WORLD REFLECTION ON THE CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY
AND MULTILATERALISM
(Second draft, incorporating suggestions and criticisms received)
Brief description of goals of the project
We live in times of a decline of democracy and of multilateralism as basis for international relations. In the last ten years, the percentage of people living under authoritarian governments has grown from 42% of humankind, to 62%. Multilateral institutions are less relevant, while bilateral agreements are becoming the norm. The virtual bubbles created by the Internet, and the virtual world, Metaverse, are becoming the refuge to escape from a difficult reality. Social dialogue, is losing its central place in human relations, a phenomenon widely decried by social analysts. The tradition of meeting and discussion, is on the wane.
This is also creating a decline in the values of tolerance and common understanding. Political parties are using marketing tools to win elections and shying away from debating ideas. Their main aim is to stay in power and are less and less committed to citizens participation. Participation in elections is suffering a continuous decline, and it is worrying to see how central themes like climate change, increase in armaments instead of social measures, equality for women, and respect of minorities, are absent from many electoral platforms. Nationalism, xenophobia, and distrust for minorities are shaping a different society. Media are increasingly covering events, with little space for offering context and analysis. Readers are replacing a holistic understanding of the news with more and more trivial information. This problem of the decline of quality of information, is compounded by the commercial use of the Internet, where social media has become a vehicle for fake news, political propaganda sustained by the unrestricted use of algorithms and bots, and the unregulated proliferation of emitters of messages of hate, conspiracies, and a continuous bombardment of marketing campaigns. Today, for every dollar spent in education, there are three dollars spent on advertisements.
This particularly affects the young generation, who are increasingly skeptical of public institutions. They do not see any concrete connection to the rhetoric of justice, democracy, freedom and equality, which are disappearing from the political debate. Many have great difficulty economically and to find precarious and underpaid jobs and are not assured a pension when they retire. Many cannot afford to buy a house and have to pay for basic goods like water, and basic services like health, university, and public transport, while there is some assistance for the elderly. They hear the term freedom, but they are pushed into a world of consumerism, with insufficient buying power. They hear the term justice, but it’s often difficult for them to have and raise children properly. They hear the word peace, but they are victims of the economic and social consequences of many conflicts, before the invasion of Ukraine. It is no wonder that many of them try to escape from poverty and conflict, looking for a better future in richer and more stable countries. But there they are often seen as invaders who take jobs away from the local population, and are seen as foreigners who bring with them strange cultures and religions.
Many young people have seen that requests to their governments have in fact been ignored, as with Greta Thunberg, and her appeal, in the name of millions of young people, presented to Head of State at the UN, at Davos, and elsewhere, and was received with great applause, but no real action. This is why it will be necessary to involve as many young people as possible, and to give them freedom of expression, and feel part of a large participatory process.
Another serious problem is that there is a growing divide between the rich North, and the Global South. The period of colonialism and imperialism and its lasting legacies have created a heavy skepticism over declarations requesting democracy from Europe and United States. It is worth reading Gandhi reflections, that he believed in the British liberal system of democracy, it assured freedom and justice to British citizens, but ruthlessly suppresses them with Indians. Still now, after the independence of Africa and Asia, the asymmetric relations with their previous colonial power, are seen as a continuation of economic and political dependence. And the hoarding of the vaccines during the Covid from rich countries, and the social crisis in food, transport, and finance, created by a war in Ukraine, on which they were not consulted, and they have become victims. To express their view in equality and dialogue with people from all over the world, will restore an obvious truth: that we all part of humankind, and we share the same planet, and we are all linked by the urgent need to make viable and sustainable for everyone to assure a peaceful and sustainable life.
This project does not intend to create a political movement, or a new institution. We believe that people meeting, discussing and developing proposals, has a great value in and of itself. This includes the value of awareness and participation, of dialogue and sharing, practices that have been largely abandoned. We do this knowing that we are taking part in a world reflection, which gives participants a sense of connection and belonging to humankind. If, from that exercise, will emerge with more social participation, with a view to enrich activism for a better society, it a possible, but it goes beyond the idea of a participatory and democratic revamping of consciences, greater awareness, and the push for debate, dialogue and sharing. This exercise will certainly not change the world, but will leave participants more informed and empowered than when they began. This is the value of development: To be more informed and engaged, unlike the value of neoliberal globalization, which strives to accumulate more things.
