The meeting began with a synthesis of yesterday's meeting by the reporter.
In elaborating the workings of the Spanish / Portuguese group, she posed
the problem of the marginalization of majorities by schemes of government,
particularly because of lack of information.
The proposal of the facilitator was that the meeting should work for an
hour in small groups, followed by an hour of joint discussion, and a half
hour of conclusions. The sub-group discussion was to center around the
final question of yesterday, that is: What existing materials and
experiences can contribute to the development of a new political order?
When the meeting reconvened, the work of the groups was presented. The
English-speaking group tried to discuss all of the questions. The adverse
effects of the current ruling order at the national level were exemplified
by the current problems of the Asian economies, the burning of forests in
Indonesia, the domination of the Third World by the developed world, and
the continuance of famine, corruption, and lack of human rights. The
significance of the ruling order was discussed, and also the implications
of globalization. Diagnosis of the problems is important in order to
identify the good and bad aspects of the current order; only the bad
aspects need to be eliminated. Local communities need to be allowed to
decide their own future. Reform of institutions, including electoral
reform, is necessary in many cases to bring about genuine democracy.
The French-speaking group made a list of examples of popular democratic
movements. Examples include uniting of interest groups, and groups of
intellectuals that have had an impact. The reporter for the group
highlighted the concept of joint management, involving groups such as
researchers and businessmen in government, and the importance of sharing
experience. Forums for national and international discussion and action
were also discussed.
As the starting point for discussing citizenship The Spanish / Portuguese
group took action groups for women, Indians, and landless rural workers in
South America. The partnerships among non-governmental organizations were
seen as being one means for making progress.
The facilitator summarized the reports of the groups, and suggested that
there was not time to try and reconcile the differences in approach, but
that they should be formulated as recommendations.
Bernard Cardin requested that information relating to citizenship needs
should be made available to all of the groups.
Rob Wheeler thought that it is important to consider new forms of
government, which was not discussed in the English-speaking group.
Pierre Calame defended the possibility of the meeting to go beyond
diversity, to define a model of a new government. He said that attempts to
restrict new government solely to the government level should be condemned.
The facilitator noted two things that need to emerge from the meeting.
First, support for the plea of Bernard Cardin to define experience of
citizenship, and secondly, support for that of Pierre Calame as a model.
It was suggested that a further ongoing workshop be set up to collect
materials relating to governance and citizenship.
Chico Whitaker from Brazil identified three possible ways of improving
government: take power from the government, try to influence the
government, or reconstruct society from the bottom up. He suggested that
the third method should be taken as the priority, because to change
government directly is impossible, because it is already globalized.
Rob Wheeler supported an ongoing dialogue within the Alliance on this subject.
A delegate from China noted that to a large extent it is the state which
creates the concept of citizenship, and not necessarily the other way
around. This symbiosis between the two must be taken into account.
Sixto Roxas summed up, going over the scheme of the process for decision at
the meeting, and some conclusions from drawn from work in the
English-speaking group.