This page is part of the site Global Development, dedicated to promoting a new approach to eliminating poverty, reversing environmental deterioration and generating sustained economic growth that benefits all of humanity. The site has been developed by Frans Doorman. No copy rights are claimed, but those using material are kindly requested to name the source.
From the book Global development -
Part 4, Chapter XIII:Strategy
Quotes:
"To generate the radical change that is needed, we need to break through today's political logjam. The way to do so is through the creation of a worldwide movement: the Global Future Network, GFN. This network should elaborate a hierarchy of programs for sustainable development. At the core of the network a global program should be worked out; regional, national, zonal and local programs should be worked out by the corresponding GFN branches."
"All programs - global, regional, national and zonal - should offer an integrated approach to all the issues related to sustainable development: from the economy to the environment, from education to health care to social security, and from law enforcement and taxation to political issues such as local and regional autonomy. GFN programs would not, however, be blueprints for rigid central planning. Rather, they would be policy frameworks, to be filled in at the local level."
"A strong GFN, with a large membership spread over many countries, could wield significant political influence. However, the actual implementation of its programs would require direct political power. Therefore, national level GFN’s should promote the formation of Global Future Parties, GFP’s. At the national, state/provincial and local level, GFP’s should aim to rise to power via the ballot box to carry out the programs developed by the GFN’s."
"There GFN-GFP strategy would complement the activities of current organizations focussing on specific issues such as the environment, poverty or human rights, or on sustainable development at community level. The GFN and GFP will need the expertise and grass roots support of such organization to create and implement a framework for sustainable development. Vice versa, these organizations will need a GFN-GFP combination to create and implement a national and international policy framework and political power to achieve their goals. Thus, close cooperation between GFN-GFP, single issue organizations and local community initiatives would be an essential step on the road to sustainable development."
(Back) to Homepage of the site Global Development
(Back) to Homepage of Global Development – the book
Selected text from the book:
At the end of Chapter X it was concluded that there is little chance that today's politicians will put us on the road to sustainable development. They lack the vision, morals, backbone and daring to attempt to change things around. Caught up in the hierarchy of interests described in Chapter V, they'll continue to defend their own short term, local interests and those of their constituencies, at the expense of the long term common good.
To generate the radical change that is needed, we'll need an approach that can break through today's political logjam. The core of that approach is the creation of a worldwide movement. Its objective should be to elaborate a global program for sustainable development, and to generate enough support for it to be implemented. This global program should form the basis for regional programs (for example, North America, Europe, the Middle East) and national plans. For large nations, consisting of federations of states with heterogeneous populations and resources, "zonal" or "state" plans should be elaborated. As the movement would develop, plans should also be made for the local level.
Thus, a hierarchy of programs would be created. At the top would be the global plan, followed, in descending order, by the regional, national, zonal and local programs. The key trait of this hierarchy would be that each program would fit into the program at the level above.
All programs - global, regional, national and zonal - should offer an integrated approach to all the issues related to sustainable development: from the economy to the environment, from education to health care to social security, and from law enforcement and taxation to political issues such as local and regional autonomy. Also, they should give indications of how and when different program components should be carried out, their approximate cost, their economic effects, and ways of financing.
The vertical links between programs imply that changes at one level would have consequences at other levels. Especially higher level programs should therefore not be detailed blueprints but frameworks, to be worked out in more detail at lower levels. The filling in of these broad sketches should happen "on the ground", with people and their legitimate representatives at the national, zonal and local level. Also, the framework model would facilitate the adaptation of programs to changes in social, economic and technological conditions.
The global plan for sustainable development should be formulated by an interdisciplinary team of specialists in such fields as ecology, land use, energy, education, health care, economics, public administration, law, and international relations. All "program developers" should, in addition to their own specialty, be generalists: they should have a basic idea of the main concepts and methods of other areas of expertise. This general body of knowledge would form the basis for successful cooperation between all team members.
Obviously, the team members should be in agreement with the general concept of the need for a worldwide, integrated approach towards sustainable development. They should be pragmatic, that is, practically oriented and not tied to specific dogmas, ideologies or schools of thought. These traits would allow them to consider, analyze and adapt any reasonable options for sustainable development - independent of their source, or their degree of conformity with existing ideas. In particular, program makers should be flexible enough to change their point of view when presented with convincing arguments to do so. That would allow for incorporating new ideas that, after thorough analysis, would appear to present a better approach to solving specific problems than the strategy proposed up-to-then.