1. Basis For Action
It is now clear that we are in a serious crisis of democracy, and therefore of what was intended to create in international relations: multilateralism. According to Freedom House, an institute that specializes on the health of democratic governments in the world, we have regressed in the last decade, and the number of people living in democracy has considerably decreased. In its last report, Freedom House defined democracy as a country whose citizens can freely choose their leader; where there is real freedom of the press; and where the rule of law is respected. These are not extraordinary prerequisites: yet 71 countries regressed to some form of autocratic or absolute regimes, while only 15 moved up to the norms of democracy. And Freedom House called the United States as an example of the decline of democracy.
This crisis has deep roots. We should take the Washington Consensus of 1981 (the Reagan years), dictated by the American Treasury, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, as the beginning of two decades of a new vision of the economy: the neoliberal globalization, where the market, not humans, are at the center. The State should relinquish as many functions as possible because it was an obstacle to the free market. The state should be ideally left with the function of public security. All public expenses that were not immediately profitable, should be curtailed (with a hugely negative impact on education and health). Reagan was proposing the closure of the Ministry of Education. Health and education should be completely privatized.
The State did, in fact, privatize many public sector’s activities. The market would give an economic boost to everybody, unlike what was believed possible under the paradigm of development. In 1989, with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the Washington Consensus became an untouchable paradigm.
At the same time, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, was read as the final victory of capitalism: without the competition of communism; and with weakened states, it went into its most extreme development. So much, that from 1998 until the financial crisis of 2008, nobody could challenge the economic theory of neoliberal globalization. To the point that Tony Blair, with the support of Bill Clinton and Felipe Gonzalez, convinced European social democrats that globalization was inevitable, and what social democrats could do, was to give Capitalism “a human face”. That was the beginning of the process which brought workers to vote for right wing parties.
For two decades, humankind was educated to the idea that “greed is good”. To look to success only in monetary terms; states were encouraged to compete against states, and individuals against individuals. Thatcher famously declared. “There is no such thing as ‘society’, only individuals and families”, and Reagan said that “trees pollute, not companies” The values of globalization, are success, enrichment, individualism, competition. The State is an obstacle to business. A foundation document underscoring this point of view was written by a former editor of The Times of London, “The Sovereign Individual” by William Rees Mogg.
Those values replaced the values of development: cooperation, solidarity, social justice, and the state as the guarantor of development and law, values that disappeared from the public debate. All that was accompanied by a culture of consumerism, the appropriation of the Internet by commercial interests, and the total freedom of the financial sector, which became disassociated from the economy, instead of its traditional role as its lubricant. Today, for every dollar produced by humans in good and services, there are forty dollars of financial operations, the majority made by computers. And yet, finance is the only sector of the world, without a regulator.
And then came the banking crash of 2008, which cost humankind close to 1 trillion dollars, just to save the banks from the crisis created by irresponsible speculation. And it was clear that the neoliberal globalization did not mean economic progress for everybody but, instead, made a few much richer and many poorer. After greed, fear become the new engine of the political debate. Fear of immigrants, the scapegoat fueled by xenophobia, fear of securing a stable job, instead of years of precarious employment. Fear of climate change, fear of terrorism, fear of a decline of public security, a psychosis of fear.
Before 2008, in Europe there were no mass parties of the extreme right, apart from Le Pen’s in France. Then, extreme right-wing parties blossomed in every European country, including the Nordic countries, which, for decades were models of civic moderation and public values. Those parties rode fear, xenophobia, loss of prestige by the traditional parties, and the growing distrust of the system. Trump and Brexit are two extreme examples of the anti-system wave.
Historians affirm that greed and fear are two of the main engines of history. Certainly, they wiped out the values on which democracy was built and which are enshrined in all Constitutions.
Leaders from Modi to Erdogan, from Orban to Ortega, have used their elections,
once in power, to suppress liberties, control media and the courts, submit opposition, and use power to remain in power. That process has been continuously expanding and is now threatening countries, even those with a long history of democracy, like India.
