Part Three :
Report on the Participatory Process Used for the
Evaluation
and Future of the Alliance
EIFE and delibera.info-alliance
e-forums, and Porto Alegre Meeting
March 2002 - April 2003
4. ON THE NEW ORGANIZATION OF THE ALLIANCE
Interpretation of the 28 appraisals and 25 comments.
There was tremendous agreement that we should continue working
cooperatively and thinking about new challenges in the
coming years. Moving in this direction, the Alliance is not understood
as being a blank page, but rather as the continuation of a construction
already started.
The immense majority (although with some contrary
appraisals) also considered it necessary to find a form of governance
of the Alliance that is both participatory and transparent,
and that makes it possible to create and to steer the collective
process on the basis of the needs and projects of all the active
groups. Along the same lines, it was agreed that after the Lille
experience, it is necessary to progress collectively on the methods
for the construction of a “collective intelligence.”
There was also a fair amount of agreement regarding
the establishment of a representative coordination.
Nonetheless, one comment wondered whether we should be speaking
of a representative or a democratic system.
There was also some suggestion that we should design a management
model for a decentralized organization. In this vein, some
opinions felt on the one hand that a decentralized organization
is necessary but should include a collective body to structure it,
and on the other hand that would be better to speak of a form of
articulation according to the active subsidiarity principle.
For that, a free and self-managed forum
would be necessary in which the coordinators could debate their
different points of view on the overall process and on these articulations.
For that, it could be useful to set up a discussion forum
published on the Alliance Web site so that everyone can
read, follow, and participate in the discussion as much on the Web
site as through e-mail, although there were also in part some unfavorable
opinions because such forums already exist, such as the EIFE e-forum.
An immense majority also argued that there
should be a better distinction of everyone’s role and that
the empowerment process should be more clearly identifiable
(others spoke instead of not fixing people in roles but of thinking
instead of the functions that need to be filled).
In the whole process, they was also a majority
of opinions (although in a smaller measure) in favor of generating
a debate on "the conditions for an autonomy of the
Alliance", on whether it is really opportune for the
Alliance and the FPH to separate and whether they can actually do
that.
At the same time, there was a disparity of opinions
on whether the new stage of the Alliance will require some
leadership and resources from the FPH and some comments
were opposed to this “leadership.” Moving in this direction,
it was considered that the FPH should give better support
to the continuous development of the Alliance, while giving
it the freedom and opportunity to find the best way to continue.
They was also a majority—with some disparity
of opinions—who thought that there should be some thought
on what it is to be a member of the Alliance in a cross-cultural
process, on what bases decisions are made, and what procedural basis
would be the most appropriate to define priorities in the
cross-cultural context of the Alliance. Someone asked that we should
be more practical on such complex issues and someone else, on the
other hand, confirmed this idea with the need to elaborate a Charter
of Principles of the Alliance.
There was also mention (with a significant number of unfavorable
appraisals) of the need to have a discussion on the rights and duties
of Allies.
Most were opposed (there was large disagreement)
to the idea that a member of the Alliance should be delegated by
an organization that is financed by it FPH, so that every organization
that has been actively involved alongside the FPH should have a
voice.
|