Although this sounds reasonable enough, today such attitudes are the exception rather than the rule. Politicians, opinion leaders, even scientists tend to defend their standpoints, beliefs, and theories for better or for worse. Drawing them into question is often considered a personal insult. Discussions are not based on a well-considered analysis of the arguments, but on proclamations and attempts to cast doubt on the integrity of the opponent. Such attitudes will not help the drive for sustainable development. What is needed, instead, is an attitude that considers a thoroughly argued critique as a challenge to refine ideas and proposals.
The global program team should be at the center of a network of teams responsible for the regional, national and zonal programs. All these teams should consist of a core of permanent members, to which external experts could be added temporarily to work on specific themes. Where needed, experts from the global and regional teams should assist in the formulation of lower-level programs. Vice versa, representatives of lower level teams could be delegated temporarily to higher level teams. Thus, the compatibility of lower level plans with higher level ones could be ensured.
Although knowledge of and experience with scientific methods would be important, program developers should also be able to take some distance from academic standards. This more pragmatic approach would be needed in cases where urgent problems would require the rapid development of programs. Decisions would then have to be taken on the basis of the available knowledge, even though from a scientific point of view such knowledge might not be sufficient to draw firm conclusions. Program developers should not be concerned about the possible loss of academic status that could result.
Participation in the program development teams should not be limited to scientists. In principle, anyone with a record of well-reasoned and creative publications in a relevant area of expertise should be eligible. Applicants for a team position should be judged less on their titles and Curriculum Vitae than on their ability to express, orally and especially on paper, analyses, ideas and courses of action relevant for program development.
All teams, including the global team, should be employed by a worldwide network of organizations. Let's call this the Global Future Network, GFN. The core of this network would be the GFN headquarters, where the global program would be worked out. In line with the above described hierarchy there would also be regional, national, zonal and local GFN branches.
GFN headquarters would have to be established in a politically stable and democratically governed nation. The locale should have good communications and an acceptable cost of living - the latter, to avoid high overhead costs. Headquarters as well as the regional, national and zonal branches would have departments covering all fields of sustainable development: natural resource management, land use, energy, economics, political science, education, child development, public administration, law, criminology and health care. A special coordinating unit should integrate the plans worked out in the different departments into a general program.
Regional offices should be created for groups of countries with comparable social and economic traits. Like the seat of headquarters, they should be established in democratic, politically stable countries with good communications. They should be staffed with specialists from the region itself, liaisons from headquarters, and representatives from the national branches of the region involved.
National Global Future Network offices should be established in every country where it would be possible to operate without political persecution. In the case of political obstacles in a certain country, the staff of the national GFN office for that country should be situated at the regional center. As said, in large nations, consisting of ecologically, economically, politically and culturally heterogeneous regions and populations, zonal branches should be created.
The elaboration of the global, regional and national programs for sustainable development should not start from scratch. On the contrary, as much use as possible should be made of the enormous reservoir of already existing knowledge, information, ideas, plans and proposals. In most countries, hosts of organizations, many of them non-governmental, are engaged in research and action concerning the environment, poverty, education, health care, and other fields relevant for sustainable development. GFN program teams should actively seek the cooperation of these organizations, and incorporate their knowledge and experience into program formulation. Ideas and proposals should be analyzed, and adapted to and integrated with other relevant program components. As far as possible, changes should be worked out with the organizations concerned. That would allow the use of their expertise, and establish a basis for future cooperation. The ideal result of such exchanges would be the mutual acceptance and endorsement of each other's programs and policies, as well as mutual support for the attempts to get those programs and policies implemented.
Apart from the expertise present in established organizations there is also an enormous reservoir of ideas among individuals. People from all walks of life have valuable experience and knowledge that could support the drive for sustainable development. Over the years, many of these people have developed proposals to address specific social, economic or political problems. Most have never been implemented. Usually, this was because they went against vested interests, in other cases, the reason was the general inertia of bureaucracies. The GFN should provide such people and groups with an outlet for their ideas and proposals. Thus, their experience, knowledge and creative energy could be used to strengthen national, regional and global programs.