The same fate has befallen multilateralism, which is, in many ways, how democracy organized its international relations. Multilateralism is based on the values of peace and cooperation, on the respect for international law, on the idea of justice and solidarity, and sees development as a paradigm, not neoliberal globalization. This was the basis for the creation of the United Nations and other international organizations, from the European Union (albeit very influenced by the Washington Consensus), to the International Red Cross. In 1973 the General Assembly of the UN adopted unanimously (the only plan of Global Governance accepted by all countries of the world): which was called a New International Economic Order (NIEO). In this, rich countries engaged themselves to reduce the gap with the South of the world, with a holistic plan of cooperation and justice.
This was in clear contrast with the interests in the rich countries, which would finally come up with a totally different plan, whose main strategic vision was in the document emanating from Washington, the so-called Washington Consensus. But that comes after years of efforts to reduce the role of the UN as the place for global governance.
The starting gun for this process was fired by Ronald Reagan, who came to the Summit of Head of States, for the North South Dialogue, in 1981, just six months after his elections. The Summit was called by the General Assembly in 1979, to take stock of the progress made in reducing the North-South gap and have an updated political engagement. It was held in Cancun, Mexico, and attended by the most important heads of states of the time. When Reagan took the floor, he declared that United States could not accept any longer to be put in the strait jacket of international democracy. The United States cannot accept having one vote like every other country. It was like 50 countries put together, and therefore would not be tied to the votes of the UN. Besides, US wealth was achieved by trade and investments, and not by plans decided in the General Assembly. He then launched his famous slogan “Trade, not Aid”, that eliminated any connection with solidarity and social justice.
He was immediately echoed by Margaret Thatcher, who collaborated with Reagan in a transatlantic alliance, which prepared the ground for, eight years later, the imposition of the neoliberal globalization elaborated by the financial world. It is important to remember that, at the end of the Second World War, the winners decided to separate finance from social and political issues. Finance was discussed at the Bretton Wood Conference in July 1944, basically by central banks, The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the financial institutions were therefore created out of the UN, which was established in April 1945. The multilateralism which emerged from Bretton Wood was not a democratic multilateralism. It gave to the strongest countries (at that time particularly the United States), different weight in the institutions. It is quite telling that today, all of Africa, has fewer votes in the IMF than the US, and that the US has the power to appoint the President of the World Bank. But still, it remained a forum for discussing and acting.
The UN was weakened by several initiatives. On an intergovernmental level, with the creation of the World Trade Organization, which, in January 1995 (five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall) took away trade from the UN. The UNCTAD (the United Nations body dedicated to trade, seen in connection with development) was considered too linked to the Third World and too sensitive to the social implications of trade. The WTO was much more representative of the private sector, and markets and revenue as central to the system. The WTO was never part of the United Nations.
Neoliberal globalization is based on two engines: finance and trade. Finance was never in the UN and now trade was gone. The UN was left with the so-called nonproductive issues, like Children, Culture, Education, Health, or with some regulatory tasks, like Post, Civil Aviation, control of the atomic industry or Development tasks like agriculture, environment, and climate change.
The second set of initiatives to weaken the UN came at the governmental level, basically from rich countries. Their most relevant creation was the G6, which brought together the six most industrialized countries in 1973, then in 1977, the G7 with the inclusion of Canada, and then, in 1988, the G8, with the inclusion of Russia under Gorbachev. Finally, in 1999, with the creation of G20, which included the most important countries of the South, including China. The result is that the Secretary General of the UN is only invited to give a speech, and important issues are decided outside the UN.
The third set of initiatives came from the private sector, which created several platforms for meeting and making decisions based on their interests (Bilderburg, Trilateral, Davos, etc.). Of those Davos has become the most successful. Corporations pay a fee to attend or become members, but they also invite political leaders, and personalities to exchange views and pursue business. The result is that Davos now is considered more important than the General Assembly of the United Nations, and invitations to speak are more coveted.
In a sense, global civil society has largely given up the hope of being heard within the intergovernmental system. Out of it, a number of global Civil Society organizations have been created, dealing with issues that are considered fundamental by concerned citizens like human rights, environment, hunger and social injustice. It must be said that, in the UN there is a small window for civil society, which has a special status in the ECOSOC: a window which does not exist in the European Union, nor, of course, in the WTO. But now agencies and programs all have some window for civil society interested in their field of activity. Global civil society is in a complex period of adjustment.
