one interest group cannot contest and overpower others in order to create unity.

2)  Justice calls for universal participation – after all, humanity is one, and its crises and victories are shared by all.  So shall be its development.  This requires the empowerment of all individuals to become active protagonists of their own development.  Each individual is noble, each individual has latent capacities that can be manifest through education, and it is just that each individual contributes towards the betterment of the world.  One segment cannot determine development values and assign roles to the rest.

3)  Response to oppression is met through foundational and fundamental changes to both human consciousness and societal structure.  It is extremely naive to think that tweaking aspects of the current thought and order will bring about justice and unity.  And it is utterly ineffective to narrow in on and battle one injustice at a time in order to satisfy a desire for heroic quest.  Interconnectedness and oneness govern reality.  Justice must be approached at the level of principle, with sustained action, and long-term vision.  Principles inform practicality, not vice versa.