Although developing the programs would be the first priority, GFN staff should also, on request, advise governments, government institutions and non-governmental organizations on policies for sustainable development. Such advice should, obviously, be based on the GFN programs worked out for the countries involved. As a rule GFN staff should not, however, take direct responsibility for carrying out specific development programs or projects. Exceptions could be made for pilot projects to test out strategies proposed by the GFN - for example, the CHEC concept proposed in Chapter VII. Broader involvement in project execution would be justified only when this would not involve draining human and financial resources from GFN core activities.
To become a movement, the GFN should develop a membership. To have an impact, that membership should be large: the larger, the better. Publicity campaigns should bring the GFN and its ideas to people's attention, and get them involved. The key challenge would be to generate a response from the lower income groups and the poor, in both rich and poor countries. Since these groups are not as a rule avid readers - in poor countries, a significant proportion is illiterate - radio and television would be key means for publicity. Besides communicating its views in print, the GFN should therefore also aim to set up its own radio and television network.
Just presenting people with the notion of sustainable development and the plans to bring it about would be unlikely to foster real enthusiasm. To become and remain motivated, the long-term perspective on a better world would have to be complemented by concrete benefits and advice that could help people improve their lives immediately. For example, in poor countries recommendations could be given on such topics as sustainable agriculture and gardening, setting up small enterprises, nutrition, and family health. Also, in rich as well as poor nations, information could be given on consumer products, government services, the political situation, and cultural activities. Special educational programs could be provided for children of all ages. To keep the attention of listeners and viewers, educational and informative programs should be varied with entertainment.
The programming of the GFN radio and TV stations, and the contents of written media, should therefore be innovative, combining to the extent possible information supply with entertainment and educational elements. The financing for these media could be obtained partially by advertising products whose use would be in line with sustainable development. Additional funding could be obtained from subscriptions and general GFN membership fees.
Another GFN activity would be to collect information and process it into readily usable handbooks and guides. Today, there is an enormous mass of scientific and other literature, on every imaginable subject. The problem is to select, from this heap of information, the most relevant materials. Literature searches easily yield hundreds or even thousands of titles, available in libraries all over the world. For most people, particularly in poor countries, all this literature is difficult or costly to access. Even those specializing in providing information to others don't have the time to work through all the available information to get what they need. Therefore, experiences and knowledge are insufficiently shared. As a result, effective ways to handle problems are not disseminated, and avoidable errors are made many times over, at different moments in different places. The GFN could help resolve this problem by selecting, for all themes related to sustainable development, the most relevant theoretical, methodological and practical insights, and present them in easy-to-use guides. These should be updated regularly to include the most recently acquired knowledge and information. Fields to be covered would be, among others, education and pedagogy, basic health care and sanitation, sustainable agriculture, natural resource management, poverty alleviation, public administration, law enforcement, and criminology.
Such sustainable development guides should be made available at minimal cost to every interested party. Also, they would come to serve as the basis for teaching and training programs, in special GFN training centers and possibly, schools and universities. Such learning institutions should provide complete curricula for degrees, as well as shorter courses in fields related to sustainable development. The centers could be newly created or, where feasible, based on joint ventures with existing schools and universities.
The GFN should also aim to improve the curricula for regular education. Emphasis should be put on mental development and learning for the very young, and on integrating subjects such as civics, ecology and health in existing curricula. Another focal point would be the development and promotion of teaching methods and materials that would enhance the analytical and problem solving skills of students.
A final field of activity of the GFN would be to help organizations already engaging in activities related to sustainable development. As was mentioned concerning assistance to governments, the GFN should not as a rule initiate its own programs, projects and activities at field level, with the exception of pilot projects to try out new approaches. However, it should support non-governmental organizations and government agencies known to operate effectively in such fields as natural resource management and poverty alleviation. Such support could consist of funding, information supply, and training. To ensure adequate spending as well as maximum effectiveness, the GFN should regularly assess and evaluate such programs.