The World Social Forum, created in 1981 as an anti-Davos collective space, has shrunk due to the inability to do any update of its functions and norms, since its creation. And the large civil society movements in recent years from Me Too to the equal rights and possibilities for women, to Black Lives Matter against racism, and the Movement against climate change, spurred by Greta Thunberg, have not been able to structure themselves into real organizations. Aid to Development, once a very important priority, with a number of agencies and even ministries, started to shrink in the nineties, and now has been open to issues which have nothing to do with the Global South, like refugees, immigrants and now the victims of the invasion of Ukraine.
This has created a serious crisis in a large sector of the Civil Society. All this has been accompanied by a growing disinterest and distrust of citizens, even by the engaged ones, toward political institutions, which have become increasingly self-referent, unable to present programs of vision on the medium or long term, which foster interest and participation. And of heavy consequences for democracy and the future of humankind is the growing absenteeism of young people.
In the last French elections, 75% of voters under 25 years did not vote. Due to demographic changes, in rich countries most voters are over 55 years old, with different interests from young people. And if the generational push, (that from the French Revolution has been essential for progress and modernization), fail to function, the society will become much more conservative and divided. Young people now, in a society not helpful, tend to find refuge in virtual bubbles where the Internet connects them with other like-minded young people, and disconnects them from society. The Meta virtual word coming now thanks to Zuckerberg, will accelerate their escape from reality and negate their true role to push for the renewal of society.
But the fourth effort to weaken the UN comes from within. The five Permanent Members (P5) of the Security Council (the only body at the UN with binding power), have enjoyed from an historically comprehensible but totally dysfunctional Power of Veto that basically made it impossible to take decisions on important but controversial issues. The P5 have been able to block individually any initiative that they did not like and frustrate many initiatives of global impact. Until the Veto Power is removed, or is made subject to some measure of democratic accountability, dramatic events, like the war in Ukraine, will find solutions outside the Security Council. This also keeps the Secretary General (SG) from pursuing bold actions; also, because history shows that independents SGs, like Boutros Boutros Ghali or Kofi Annan, have been punished by a veto power or by a campaign of delegitimization (in both cases, by the US).
In conclusion, it is time to act, to save democracy and multilateralism, and democratize it as much as possible. The problem is that on these issues there will not be thousands of citizens marching in the streets of their towns. The damage inflicted by the culture of neoliberal globalization is major and runs deep. And in a society lulled by consumerism, anesthetized by the commercial exploitation of the Internet, manipulated by xenophobia, populism, nationalism and extremism, deprived of values as a point of reference, of idols and idealism, an effort to create awareness and action on the issues of democracy and multilateralism is extremely difficult and would require a very strong international and national structure and very major financial means.
But when we look at the last Pew poll, we find that 79% of young people under 14 years, believe that poverty and war are natural phenomena. We must therefore feel the urgency of reestablishing world values, where peace, justice solidarity and development are the elements for relating to each other, instead of the idea of competition, which has taken us from a stable multilateral world, to an unstable, aggressive, and undemocratic multipolar world. Of course, multilateralism can also be used as a tool from non-democratic countries. But it just suffices to see how the need for urgent action for climate control has become bogged in political conflicts. The government of China has decided to cut cooperation with the US, as retaliation for the visit of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, in the island of Taiwan, that Beijing considers an inalienable part of the country. Yet, there are several polls that show that Chinese citizen have a great concern for environmental problems. But global problems as everybody knows, do not have national solutions, but global solutions. The various initiatives that China is taking in this sector, would not resolve its problems if the neighboring countries do not do the same. Yet, people do not take the streets. But while we cannot bring citizens to the streets, we must be aware that there are hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of active citizens who would be very interested to participate in a debate to revamp those issues. Therefore, here is a plan, relatively simple and of little cost, for a global, participative, and democratic consultation, all over the world, with innovative formulas that will progress further during the process with the contribution of the participants.
We call this plan Days of Reflection on Democracy and Multilateralism. And this introduction serves as a document to open this process of debate and reflection, that will produce a vibrant and forceful Declaration, that may be the basis for an important awakening, if used by the giant tapestry of global civil society, international institutions, and academia.
2. The Plan Of Reflection
It is essential to reflect on the present situation, its causes, and elaborate concrete proposals for action which will go beyond rhetoric, and nostalgia for a world that does not exist any longer. We should aim to have a final declaration, for awareness in media and any possible discussion, and a plan of action, that could be implemented by civic action. The process will also create global citizens, who will share a sense of communality. This process will take some time, but it will generate participation and action.
