|
WP21 Summary No. 4 (week of November 11-17, 2002)
Arnaud BLIN, WP21 team
Thursday, November 21, 2002 2:24 AM
ººº Abstract: This will be the fourth and final weekly synthesis for the 1st
discussion on values, principles, and purpose and it precedes current week’s
coffee break. As of now, 215 people joined the forum, 62 sent introductions
while 37 contributions were made. We received messages from the U.S., France,
the U.K, Mauritania, Canada and Japan. There was no general consensus on the
issue of values. Someone suggested that there be three fundamental values :
Ethical values; Solidarity; Liberty/Transparency/Democracy. At one end of the
spectrum, some thought the debate on values well advanced with some agreement
already present in such documents as the Earth Charter and Agenda 21. Others
disagreed. On the question of purpose, someone saw the purpose of a world
parliament as furthering the cause of the unity of humanity, meaning that the
general goal of a WP would be to encourage Planetary Citizenship. Finally, we
brifly talked about the ongoing debate about spirituality and started to look
at the mechanisms that might be used to implement some of the agreed Values
and Principles. ººº
This will be the fourth and final weekly synthesis for the discussion on
values, principles, and purpose. Current week is being devoted to the *coffee
break* (although later messages from theme 1 are still being posted), a recess
that should enable us to gather our thoughts, make announcements, and, for the
facilitating team, prepare the next item on the agenda. As of now, 212 people
joined the forum while 62 sent introductions. 37 contributions were made
during this initial phase of the discussion. This week saw a good amount of
messages and a very broad and interesting discussion (hence the lengthy nature
of this summary). This summary will unfortunately not do justice to this high
calibre debate but I will at least try to outline (some of) the main ideas
that were brought to the fore.
Introductions
We witnessed once more an impressive array of participants presenting
themselves to the forum with a particularly high proportion of people who have
been actively involved in the field of world democracy and global governance.
Again, it is impossible to sum up in a few lines several lives of outstanding
individuals. I will just give some geographical background information and
list some of the organizations mentioned in the presentations. On top of
messages we received from the United States, France and the U.K, we also heard
from people in Mauritania, Canada and Japan. Participants have been involved
with the following organizations (some of which have been founded by these
individuals): America Speaks, ATTAC, Alliance Social Continental, the
Committee for World Parliament, Global People’s Assembly, The Open University,
World Democracy, World Party ( a world parliament through an international
party). Many of you probably have heard of Garry Davis, famous all over the
world for being the inventor of the World Passport and well known as an
advocate of a democratic world government. Well, you will be happy to learn
that his son is continuing Garry’s work (something you may already know) and
that he will be participating in this forum.
Discussion: Values and principles
This week’s debate continued along the same lines as last week.. On the
discussion about fairness, someone reiterated that one’s right to exist can
only be guaranteed by access to a basic income. The issue of communication
again came up with a participant suggesting that linguistic democracy –
through for example Esperanto – is a pre-requisite for a World Parliament
(WP), an idea echoed by someone else calling for the need for diversity and
communicative equality. With regards to values, one participant summarized
many of the thoughts that were presented during the last three weeks by
presenting three fundamental types of values (that in essence correspond
respectively to the moral, the social/economic and the political realms):
- Ethical values
- solidarity
- Liberty/Transparency/Democracy.