As any Network, the GFN should be financed through private contributions. People sympathizing with GFN ideas and principles should be encouraged to become contributing members. The minimum contribution could be set at an amount that would cover the costs of administration and information transfer via a GFN publication. For funding the activities described in the above, bigger donations would be required. These could be made dependent on income: for example, a contribution of 0.1% of a member's gross income could be suggested as a voluntary guideline. Donating higher percentages should of course be encouraged.
GFN's could also raise funds by engaging in income generating activities related to sustainable development. Examples would be advising governments and development organizations, and advertising in GFN owned media. Also, those able to pay should be charged fees for education, training and other services. Moreover, GFN members could be offered products and services that, while making membership more attractive, would also generate additional revenues: gifts, clothing, media products such as educational books and videos, and possibly, selected consumer products and travel.
The GFN, then, should develop into a large, multi-layered and -faceted organization. Good management would be essential to its functioning. At all levels, dynamic, creative, experienced and dedicated staff should take care of daily management, planning and strategy formulation. Management at each level should be checked by a council consisting of representatives from the level below. Thus, the global management team would be checked by a council consisting of representatives from the regional branches. This council assembly should meet regularly, say once or twice a year, to evaluate the GFN's progress and discuss and take decisions on important issues such as key appointments. Also, it should approve the global and regional development programs. For closer tabs on and support for the GFN management, the council should select a board. This board could consist of five representatives, one for each continent: America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia/Oceania.
Obviously, all council and board members, as well as the GFN management, should have an untainted reputation of intellectual and political integrity, both in their country of origin and internationally. Also, they should have the same intellectual flexibility, that is, they should be as pragmatic, as open to reasonable arguments, and as averse to dogmatism as was suggested for the rest of the GFN staff.
If the global movement described in the above would come about as described, it would become a very powerful organization. But power corrupts: even the most well-intentioned and capable persons are, when given too much power for too long, tempted to abuse it. One way to avoid this would be the careful selection of staff. To ensure their integrity to the extent possible, candidates for leading positions should, in addition to having un untainted reputation, provide a complete disclosure of their personal wealth and its origins, and proof of full compliance with the tax laws of their nation.
Another, even more important guarantee against abuse of power would be for the movement to develop its own system of checks and balances. The above mentioned council would be a key element in checking GFN management and professional staff at the global level. At the other levels, regional, national and local councils would be created with similar functions. As said, at regional, national and state levels these councils would be formed by representatives from lower levels. At the local level, the councils would be elected directly by GFN members.
Another component of the checks and balances system would be a sort of judiciary, consisting of Arbitration Boards. The role of these boards, to be formed at all levels, would be to ensure that GFN program proposals and operational procedures would correspond to the principles of sustainable development. To be able to do so they would need a charter, that is, a sort of constitution that would define those principles. Drawing up this charter should be one of the first things the movement should do. However, as with any constitution, it should be possible to adapt the charter to changing circumstances and new insights. This task should fall to the global council, which should be given the power to change the Charter with a three-quarter majority.
Whenever needed, that is to say, whenever members of the executive branch or the council would request it, the Arbitration Board should come into action. In case of a negative verdict, the proposal or action involved would have to be reformulated, withdrawn or canceled. Thus, the movement’s compliance with the principles of sustainable development, in its programs as well as its actions, would to the extent possible be ensured.
Now, let's assume the GFN would be created, and would elaborate its programs, build up its membership, and develop its information network and other services. To actually bring about change, it would then have to strive for the implementation of the programs. Of course a strong GFN, with a large membership spread over many countries, could wield significant political influence. However, to obtain direct political power would require the formation of a political party, which should aim to rise to power via the ballot box. Let’s call this the Global Future Party, or GFP.
As there is no such thing as a global government to take over, the GFP should seek political power at the national level. That would call for the formation of as many GFP's as there are nations. Yet GFP's would differ from traditional political parties. In the latter, programs, if existing at all, are elaborated by politicians and their staff. The GFP, on the other hand, would base its political goals on the GFN programs. Thus, in each nation there would be a close partnership between GFN and GFP, with the first responsible for program development, and the second for its implementation.