The plan is based on three elements: the Convener, the Regional Conferences, and the Global Conference.
2a) The Participants
We propose creating a space for reflection and debate among three sectors, which represent fundamental parts of a debate on democracy and multilateralism, and that rarely meet, as there is no formula for that. They are certainly able to communicate among themselves and will be interested to hear each other. It is fundamental to include as many young people as possible. The inclusion of private sector, for instance, would be important, but it would considerably slow down the debate, and it would make communication far more difficult. Our proposal is to bring together:
· Parliamentarians, or other elected officials, or any elected person, at any level, from trade unions to social clubs.
· Academics.
· Civil Society.
(And, if the Convener can find socially aware actors from the private sector, they would be welcome)
These three sectors may exist at any level, national or local. They would meet for one full day and have a set of questions, which are under development, which would be the same all over the world, to give a sense of communality. The day of those meetings should be the same all over the world, so that participants are aware of contributing to a global reflection. They can add, of course, additional questions of national or local interest, but the general questions should be answered by everyone. A person or a group would oversee summarizing the points of agreement, points of disagreement, and the recommendations concluding the day of reflection. That document could be circulated locally and used as a basis for further debates. It is important to underline that a very esteemed polling company from Chile has offered to participate and provide a system for participants responses to be tabulated globally. That would allow us to send to every Convener the results from the Global Day of Reflection, possibly for further debate.
If the Convener finds it useful or necessary, they could extend the Day of Reflection to a second day.
It is also important to know that a Scientific Advisory Committee, formed under the aegis of the World Forum for Sustainability, will be create, to accompany the process and give it the best possible content and mechanisms reflective of a participatory democracy.
2b) The Convener
This is a person, who has power of convocation, because of his or her prestige. It should not be difficult for the Convener to bring together between 10 and 30 people, coming from the three sectors. Those persons can be identified by organizations like WACC, like the World Sustainability Forum, or University for Peace, European Center for Peace and Development, among so many others. And if we get the support of the network of offices of UNDP (who have these issues in their purview), and organizations dealing with democracy like IDEA, academic institutions like FLACSO, and international organizations of civil society, like the Club of Rome, we can easily find a large number of Conveners, at the national and local level. The Convener could also circulate, prior to the day of the meetings, background papers on these issues as resource papers, to be read by the participants. Ideally, a brief report on the points of agreement and disagreement would also be prepared for the regional conferences.
2c) The Regional Conferences
Those should be held in a place where some academic human resources would be available. They would receive the tabulations from all the responses from the National Day of Reflection, including the points of agreement, disagreement, and recommendations. Then, on one given day, again the same for all Regional Centers, they would call a meeting, when the input from the National and local day of Reflections could be presented.
It would be very complicated, and create problems of governance, to ask every meeting of the National Day of Reflection to designate a delegate to the Regional Conferences. This will be recommended to the Conveners, but it must be avoided if it conflicts. The regional meetings will be open to those elected, but in case this creates friction, it will be open to all those who want to participate. The main goal of this process is to create discussions and debates, not structured institutions We suggest having one conference for Latin America, another for the Caribbean, one for Europe, one for United States, one for the Middle East, one for French speaking Africa, one for English speaking Africa, and four for the different part of Asia. But while the Regional Conferences will be held online, the final Global Conference (GC) will be held in person. Therefore, the delegate to the GC, paid by the project, would be the 11 organizers of the regional conferences.
2d) The Global Conference
This should be held in a town which offers considerable support. It would gather the 11 participants from the Regional Conferences (13, if Russia and China join). but this time in person, for a three-day meeting. The participants would receive the reports of the regional conference and prepare themselves to see things globally. But at this Global Conference also personalities and institutions relevant to the global refection could be invited, such as representatives of interreligious dialogue and global civil society institutions. They would also draft a declaration, on the basis of the data and ideas gathered during the process which would be widely distributed to the media, to social networks, and international institutions. This final document will be sent with priority to those who have been involved in the whole process, and to anybody who is interested. Any proposal for further action, is not part of this plan, and would generate a whole different initiative.
3. The Budget
This is a shoestring budget, which is the point of strength of this proposal. Here are the details:
3a) The National Day of Reflection.
