• dibco1 2020 discusionfsm input42 comment2 en

last modified September 13, 2020 by facilitfsm

Allow me to comeback to your complementary proposals.

1) fully agree

2) I do not know what 'indigenous ways' of relating to each other mean and in what way they are different/better from/than 'western ways'. Is there one single indigenous way or are there many? What is wrong with 'western' parliamentary mode? I think we fully have to understand what certain concepts mean before knowing whether we can agree to them.

3) yes, I am afraid zoom meetings will be what we will have to live with in the coming future, though I hope we can agree that physical meetings are so much more enriching and rewarding. I also wonder if zoom meetings are compatible with the indigenous ways you refer to? As for support from northern movements, that I think is an illusion. Movements in the North are as poor and often poorer than those in the South.

4) Agree with what you say on interpretation. Knowing the sector quite well I think it is also a matter of better organising and involving professional interpreters. It is not enough to know another language in order to be able to interpret. Many movements have difficulties in understanding that. You need money to have good interpretation, it is the first condition for having good communication.

5) Agree. In order to avoid domination I think groups have to be analysed in function of their representativity, in terms of gender balance, geographical and thematic balance. The current IC is far from giving a right picture of what we would need. I do hope we can change this and that yesterday's meeting will help us to do just that.

6) 'not procrastinate by lengthy debates, but take steps to move forward': well that may be a little naive. Steps to move forward are political, and as long as we have no agreement on what we are and how we have to act or not, every step forward is a reason for 'lengthy debates'. In my opinion, having actively assisted in all 'lengthy debates' of the past years, we have to solve once and for all the difficult problems we are faced with. We have e.g. a consensus rule, but this consensus is now reached by excluding those who do not agree with the majority or even a strong minority. Is it then not better to make clear rules for qualified majority voting, so that diversity can be respected? But of course, yes, this is a 'western' parliamentary mode. I do think we have to be aware of the fact that 'consensus' can be very undemocratic and dominating, certainly the way it is applied now.

Thank you so very much for your contributions, let us hope it all helps to clarify and solve our problems.

Un abrazo,