(summarized and adapted from Francine Mestrum)
[TLDR (too long didn’t read): If you are reading this, chances are you care about HR. This Reader is about lessons learned to succeed in setting up an effective HR movement. For a quick overview, just read the bolded text]. Traducir/traduire los/les Readers; usar/utiliser deepl.com
What lessons have we learned to better prepare for the future?
1. The Global Citizens movement is meant to be a broad umbrella of inclusive solidarity and common purpose, a systemic change agent for a great transition towards human rights (HR). True, there was a lot more optimism for this in the 1980s than there is now. Unfortunately, almost half a century later, we have to admit our failure and understand that the optimism is fading away as well.
2. Keep in mind that:
- This is a highly political topic, clearly positioned on the left side of the political spectrum. Avoiding the choice between left and right will not bring us any closer to sustainable solutions, since our common objective is an emancipatory policy of justice, equality, and solidarity –and that is a counterhegemonic exercise. Such an agenda can never be promoted by right-wing forces that do not want people to take their future into their own hands. Not being explicit about this political dimension implies the risk of multiple misunderstandings.
- Today, we are no longer talking about political parties, but of movements, which makes the exercise easier, but also trickier. Why? Because the discussions and conflicts at an ideological level are very similar to endless electoral debates and the point is to avoid such competitive debates at all costs.
- Trying to work with others and searching for common concerns is only possible if we know each other well, if we know on what points compromises on common action are possible (or not); it demands serious self-reflection and patience to listen and to try to understand others.
- Formidable obstacles to collaboration exist when the-goal-becomes-the-movement, when the strengthening of the organization itself takes precedence over the pursuit of the social objectives of the party or movement –with cooperation only acceptable if this helps to give one’s own movement a boost. Such movements then work together with the silent aim of getting a ‘dominating’ position in the cooperation itself. If this happens coming from any of the different partners, it is clear the cooperation will never succeed.
- One has to be aware that for many progressive and left-wing people and movements, political identity coincides with personal identity, this making compromise or change more difficult. Loyalty to one’s own cause is too often an impediment to consolidating coalitions and forging truly cooperative tactics.
- Too many movements also have thematic blinders. If they are working on, say access to health or disabled people, they will feel they have no mandate to discuss anything else. Even just asking an agreement to sign a text on, say, debt cancellation, will be impossible.
- Finally, there is the decline of certain values that were once widely shared —such as universalism, development, democracy in whatever form, modernity and even HR– since they are now said or considered to be ‘abstract’. The question of definitions is thus crucial, since people regularly use the same words to indicate different realities. In many cases, the distance from words to facts, from discourse to practice, is too large to bridge. In too many cases, there are real, serious and true differences of opinion.
3. These points may look like very serious impediments to efforts towards more unity. In fact, the first thing to define very carefully is the objective itself: what kind of unity do we want? Is it real ideological unity or just variable and temporary platforms for making pointed strong and common demands and proposals? Moreover, do we just want a dialogue between our movements in order to get to know each other and confirm our own identities, or do we also want to learn from and reciprocally influence each other? In other words, do we really all believe in the same universal values (or not)? Therefore, before embarking upon activism work, it can be useful for all movements to undertake a self-reflection on all these questions in order to assess the possibility of resolutely joining a common platform.
Bottom line:
4. We must take positions on important political events, to organize meetings with global intellectuals and movements, to reflect on strategies, to organize actions, and to bring together movements working on different, but interconnected topics.
5. This implies an open attitude to start and search for common concerns, a long-term exercise for which the rules have to be clearly spelled out. It cannot be about doing away with/overlooking differences or identities –on the contrary. We also cannot limit or dilute the intended action radius of movements. Ultimately, the search ought to be about finding out what concerns a number of movements share, in spite of their (apparent) diversity.
6. This may look very ambitious and utopian, but giving up on building ‘another world’ is not an option.
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
Your comments are welcome at schuftan@gmail.com
All Readers are available at www.claudioschuftan.com
If you do not want to receive these Readers anymore, do send me a message with ‘unsubscribe’ in the subject line.
I am happy to report that a bilingual Spanish/English booklet on Moving Human Rights Beyond Capitalism was just published in Mexico. It is authored by me with the invaluable help of Howard Waitzkin.
The link here below gives all the details about it.
Claudio