In principle it should have no cost at all. But, in our experience, the lunch break is a fateful moment. Many go to their homes, and do not come back in the afternoon. I propose to resume the famous practice of the “Brown bag lunch”, modified, in the sense that it is offered by the Convener. Some sandwiches, cheese (not in Asia), drinks, coffee, and tea, would not cost over 12 dollars per person, as an average and with that money, according to the number of participants, it is possible to organize a Buffet. This is also a great moment for participants. They can know each other, discuss how the morning meeting went, and return work after the lunch break with greater motivation.
Now, let us suppose we get 11 NDR in every continent, or 11 Conveners. That, with months of work, and conveners participating in the search of others, is possible. And let us say that there are 10 people in every meeting. But that estimate is now impossible, and will become clear, only when the process is under way. For the time being, after a restricted circulation of this plan for comments, criticisms, and suggestions. There have been 70 volunteers for Conveners, albeit not balanced geographically, and three for regional conferences. But this plan will become reality only by the creation of a coalition of organization interested in its realization and when it becomes a participatory effort.
In the absence of concrete data, we know that every 1.000 people, will cost for the brown bag lunch, 12.000 dollars. Based on the reactions received until now, let us plan a participation of at least 2.000 people, which would be a consistent number for a world consultation. This means a cost of 24.000 dollars. While the process is going on, it should not be difficult to raise additional funds in the multiple of 12.000 dollars.
3b) Regional conferences
Those, being realized through Zoom, would cost nothing. But I suppose that a monthly fee of 1,000 dollars to the coordinator of the meeting, and the one who makes the tabulation and inputs from the National and Local days, would bring solidity and accountability to the voluntary work, which accompanies the process. They would receive that amount, as a symbolic fee. Between the preparatory work, the redaction of the report for the Regional Conferences, we estimated a period of two months.
That means a total amount of 22.000 dollars, for the two organizers of 11 Regional Conferences.
3c) Global conference
Here the cost is the travel of participants. It is unclear how air fares will evolve. However, we can put for now an estimate of 2,000 dollars per person and be safe. They are 11, one per region. That makes a total of 22,000 dollars.
Then we must cover lodging and meal costs, for three full days. It would be safe again to make an average of 400 dollars a day. That makes 13.200 dollars. Participants would have free time for dinner and breakfast, at the hotel, but lunch should be at the conference, with a buffet. People will have to reach the hotel at their expenses, as their contribution.
Therefore, the Global Conference will have a maximum cost of 33.200 dollars.
4. The Secretariate
It is not advisable to think that a world process can be based only on voluntary work.
Even if an organization takes this task using its own human resources, is essential that we should invest in a minimum organizational structure. Anyhow, as we do not think it is necessary to create an ad hoc juridical entity, this work will be taken by one supporting organization, who will hire the staff here described, and cover the budget here described. For the time being, the Foundation Culture of Peace, chaired by Federico Mayor Zaragoza, based in Madrid, has offered to take this task. Another organization, the European Center for Peace and Development, created by the University for Peace of the United Nations, is considering the possibility This proposal come from OtherNews, the association of readers dedicated to global issues, to give flesh to this process, but OtherNews, a nonprofit entity, would not be able to take this task on itself.
4a) Obviously, we need at least a general coordinator, someone who is an activist with organizational experience, and at least a good knowledge of two main languages. He or she would have a fee of 2.000 dollars per month (close to a European average salary), for a part time job, which will be the establishment of the network of Conveners. We estimate that this will not take more than six months. He or she would continue with that fee until the National Day of Reflection is realized. That will take an additional four months. Then, the organization of the Regionals and Global conferences will become a more demanding job, even if not full time, Therefore the fee should go to 4.000 dollars per month. The period between the Regional Conferences and the Global Conference, will be of three months, plus one month after. Total, 36.000 thousand dollars. It is conceivable that we should provide the secretariate with an amount of 2.000 dollars per month, for office accommodation, telephone calls, etc. This amount could be saved if a participating organization offered those facilities. But in addition, we must budget at least 6.000 dollars, for travel to attend a Regional and the Global Conference. Thus, the cost brings the Secretariate at a total of 34.000 dollars.
