b.p.p.: Transparency, Openness and Accountability in Coalitions and Networks
May 6, 2007 · 8 Comments
Categories: a blog peace project · activism · anti-war protest · war
-
jaw-jaw
Categories: a blog peace project · activism · anti-war protest · war
8 responses so far ↓
Jose // May 7, 2007 at 5:21 am |
This is one of the most difficult points. Credibility, trust. I have some ideas which I’ll start giving in the course of these days.
anticant // May 7, 2007 at 1:36 pm |
This link is to a very interesting and important article. I’m not sure whether I share the author’s pessimism, as I think such a move might ultimately prove beneficial rather than sinister. But I am curious to know what others think.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17657.html
Francis ["End of History"] Fukuyama wrote a book on ‘Trust’ [1995]. I’ll refresh my memory of its contents and post5 anything relevant in my arena.
Jose // May 7, 2007 at 6:39 pm |
I made a comment on this in my blog, Anticant.
http://canarislander.wordpress.com/2007/05/03/government-central-or-decentralised/#comments
1loneranger // May 7, 2007 at 8:20 pm |
Well, I believe if motives of a non-sinister nature were intended we rabble would hear much more about these sorts of events and proposals of mergers instead of having to read about them on the back pages of fear/terror/truth mags such as I.C.H. When international economies are being blended without transparency and public awareness I suspect intentions that stink of rotten fish.
This EU/US economic merger sounds just like NAFTA to me. Sure some make out like bandits while most are left by the wayside. See the average Mexican.
There are closed door talks going on here in North America that the author of this article eluded to and I don’t think a single North American currency is advantageous for any country or its economy within this continent other than the U.S., and more specifically the upper and upper-middle classes of the U.S.
I agree with the author’s theory that a singular economy eventually leads to a singular authoritative body controlled by the dominant national power which will enforce homogenization and its standard of laws and morals. if that’s the case, I want nothing to do with a U.S. style “democracy” and its American style policies, i.e. he U.S. war on drugs, capital punishment, civil rights, abortion rights, the war on terror just to name a few here in /my/ Canadian paradise of a backyard.
I think the EU/U.S. economic merger could be very good for very few in the long run, the neo-con specifically. Will I be part of the very few living ‘high on the hog’, who knows, probably not. But that’s not what’s most important. Until I see the average Mexican’s daily situation getting a whole hell of a lot better I can’t support NAFTA and or any other massive and reckless forms of economic globalization.
Which countries in Europe will be the next ‘Mexicos’ under this new plan?
See this older post of mine for more info on ‘CANAMERICO’.
http://1loneranger.wordpress.com/2007/01/11/us-take-over-of-canada/
Jose // May 8, 2007 at 4:24 am |
I agree with you, 1loneranger, 100%. In addition, although it may not have anything to do with this union, I’d like to give you a link to another news appeared today about the UN Council for Human Rights to which I just want comment that before it seemed the Council was biased for Israel while now it is against Israel. Something else why the proposal of the new project for peace should be welcome.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070508/ap_on_re_us/un_rights_council
1loneranger // May 8, 2007 at 2:16 pm |
Jose-
Thanks for the link to this article. A good example of the floating of accountability that takes place in bureaucratic political organizations susceptible to corruption.
‘Transparency and Openness’ are the concepts to highlight as keystones of an organization’s mandate. Accountability pre-supposes corrupt leadership. If there is equal and participatory membership in a de-centralized coalition, in theory, there should be no person or group that would exercise a lack of accountability.
The ideal organization is one with clear motives and objectives in which all subject matter is discussed and debated in an open and transparent manner. All topical information is ‘public’ to all members of the organization in a spirit of honesty and full disclosure so as to be an advantage for the whole of the movement and its objectives.
The ’spirit’ of the the peace movement is to promote honesty and open discussion. Without transparency and openness of objectives and theories within this movement there is no hope to realize cohesion and strong solidarity.
Jose // May 9, 2007 at 4:45 am |
I vote for that definition, 1loneranger, as the contents for the second point of the topic under discussion. That could perfectly fill the point.
Let’s wait what others’ reaction will be, if any.
Jose // May 10, 2007 at 4:57 am |
No reactions from others having reached us, perhaps, 1loneranger, it is opportune to transfer that you wrote in your last comment as the contents of the point dealt with in this topic.
quote:
‘Transparency and Openness’ are the concepts to highlight as keystones of an organization’s mandate. Accountability pre-supposes corrupt leadership. If there is equal and participatory membership in a de-centralized coalition, in theory, there should be no person or group that would exercise a lack of accountability.
The ideal organization is one with clear motives and objectives in which all subject matter is discussed and debated in an open and transparent manner. All topical information is ‘public’ to all members of the organization in a spirit of honesty and full disclosure so as to be an advantage for the whole of the movement and its objectives.
The ’spirit’ of the the peace movement is to promote honesty and open discussion. Without transparency and openness of objectives and theories within this movement there is no hope to realize cohesion and strong solidarity.
unquote
and start with the third one.