These are the remarks I gave as an opening presentation for a workshop entitled “How to strengthen the Convention’s international cooperation and assistance mechanisms in partnership with CSOs” which took place as part of the Civil Society Forum, in the framework of UNESCO’s Seventh Session of the Conference of Parties which took place on June 3rd, 2019 in Paris.
* Remarks by Mauricio Delfin (Director, Asociación Civil Solar)
Thank you for inviting me to provide an opening presentation in this workshop.
In my opinion, while there are several challenges and conditions that need to be met to involve civil society organizations (CSOs) in mechanisms of international cooperation and assistance, I would like to focus on aset of challenges that shape the relationship between civil society and national governments (parties to the 2005 Convention), as well as with Global Institutions like UNESCO, at various levels. These are challenges and conditions that often tend to be overlooked or underestimated.
Before describing them, however, it is important to frame these challenges in the particular socio-political context we are situated in as national societies, and within the historical moment we are currently sharing as species. From this perspective, the environmental crisis we live in today is not only a reality but also a reminder of a profound political crisis, one in which our current global governance model impedes shared solutions to a number of shared problems.
The “State” as a political construction, in many regions of the world, is in crisis. In Latin America, for example, political and judicial powers, public institutions and financial conglomerates are in question. This, of course, diminishes trust in the state and on public institutions.
The fact is that the re-composition of the State as truly sustainable, transparent, inclusive, horizontal and distributed public institution is a task for us and the generations that follow. For all our tales of modernization and technocratic expertise, the State — the political infrastructure that sustains a Party as it takes part in the 2005 Convention, if you will — is a 19th century institution. As Pia Mancini has described before “we are twenty-first century citizens trying our best to interact with institutions from the nineteenth century built on technology from the fifteenth century.”
This needs to change.
In my opinion, the first challenge faced by parties and global institutions attempting to involve CSO in frameworks for cooperation and assistance, whether national or international, is to recognize the exceptional mandate — the authority to act in a certain way — and the situation of civil society.
Civil society’s most basic, general mandate is different from that of the State, different from that of a global institution like the United Nations, and so is the way civil society builds upon that mandate to configure the particular horizons of possibility it navigates daily. What do I mean by this?
In Peru, if there is something that defines civil society in the cultural sector — and here it is useful to talk about civil societies (in plural), because the environmental movement and its global civil, society differs from the cultural sector’s civil society in several ways — is the lack of resources to strengthen processes that foster relationships between its members.
The civil society that forms part of the cultural sector often counts with no resources to fund face-to-face exchanges, the creation of shared knowledge, peer-to-peer capacity building, nor the adequate and efficient participation in global forums a such as UNESCO’s Conference of Parties, for example.
Yet the important part to remember, is that this is done, anyway.
Civil society’s appearance on a stage, any stage, becomes the product of pure effort, pure raw civic strength. Civil society has the ability to set a course, and keep it, YET not without problems, mistakes, set-backs and hard-learnt lessons with great personal and professional costs for many of those involved.
This is Civic Power, if you will. The ability to advance collectively, despite all odds.
This is something that today, even the most vertical, opaque and centralized States tend to recognize, and — sometimes even — exploit.
A second challenge is the recognition needs to be accompanied by a respect of civil society spaces, processes and times. With “respect” I don’t mean admiration, but “due regard”, which entails various things.
In a civic construction process that beings, it may mean keeping a distance from a space in which civic actors need to be free to voice all kinds of concerns and expectations, without fear of reprisal (whether moral, professional or social reprisal).
It also means respecting and valuing civic experiencers as they develop through trial and error. If civil society tries something (an activity, a format, a process) and this “does not work” (and this evaluation is always relative), this does not automatically mean that it should not take place again, that civil society should not insist.
Often, in the case of civil society, not third but fifth-time is the charm.
This is particularly important for global civil society processes, as civic actors need to secure processes over time, many of which are fraught with limitations and great uncertainty.
I will advance a recommendation now, and that is that it is of enormous importance of securing more robust spaces for exchange between parties and civil society, and global institutions and global civic actors, in order to guarantee a shared route that respects processes, spaces and times.
This means, I other words, making conversations open, shareable, less exchanges between two representatives over email, and more a conversation that is open to scrutiny, but also collaboration, contributions, disagreements and more importantly, dialogue.