Nb. In the consultations realized until now, we have been informed that this is not an attractive proposal for somebody living in an industrialized country, because he would probably have to leave other jobs if he or she has a full-time contract. In this case we will have to raise this amount to 4.000 dollars for the duration of the project, for a total of 56.000 dollars, plus the 34.000 dollars for office and travels. Yet, the search of an effective and experienced Secretary, has been totally frustrating until now.
| TOTAL BUDGET: | |
| National Day of Reflection | 24.000,00 $ |
| Regional Conferences | 22.000,00 $ |
| Global Conference | 33.200,00 $ |
| Secretariate
|
90.000,00 $
————– |
| TOTAL: | 169.200,00 $ |
We have to add a 10% of unforeseen. 169.200,00 $
Provisional final budget 186.100,00 $
4b) Other human resources. It is realistic to think that those could come from the supporting organization
5. The Timetable
It would be reasonable to take the end of 2022 as the time necessary to find the Secretary, the Conveners, and formulate the questions. The cathedralic Hall Gardner, professor at the American University, the sociologist Boaventura dos Santos and the social activist Francine Mestrum, and Francisco Rojas, the Rector of the University for Peace, have participated in the process, and now the final formulation is in the hands of Adriana Fernandez, a specialist in the pedagogy of communication and Josè Pardo, the renowned Chilean specialist.
The Days of Reflections could be held in the spring of 2023. By then, several important international events will be clearer: the war in Ukraine, the political situation in US and China, France, Great Britain, the energy crisis, the hunger in many countries, the situation of climate change, the result of new progressive governments in Latin America (Petro and Boric), and probably the arrival of a right-wing governments in Italy and the return of Lula in Brasil. This will permit an update view in the NDR.
Then, we must organize in the end of June, the regional Conferences. That means that we would have the Global Conference, the Declaration, and the Plan of Action by the beginning of October, which is a very good time, for Media and impact on public opinion. And then we will have until the month of December, to lobby for this process to seep into institutions and policymakers. Or we could decide to have the Global Conference in September. But this is a month usually full of events, including the High-Level Session of the UN, and intense activity of the European Union and other international organizations.
It is unlikely that Russia and China will take part in the process, but if they do, their participants will have no problem to pay their travel costs, but if others want to attend the global conference at their own expense, they should be welcome.
As it is impossible to foresee how many will attend the Regional Conferences, the idea is that they would last two days, but with a maximum number of 30 participants at every time. If there will be more than 30 participants, sessions will be held until all those who want to participate have been heard. In this case, the Regional Conveners have to convene several meetings. Past experience suggests that few people will pay the costs to attend the Global Conference
The chairman would come possibly from the town which would host the regional conference, which should last two full days. And regional final reports, with recommendations for action, would be prepared by the academic resources who tabulated the national reports.
6. Conclusion
It is a large effort, but doable, if we bring aboard a number of interested and like-minded institutions.
What is urgent to do, is to find the organization better suited to take the task of the Secretariate, and hire the General Coordinator, whose task would be to contact all possible members of the Support Group, find the Conveners, and provide them with more details. The General Coordinator does not need to be in the same town as the Organization formally responsible for the project. His or her level of experience should be the most important qualification. This organization will also be the recipient of funds, their administration, and fiscal reporting. As we said, the Foundation for the Culture of Peace, in Madrid has offered to perform this role, and other organizations are also considering the possibility
Of course, we must also start fundraising. But the amount required can be easily granted from a number of Foundations. And some of the Support Organizations could provide small grants from 5.000 dollars to 10.000 dollars. In my view, is evident that in comparison to the large and qualified mobilization, and the defense of essential values like Democracy and Multilateralism, the amount of less than 200.000 dollars is a totally justifiable amount.
In any case, we cannot let the decline of Democracy and Multilateralism continue, without trying to mobilize those who see this with dismay. This Plan foresees the mobilization of a like-minded elite, and a criticism would be that we preach to the converted. But being a global mobilization, is something that could be a seed for reawakening awareness and consciences that are now lost in individual actions. Therefore, I consider it highly symbolic to have the National Day of Reflection and the Regional Conferences on the same day, all over the world. To bring again a sense of community, of belonging, that are now vanishing.
In any case, OtherNews will be part of the Support Group, and take an active part in the media campaign. We regret that our delicate financial situation does not allow us to do more…
Roberto Savio