Another way in which the GFP would differ from existing political parties would be that, because of its structure and mode of operation, it would avoid the problems affecting politics today. By adopting the same structure as the GFP, with an executive branch, a council with legislative and controlling functions, and an arbitration board operating on the basis of a charter, it would ensure the democratic representation of its members in decision making, adherence to the principles of sustainable development, and the integrity of its officials and representatives. Thus, the back room wheeling and dealing, the influence peddling of special interests, and the power plays based on money and favors that mark most of today's political parties would be avoided. Also, these checks and balances would ensure, to the extent possible, the integrity of GFP politicians. Moreover, because of the GFN’s watchdog function, politicians would be bound to their election time promises.
At the core of the GFP charter should be the principle of striving to carry out the national, regional and global GFN programs. However, the GFP would operate at the national level and thus, be subject to international forces over which it would have little or no control. Moreover, it would be unlikely that even at the national level, a GFP would immediately gain the absolute majority needed to carry out is program. In practice, therefore, it would be necessary for the GFP to adapt the GFN program to national and international political and economic realities. Such adaptation would carry the risk that, under the influence of the same forces that now impede sustainable development, GFP programs would be watered down too much. To avoid this, changes in the contents or actual implementation of GFP programs would have to be made dependent on detailed consultation and approval by the GFN. In other words, GFP programs and strategy would have to be ratified by the GFN, so as to ensure they'd remain in line with national, regional and global GFN programs.
In comparison with traditional politics, there would be three great advantages to the intimate link between the GFP, as a political party, and the GFN as the developer of its program. The first would be clarity about the political program. The public would be presented with a clear-cut program for the short, medium and long term. In contrast, today most mainstream political parties have only very vague programs, or don't have any at all. Thus, voters would obtain a much clearer picture of what their party would stand for.
The second advantage of the GFN-GFP link would be that the GFP, as a political party, would be under constant scrutiny from an independent entity: the GFN. That would put much greater pressure on the GFP to stick to its program than would be the case for normal political parties. In traditional politics, such scrutiny hardly exists, making it easy for politicians to say one thing and do another. The GFN-GFP relationship, however, would provide voters with an easy check on the reliability of politicians. If the GFN would maintain its endorsement, GFP politicians could be assumed to have stuck to the extent possible to their commitments. Withdrawal of the endorsement would mean politicians had gone wrong.
The third, and greatest advantage of the GFP-GFN link would be the potential for effective international cooperation. Through the programmatic ties between national, regional and global GFN's, all national GFP's would have compatible programs. GFP politicians would be in basic agreement regarding the way international problems should be addressed: the solutions would already form part of the regional and global GFN programs. This kind of unity of purpose, and clarity on how to address global problems, would be the basis for genuine international cooperation, and break the logjam that marks today's efforts to address the world's problems.
Some may argue that today, there already are worldwide organizations of political parties, comparable to the proposed GFP network. They are right in that international federations of, for example, social democrats, conservatives, socialists and Christian Democrats indeed exist. But these federations are no more than loose networks of parties which, although based on the same political-philosophical concept, have their own history and characteristics. Practically any party pretending to adhere to that concept is allowed to join - even though the actions of the politicians involved have little relationship to that concept. At best, then, such organizations may unite to further their common political interest: to obtain or stay in power. But they don't contribute much to real cooperation and integration, and even less to a coherent approach to global development.
So what's the chance that GFP's might actually attract the interest of voters? Over the last decade, voter dissatisfaction with existing political parties and politicians has risen to unprecedented highs. Therefore, there is considerable potential for a new political party such as the GFP. The public could come to appreciate a party that does not to focus on serving itself and special interests, but sticks to a set of clearly defined policies for the common good. Much would depend on the ability of GFN and GFP to translate the idea of sustainable development into a clear message with which the interest of voters could be aroused. If that message could activate part of those still politically active as well as those who, over the last decade, have turned their back on politics, the potential would be enormous.
To become a credible alternative for existing political parties, the GFP's would need, in addition to a clear program, credible and inspired leadership. As with the GFN, its candidates and representatives should be untainted by any sort of scandal; to ensure this, they should be willing and able to give complete disclosure of their financial situation and the ways their wealth was obtained. Under those conditions, the GFP could also open itself to "traditional" politicians: experienced, well known, but scrupulous politicians should be drawn aboard. Similarly, existing political parties with agendas not too far removed from GFN programs should be encouraged to evolve into de facto GFP's.