I will finish this point by saying that the “time” of civil society is different from that of the State and of a global institution. Things often take longer for civic society, as it aims to be coherent with its own structures of representation, is affected by lack of funds for communication and travel, and/or lacks funding for exclusive dedication to work in the organization.
This is something that is seldom recognized and valued. The steps civil society needs to make a decision legitimate often take longer, but longer often time means better.
A third challenge is to recognize the specific obstacles faced by civil society to attain legitimacy, particularly when trying to act as a “global civil society”.
In a context of severe limitations, where civil society lacks — for example — funds to mobilize across the world, guaranteeing regional representation, much needed gender equity and the participation of all minorities — we are left with very few people and yes, privileged people and organizations, with the ability to participate, and — to the best of its possibilities and capacities — keep the door open for others, until those other can take over.
This happens everywhere, often, and it becomes the reflection of a systemic problem, not something that needs to stay this way, even though it is easy (and in some cases I would say, irresponsible) to blame those participating — at great personal costs —for being unwilling to let others in.
The good news is that this situation does not need to stay this way and can change.
But this can and will only change with the transformation and maturation of a relationship between civic, state actors and global institutions. I have to separate the three, because in this global stage, it is key to separate the work civil society, from the work of parties, and of global institutions that facilitate the collective impact of such parties gathered through a Convention.
A fourth challenge is to transcend, to go beyond, limited and unfair characterizations (which are, truly, stereotypes) of civic and state actors.
This is something that happens at the local, regional, national and global level: we tend to characterize actors unfairly. The problem is not that we are being mean per se. The problem is that generally this means we are judging from ignorance.
This is a problem, with various ramifications.
Characterization implies both underestimating the actor (regarding someone as less capable than they are) while also overestimating certain dimensions (thinking that something is much bigger that it really is).
The implied circumstance delimiting these kinds of reactions is distance. The actors remain away from each other, separate, unable to hear each other’s concerns, and more importantly, unable to work on attending differences in opinions and disagreement.
The fifth challenge is to value disagreement and make disagreement productive.
Recognizing disagreement by one part of the relationship is important, but not as powerful as when both parts of the relationship recognize it and are willing to do something about this.
It is not an issue of resolving disagreement. Sometimes it is about situating this disagreement in a place where it can be best addressed, perhaps not immediately, but as the process continues, if it can — despite this difference in opinion or position.
Disagreement is part of the process. As is failure.
A sixth challenge is to respect the failure of others, the mistakes and also the lessons.
We need to value failures, encourage risk taking and walking through new paths.
So, in terms of recommendations as to how to strengthen the Convention’s international cooperation and assistance mechanisms in partnership with CSOs, I would start by saying that recognizing the State as a construction that has limits, we need to empower civil society on the ground, making them an essential actor of any process that designs and evaluates cultural policy. Empowering national networks of cultural organizations to be able to monitor the work of Parties as they implement the Convention on the ground, should be a priority.
In line with this empowerment, all actors need to respect the mandate of civil society, its processes and spaces, and the autonomy of its actors. Parties need to let civil society build. When possible, they may be able to “build with” like Laurenellen MacCann suggests, but not “build for”. This means that participation needs to go beyond consultation.
After recognizing the obstacles faced by civil society, Parties and Global Institutions need to develop mechanisms to fund mobility, including the mobility of the soon-to-be CSO Steering Committee, including minimum budget to secure communication resources, for example.
Hence, the CSO Steering Committee should always determine the format, content and objectives of its own Forum of Civil Society.
The fact is we need to secure more robust spaces for exchange between parties and civil society, and global institutions and global civic actors, in order to guarantee a shared route that respects processes, spaces and times. A concrete idea is to generate a space for open dialogue between Secretariat and CSO Steering Committee in the next IGC meeting
These kinds of spaces would reduce negative characterizations. As will processes centered on generating information and sharing information about CSOs, in order to open debates.
Disagreements need to become explicit, organic to the process, a way to recognize the potential paths for change. In terms of our failures, we have to learn from them and then generate lessons. We need to encourage trial and error. Then repeat, evaluate and share lessons again.
We need to be able to invest in multiple ways in a process that promotes the maturation of the relationship between States and Civil Societies, and Civil Societies and Global Institutions.
Thank you.