|
WP21 Summary No. 3 (week of November 4-10, 2002): universalism, intercultural dialogue and global justice
Arnaud BLIN, WP21 team
Friday, November 15, 2002 9:55 PM
ººº Abstract: This week witnessed a high number of messages and
presentations. The discussion on values, principles and purpose continued
with a debate on universalism, universal values and intercultural global
dialogue. We also touched upon one of the fundamental questions behind the
creation of a world parliament : “what is justice on a global scale?” ººº
Introductions
Presentations continued at a rapid pace this week with people writing again
from several continents. The group was diverse once again with a greater
participation of women than during the previous two weeks. A couple of people
who joined the discussion have been active with organizations such as the
World Constitution Parliament Association and the World federalist Movement.
Continuation of the initial discussion on values, principles, and purpose
Due to the great amount of incoming messages, we decided to extend the initial
discussion on values, Principles and Purpose another week, until November 17,
thus pushing back the first “coffee break.” Following is a summary of some of
the ideas that were presented to the forum this week. The organization of
these ideas is, as always, determined somewhat subjectively by the
synthesizer.
Questions from the moderator
Drawing on the suggestion by one participant to base the WP on some primary
principles and values (1 Respect and solidarity - 2 Transparency - 3
Coherence - 4 Protection - 5 A real representativeness - 6 Flexibility and
adaptability - 7 Ci-Terrestrial-ship (Earth Citizenship)), the forum’s
moderator, Rob Wheeler, opened up the discussion with some questions :
- How can we ensure that global governance, or a world parliament, operates
according to the values and principles that are agreed on?
- Which tools or instruments could best represent and define these values and
principles, and which not, and why? i.e. a global written constitution, a
whole of practices of international law without a central text, local -
regional constitutions of laws, a charter statement, a universal code on the
net actualized by the intervention of all people, or any other tool you want
to suggest. (See this month's introductory message for more details)
- How can we ensure that our global institutions begin to operate according to
such principles? What mechanisms could be used to lead toward their adoption ?
such as the Alliance Proposal booklets, Charter 99’ Campaign for Global
Accountability, Simultaneous Policy initiative, the Ubuntu campaign on
transforming global governance, etc.
Universalism
The 20th century will probably be known to historians as the century of
the “isms”: Nazism, Marxism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, Colonialism. Many of
these “isms” had a common root: nationalism. And while some of the products
of nationalism, such as Nazism are all but dead, nationalism still motivates
many of today’s political actions and ideological rhetoric. As a value for
progress, nationalism has proven many a time in the past that it does not fit
the bill. If the world is to move forward, other values must take over. A
strong candidate might be universalism. In the words of one participant,
universalism is “The only 'ism' that merits our support as the only value fit
for the 21stcentury,» adding that « universalism is the only mindset for
today, it is the only panacea for the social ailments plaguing our planet. If
people can learn to adopt this value of universalism, if they can learn to put
this principle above the concept of state sovereignty, then the practical
concept of world government will automatically fall into place.”
Does universalism necessarily entail obligations? Should universalism have
its own language, untainted by cultural bias? One participant suggested that
cultural and linguistic equality might be a prerequisite for a world
parliament. But, since the adoption of one of today’s current language would
necessarily bring about inequality, perhaps one should try to adopt a neutral
language such as Esperanto, or even Latin or Classical Arabic, because they
are “nobody’s language.” For those who might think this a bit far-fetched or
impractical, I will point everyone to the example of Israel, where the old
Hebrew language was revived successfully at the end of the 19th century.
But, as another participant suggests, one could also view universalism as
rooted in a western mentality that is based on a “mono-polar dimension”
derived from static monotheistic cultures. Therefore, we need to look to
something else. Thus, “only if we accept dualism or pluralism as *the*
creative motivation will we have the chance to develop an attitude which
respects inherent cosmic principles. Such an attitude will be characteristic
for mental maturing and will open the eyes for the injustice which an elitist
mentality has caused and still is forcing upon this planet and its
inhabitants. »
Intercultural global dialogue
Another way to look at universalism is through the perspective of an
intercultural global dialogue. Considering the recent history of the world, a
dialogue must take into account the rift between North and South. In that
respect, both sides must find a way to co-exist in harmony. For example, non-
Westerners could accept the idea that in building a humanized globalization,
global common values should be developed. Westerners should open up some of
the space they have occupied thus far and put aside their discourses about
universalism, individual rights, equality, etc., and let the others build and
put on the table their own visions of what the world should be, sometimes by
re-appropriating Western ideas, and also surely being inspired by the best
aspects of their own traditions. Through this, perhaps might we reach some
common *universal* values, democratically formulated, and accepted by all of
us, being the result of a dialogue in *equality* of conditions.
Justice on a global scale
The greatest work of political philosophy of the Twentieth Century is
unquestionably John Rawls’ *A Theory of Justice*. In this text, the author
introduces an important concept, that of fairness, which he opposes to the
utilitarian approach adopted by most liberal societies. Justice as fairness
relies on a broad understanding of the social contract where all social
values – liberty, wealth, respect, choices and possibilities– are equally
distributed among the individuals of a society. The type of society where
Rawls envisions this happening is a constitutional democracy. I found that
his approach, if one extends it beyond the confines of the state, is very
similar to several contributions made in the forum. For instance, one of the
participants proposes that a “real” world democracy should be based on a
some “indispensable minima” such as :
1. To endow the 6 thousand millions of inhabitants of the planet of the real
capacity of participating in the public sphere, meaning that all human being,
without distinction, should perceive from the public administration a
necessary amount of money to be able to subsist in dignity, that is to say,
above the threshold of poverty. If the life of a person depends on charity,
favors or even contracts where he or she is not able to negotiate, this person
doesn't have real capacity of political participation.
2. To endow us of a world political system that guarantees the freedom as no-
dominance, that is to say, impeding the arbitrary interferences in individual
life as well as in collectivities. If an individual or a community is
vulnerable from arbitrary interferences this is not a true democracy.
Another contributor echoed Rawls’ concerns regarding the close relationship
between fairness and freedom by suggesting that we must take others into
account: “those that don't have the indispensable essentials to eat, to
drink, to sleep, to take shelter, to keep their health; those whose
recognition of dignity, right, justice, liberty is not assured; all those that
cannot express themselves with us in our exchanges, having yet others around
them; those that suffer from being women, children, poverty-stricken men in a
world of wasteful practices; those staying in different geographical places,
having different histories; different needs, different environments. » In
short, a world parliament should not only be founded on values and principles,
but on responsibilities, and a willingness to act as well.
Conclusion
This concludes the second week of the initial discussion on values, principles
and purpose. Thus far, the discussion has focused on the relevance of
*universal values* and on an understanding of what these values might be.
While there is a definite consensus as to the need to determine these values,
difficulties arise as soon as we try to come up with precise definitions. The
dichotomy between Western and non-Western values is an important issue that
needs to be resolved. Overall, participants are trying to find a good balance
between general and specific values. In terms of principles and purpose, the
discussion has been straightforward with a number of specific suggestions.
These initial proposals should serve as primary material for the continuation
of the discussion that, through a natural dialectical process, should enable
us to later come up with a more consensual course of action.
WP21 Alliance Forum on a World Parliament for the 21st Century
E-mail : world-parl@forums.alliance21.org
Fax 1 717 264 5036
Information, inscriptions, désinscriptions: germa@alliance21.org
|
|
|
english ·original·
[FORUM]
[DISCUSSION]
[SYNTHESES]
[DOCUMENTS]
[CALENDAR]
[PARTICIPANTS]
[SUBSCRIBE]
[CONTACT]
[HOME]