A major risk for GFP's and GFN's would be political compromise. If GFN's and GFP's were to come off the ground, and a GFP would actually receive a large proportion of votes, it might have to enter some kind of power sharing arrangement with other political parties. That would require compromises, which should be clearly explained to voters. Also, GFP's would have to adjust to economic, political and financial realities at the international level. For example, the introduction of an environmental tax that would double the price of oil would be hard to realize in only one country, as it would put business there at too great a disadvantage. Similarly, certain fiscal measures might cause money managers to withdraw funds from the country involved, causing economic and financial problems. Such realities should lead the national, regional and global GFN to apply the necessary flexibility when endorsing a national GFP. As long as the GFN-GFP coalition would not be able to influence the global status quo decisively, GFP's and GFN would have to adapt to it.
Cooperation for sustainable development
Let's fantasize some more, and assume a number of countries would actually come to be governed by GFP's. To foster sustainable development, such nations should then develop special cooperative relationships. Thus, rich GFP countries should focus their development assistance on poor GFP counterparts. In line with sustainable development, such aid should focus on health care, education, natural resource management, and public service reform. Assistance could also be given in the improvement of the transportation and communications infrastructure. Moreover, special trade relationships should be developed, through the formation of a free trade bloc. Within it, obstacles to the free flow of goods, services, and capital should be removed gradually. In line with the principles of sustainable development, trade should, however, be based on a bottom line, so as to protect the environment, workers and consumers.
Trade between GFP nations and non-GFP countries could take place on the basis of a system of differential trade relations, much as the U.S. and the European Community already use today. The "most favored", "lesser favored" and "least favored" status should be assigned according to the degree to which the nations involved would adhere to the principles of sustainable development. For example, a country paying considerable attention to education, health care and the management of its natural resources, and with a fairly democratic government, would receive a most-favored status. On the other hand, a nation headed by a dictatorial regime spending more on the military than on education and health care, and keeping itself in power by razing the countries' natural resources and pocketing the profits, would qualify as "least favored".
Ideally, one should hope that the prospect of favorable trade relations with GFP countries would stimulate the governments of non-GFP countries to adopt policies in line with sustainable development. Mostly, though, this hope would prove idle. Especially in poor, non-democratically governed countries the political and economic leadership would consider GFN programs as a frontal attack on their privileges. They would therefore do their utmost to block the coming to power of a GFP government. The obstacles would be greatest in totalitarian states, where government control of the media would make it difficult for the GFN and GFP to get their message across and gain public support. Elsewhere, deliberate misinformation of the public, vote rigging and the intimidation of candidates as well as voters could be used to prevent a GFP from coming to power.
Outside pressure could help break the hold of governments engaging in such practices over their nations. Cut-backs in trade and aid could lead to dissatisfaction among the politically influential salary and business groups. That could create a climate in which support for alternative movements like the GFN-GFP could grow. In extreme cases, pressure for change could also be generated more directly, through consumer boycotts and government embargoes. However, these weapons should be used only after very careful consideration, particularly with regard to negative consequences for the population. In deciding whether to engage in a boycott, the GFN and GFP from the country involved would have to have a decisive say.
Besides putting pressure on national governments, GFN's and GFP's should also aim to push international institutions towards policies in line with sustainable development. Especially the IMF and World Bank should be pressured into taking a longer term perspective on development. Structural adjustment programs should no longer focus exclusively on reducing government expenditure and generating foreign exchange for debt servicing. Rather, IMF and World Bank should promote policies aimed at the development of people and the rational use of natural resources. Since the early 1990s, they've already made a modest beginning with this. Unfortunately, though, they still finance programs to foster such policies with loans - thus worsening the debt problem even further. If the past holds any lessons, this means that as in the nations involved debt loads increase, further cutbacks in social and environmental programs can be expected.
IMF and World Bank could contribute to sustainable development by providing loans only for economically viable projects, while helping nations to obtain grant aid for social en environmental programs. Loans and other assistance should be given only to countries that would take all the necessary steps for sustainable development: provision of good quality education and health care for all layers of the population, fostering the sustainable use of land and water, creating well-functioning public institutions, and developing a sound tax system in which the rich would pay their dues. Considering the huge influence of IMF and World Bank on poor nations' economic, fiscal and development policies, they could well become a very effective instrument for change.
