|
Re: What Should the World Parliament Be?
Doug EVERINGHAM
Thursday, 6 February 2003 22:46:37
ººº Abstract: A WP under a constitution consented to by most national governments representing (by popular vote) most world citizens. UN cannot realistically be abolished. Local and regional bodies should become accountable. Funding through administrative charges and regulation of supranational activities. In general, human-sized deliberative circles with equal opportunity for feedback of relevant stakeholders should be encouraged to form networks, and as the size and complexity of the community unit grows, nested networks. Whatever this or any other group decides the multiplicity of WP proposals will continue. The best hope of getting them implemented seems to me to be in getting them co-ordinated with each other. ººº
Responses by Doug Everingham are stated in sometimes dogmatic terms, but these are personal views seeking discussion in pursuit of general consent of informed world citizens
(The Purpose of the World Parliament)
(A) a place where global issues can be discussed and debated; B) where proposals or recommendations can be brought to the attention of the people, media, and governments; C) where those participating can work towards reaching consensus on important issues; and / or D) where binding and enforceable legislation could be developed and passed?...)
It should do all of these things under a constitution consented to by most national governments representing (by popular vote) most world citizens.
(Should the WP be a second house of UN or an independent body?)
The General Assembly (UNGA) and most UN organs cannot realistically be abolished when a WP starts. Their functions (and often personnel and administrative structures) should be taken over piecemeal as WP legislation (confirmed by referendums in important issues) constructs more comprehensive alternatives.
Local and regional bodies including economic unions, treaties and alliances should become more transparent and accountable as the affected world citizens in each case become informed of their functions and become involved in administration and appropriate power sharing.
(What relationships should the WP have to the UN and other intergovernmental processes?...)
Practical examples of such democratizing are quoted in writings of Dr. Shann Turnbull and Buckminster Fuller. (My e-mailable 20-page paper * World Democracy * gives some references and outlines. In particular Turnbull's * A New Way to Govern: Organizations and society after Enron *)
(Meeting Time and Place)
Videoconferencing technology makes face-to-face meetings less essential for ongoing contact, but I cannot imagine any instrument of global law and order meeting initially less often than its UN counterparts. Definitive rules should be drawn up as democratically as possible, confirmed as promptly as possible by referendum.
(Funding)
UN funding follows agreed formulae which should not be undermined as an initial source of funds. One of the top priorities for constitutional drafting, referendum and legislation by the WP should be financial powers, including administrative charges, regulation of international and supranational activities including inter-currency transactions and exploitation and conservation of natural resources (equitable access to land, minerals, global commons including high seas and polar regions, outer space, radio wave bands. During disarmament and transarmament process, a levy on national (as distinct from UN or WP) military spending could be included.
(Representation and Participation)
One-party regimes are increasingly discredited as * guided democracy *.
Two-party systems tend to produce middle-of-the-road majorities in both government and formal opposition parties and coalitions, with emphasis on competition for parliamentary majorities rather than multi-party in depth deliberation. Switzerland, perhaps benefiting from having diverse cantons with different official languages, religious traditions etc., has learned to improve on this two-party * pseudo-democracy * by extending proportional representation into its federal (all-party) cabinet. The internet is helping development of general access to facts which mainstream media, serving predominantly government owners or rich advertisers, too often distort.
Dr. Lyn Carson <http://www.hydra.org.au/activedemocracy> has reviewed examples of deliberative polling using randomly chosen ad hoc panels (* citizens' juries * etc.). Other mechanisms for more informed governance are in sources I've mentioned above. In general, human-sized deliberative circles with equal opportunity for feedback of relevant stakeholders (clients, infrastructure providers, monitoring groups, etc.) should be encouraged to form networks, and as the size and complexity of the community unit grows, nested networks. Sociocracy <http://www.sociocracy.biz/> , CIVIDA <http://dev.c-consulting.co.id/civida/> and other deliberative mechanisms are developments in line with Turnbull's writings that I've mentioned above, and the GPA (Global People's Assembly network) mentioned by Rob Wheeler below.
(What rules are needed to ensure that money does not play an undue or predominate role in the election or selection of delegates.? )
Turnbull also deals with radical developments in control of currencies and finance. Such sweeping reforms might soften some of the ruthless centralization of power, which has brought the international financial institutions into recent growing criticism by disempowered governments and communities.
(developing and approving proposals; interaction with current intergovernmental and civil society processes)
The * nested networks * building suggested above seems to me to be the fairest decision-making structure to decide where, how and at what level of organization legislative and regulatory power should develop.
(Program Proposals and Development: sectors and commissions)
I think none of the existing levels of discussion should be discarded but all should be encouraged to liaise and integrate in the global network.
Education in responsible decision-making with voter involvement and a culture of personal responsibility to seek such involvement is under discussion by several movements (ISPO <www.simpol.org>, GPA <www.ourvoices.org>, CIVIDA, Sociocracy etc.)
(proposals handled by sectoral commissions rather than by the WP as a whole)
Decentralized and specialized inquiries are an essential part of fair governance in public and private enterprises involving a chain of command or delegation of powers.
(How might the processes of the Alliance be integrated into the WP? See the project Rethinking Society and the South Cone organizing process as examples...)
The * novacis * website in Spanish (in which I understand about half the words) did not seem to me helpful, covering apparently general aspirations. The latter site * ctera * was not accessible on my server.
(Local or regional assemblies: educational role, establishing means for participating, interaction with WP in debating proposals, partnership initiatives.)
I accept all of the above approaches as helpful. What seems to me to be lacking is a gathering towards consensus of views by conveners / moderators of specific policy topics or fields which might attract a growing number of participants. Perhaps Rob will distil some of the discussion based on his excellent survey here of a range of views on several sub-topics.
(WCPA's draft Constitution for Federation of Earth)
The strong point of the WCPA's draft Constitution for Federation of Earth (CFE) <www.wcpagren.org> I think is that it evolved after a series of global conferences representing several countries and including notably retired jurists and administrators. Its poor acceptance may be partly because of its failure to encourage in ratifying organizations (representing few million people) a continuing debate and feedback within those ratifying groups to keep the CFE evolving vitally between conferences.
(agreeing on one proposal or model vs. promote and experiment multiple methods)
Whatever this or any other group decides the multiplicity of WP proposals will continue. The best hope of getting them implemented seems to me to be in getting them co-ordinated with each other. GPA seems to be leading the way in building NGO acceptance and co-ordination in relationships with the UN and its organs. Garry Davis's WP of World Citizens seems to have led for over 50 years in providing world citizenship documents for stateless persons and others stranded without travel documents. ISPO is registering persons and groups committed to vote for national legislators committed to seeking consensus among governments to re-regulate de-regulated global cartels which are strangling social and environmental policies of governments in favor of free marketeering and bankstership, but it seems many of these groups' members are reluctant to join more than one such organization for fear it may disperse of distract their followers. The way forward, as I see it, is broadening grass roots support, not narrowing the targets they so often keep separated. It doesn't require re-doubling efforts to proselytize, the PR/promotional spending approach, so much as an ear to the ground, a broadening of aim, a sharing of concern, an acknowledgment of * human one-ness * as the ultimate goal of each individual struggling group.
(correcting problems as soon as possible or develop a long term governance model? ...)
Different activists will have different approaches and should encourage, not disparage each other. Personal solidarities must precede and underpin all similarly-directed efforts, or they freeze.
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]