On the question of how one might ensure that global governance, or a world
parliament, operates according to the values and principles that are agreed
on, there were difficulties in coming to a consensus. Again, the problem
around the domination of Western values was not resolved. While some
participants seemed to agree that some * universal values * can be defined and
agreed upon, many thought that this question does pose difficulties. At one
end of the spectrum, some participants thought that some of the values
underpinning a WP are already well grounded into such documents as the Earth
Charter and Agenda 21 and that the discussion regarding values is well
advanced with much agreement already at this point. Yet others thought that we
should try to go much further. One participant for example warned that * while
extolling the virtues of plurality, we should clarify what it is that we will
demand from one another as the essence of our interconnectedness * At the
other end of the spectrum, one participant was adamant that already this forum
could be falling short of its purpose, saying that: * The underlying documents
and the debate so far are couched in the worldview and discourse of the white
North Atlantic. The debate so far is about a view of the world that takes for
granted the hegemony of the white North Atlantic. The debate is therefore
inclusive, mono-cultural, mono-discursive and racist. *
As if to answer this critic, another contributor suggested we look at the
proclamation of a new *global ethics * by the Parliament of the World's
Religions (1993) that is based on the fact that all of the major religions
include some form of statement of the Golden Rule:
- Every human being should be treated humanely
- Commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life
- Commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order
- Commitment to a culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness
- Commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women
There were also specific suggestions as to what values and principles a WP
should uphold and care about. One participant thought that a WP should be able
to deal with the following issues:
Peace, ethics, equality, integration, fairness, education for all, wealth and
opportunities distribution, high investment in environmental protection and
education, health, fight against children labor abuse, digital and social
exclusion, minorities exclusion, spread social responsibility principles,
focus on sustainable development in social investments, defend human rights
declaration as well as ILO principles, Emancipation to all minorities and
unskilled workers, stopping unfair international commerce practices that favor
developed nations over third world countries.
Purpose of World Parliament
Lest we get ahead of ourselves, the debate this week was mainly focused on the
third issue of this month’s discussion: * purpose. * To start the general
discussion, someone suggested that what the world needs is *better governance,
better culture, better attitudes*. Someone else saw the purpose of a world
parliament as furthering the cause of the unity of humanity, meaning that the
general goal of a WP would be to encourage Planetary Citizenship, on a basis
of co-operation and mutual respect, not competition. More specifically: a
World Parliament should focus on self-governance, voluntary coordination of
behavior for the benefit of all, decision making by the people who are most
affected. But, self-governance requires an educated population. If people are
to make decisions based on more than their narrow self-interest, they must be
informed of the wider issues and of other people's views. Finally, we need an
economy whose direct driving force is social and environmental need.
Ongoing debates
In parallel, and in direct relation to, the general discussion on values,
principles and purpose, a debate has taken place concerning the relevance of
spirituality in a world parliament. In other words, should spirituality have a
place in a world parliament? The problem was posed last week in the following
terms : * Laicism and pancasila are two solutions that states have invented in
order to deal with religious diversity, the first one, gives to the
materialism a superior worth than those of religions, by playing a supposed
neutral role. The second gives to the diverse religions the label of religions
of the state. Having in mind what religions and materialism have in common, we
look for a world political representation of all human diverse beliefs *
In response, one participant said that * if we allow the religions or
philosophies such as atheism and Buddhism to be represented at the world
Parliament, we put them more than ever in competition and we will go toward
confrontations. On the other hand, a community of ideas with the
banner "freedom of cult" or "freedom of opinion" is very constructive because
it is a fundamental aspiration of all human beings and also because the
believers of different religions will finally be united in the same demand.*
Mechanisms
Finally, we also started to talk about mechanisms that might be used to
implement some of the agreed Values and Principles, a way to mark the
transition between the general debate on values, principles and purpose and
the more pragmatic aspects of a world parliament that will form one of the
core subjects s of our discussion in the following months.
Among these mechanisms, it was suggested that chat rooms would allow groups of
people that are spread around the world to work on a specific paper or
proposal in multiple languages all at the same time. One could also look at
the Global People’s Assembly Network which has developed a model for a
Delegates Council which would include representatives from, and the
participation of, local and regional assemblies or parliaments from around the
world, the basic idea being that any assembly could submit proposals to the
delegates council for consideration. The council could discuss the matter and
then send it out to all those participating in the world parliament for
further consideration or ratification.
This would thus provide a means for all peoples to be represented and for
local groups to give input to the global process. It would also provide a
means for representative participants to meet between actual sessions of the
world parliament; and could provide a mechanism through which a WP could
interact with other intergovernmental bodies at the global and other levels.
Concluding remarks
While we were obviously not able to agree on every topic tackled in the last
few weeks, the debate was very intense with a lot of ground covered, allowing
us, at least in my opinion, to move on further in the discussion and go on to
the next stage. This week’s coffee break should allow us to catch our breath
and get ready for the next discussion. There will be no weekly synthesis of
the coffee break but you should get a document in the next few days that
consists of a summary of the main ideas developed during this initial phase of
the forum.
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]