Why it is necessary to create the GFN-GFP movement in a world already flooded with organizations striving for sustainable development? Why not, instead, bring together existing organizations, in a kind of forum that could do the same as the GFN?
There would be several problems with this approach. One is the very fact that the number of organizations focusing on sustainable development issues is so huge. Each works in its particular field, following its specific strategy and interests. Although there is a lot of cooperation, there is also competition, especially with regard to funding. And though many such organizations have comparable objectives, visions on how these should be achieved vary greatly. To bring all these organizations together physically would already be an enormous and costly task; to bring them to agree on joint goals and strategy would be practically impossible. Even if it could be done, the financial cost and amount of time involved would be huge. Such funds and time would be better spent, by both the GFN and other organizations, in pursuing their specific goals.
Then, there is the problem of politics. Many organizations, especially those focusing on a single issue (for example, the environment, health care, or alleviating poverty), refrain from taking political standpoints, so as to be able to work with governments of different political backgrounds. The GFN, as this book makes clear, would have no such reservations. It would not only translate the measures required for sustainable development into a coherent, political program, but also, compare the latter with programs of existing political parties. Although the need for this is easily argued, the standpoint of many organizations that taking political standpoints would compromise their work is equally justifiable. Getting such organizations to join a forum with clear political overtones would be difficult if not impossible. Therefore, it would be preferable to create a looser relationship.
The above implies that, instead of trying to have existing organizations join forces, it would be better to form a new one. The GFN would be unique in that it would cover all areas relevant for worldwide sustainable development in a coherent way. It would draw up an integrated set of plans for sustainable development, starting at the global level and descending to the regional, national, and local levels. Thanks to the many governmental and non-governmental organizations that already work on issues related to sustainable development, many of the building blocks of those plans are already available. What would remain for the GFN would be to fill in the gaps, and to incorporate all building blocks into a coherent design.
As implied above, the GFN would also be complementary to existing organizations in the political sense. To carry out sustainable development programs would require genuine international cooperation and coordination. That is unlikely to come off the ground as long as politicians keep using conflictive engagement to defend their own and their constituencies' short term interests. With the support of the many organizations already involved in sustainable development, the GFN could start to pressure the political establishment to change its attitudes and policies. Where such pressure would fail to do the job the GFP, by converting the GFN's mobilizing force into direct political power, would come to renew the political establishment.
Local and global initiativesGrowing numbers of people and organizations see globalization and the resulting concentration of economic and political power, especially in multinational corporations and international financial markets, as a serious threat to society. Their answer is decentralization: to strengthen economic and political power at the local level. The Financial Micro Initiatives discussed in Chapter XIII were one example, but there are many more: even at the World Bank decentralization (albeit only political) has become a hot issue.
How does the GFN-GFP concept fit in this perspective? At first sight there appears to be a problem: the GFN, with its goal of developing and implementing a global development plan, appears to call for centralization rather than decentralization. That, however, would be a misinterpretation. As indicated earlier in the Chapter, GFN programs would not be blueprints for rigid central planning, but policy frameworks that would leave plenty of room for local decision making. On the other hand, even those most eager to return power to the community will have to admit that current trends cannot be countered by small scale initiatives only. A countervailing power is needed at the national and international level: an organization that can take on the centers of power and the ruling dogma that economic globalization and the nation state's loss of control over economic processes is as inevitable as it is beneficial. To do so a clear, coherent alternative is needed, and an international power base that can create the conditions and context for political and economic decentralization. The goal of the GFN would be to provide this alternative and, in tandem with the GFP, to form that power base.
In conclusion, there would be complementarity between, on the one hand, the GFN-GFP and on the other, groups aiming for sustainable, locally based development. The same would be true with regard to organizations targeting specific issues such as the environment, poverty or human rights. The GFN and later, GFP would need the expertise and grass roots support of single issue and community organizations to create and implement a framework for sustainable development. Vice versa, these organizations would need a GFN and a GFP to create and implement a national and international policy framework in line with their goals. Thus, close cooperation between GFN-GFP, single issue organizations and local community initiatives would be an essential step on the road to sustainable development.
To next (and final) chapter: Conclusions
(Back) to Homepage of the site Global Development
For contact details see Homepage