en - fr - es - zh

HOME PAGE > Your answers to the questionnaire

Consultation on the Constituent Charter Project for the Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and United World: Final Report

by Hervé Maillot, Allié. France , 6 December 2005

Overall Analytical Summary

Remarks
 At the drafting of this report, the final number of answers to the questionnaire was not known. It should be very close to 320. It should be noted that China will not have been able to participate in this consultation.
 Percentages are related the share of total number of answers.
 In the rest of this document, the acronym CSMG designates the Continued Support and Mediation Group, guarantor of the Constituent Charter.
 The parts in italics are not based on the answers but on an interpretation of the answers and thus express a personal feeling of the writer of this report.

On the Alliance Idea

50% of total answers.
This question was first put only to non-Allies. Later (from July 27, 2005 on), anyone answering directly on line was able to express him or herself on this point. This explains the low number of answers to this question.

The Alliance idea reflects what the participants feel. Most express the need and the emergency, for themselves and/or for others, to join, to interconnect, to work on the emergence of alternatives to the evolution of the world. For many, the interdependence of the problems always implies the need to deal with them at the same time. The questionnaire asked the participants if the values and causes defended by the Alliance project were also theirs. The answer was yes! "How could we not agree ...", said many participants.

Beyond this large unanimity and regardless of the wealth and enthusiasm of the answers, the general impression was that this question was given a rather brief (hasty?) response. Given the lack of specific information on the measure of involvement in (and therefore of intimacy with) the Alliance of participants who are Allies (we can nevertheless observe that the most consistent answers came from persons who are or have been highly involved in the Alliance), given the lack of knowledge as to whether or not they wish to express themselves in a more detailed way, and given the style and format of the questionnaire, which necessarily conditioned the style and format of the answers, it is difficult to explain why so few participants cared to communicate a vision, a conception of the Alliance, and a relationship to it, testifying to the scales and grasping the complexity of the organization, considered the issue of the balance between unity and diversity, or owned the challenges and stakes involved in the idea of the Alliance.

On the Spirit of the Charter

100% of total answers.
Almost a unanimity on the findings, the objectives, the ethics, the values, the vision of the world and the desired evolution that the text proposes. Many Allies are delighted with the perspective of a new stage and the promise of new energy.

If the question raised had been: The Alliance, enough or more? The answer would be: more!!

Proposals, disagreements, and questions emerge in the more detailed consideration of the nature of the Alliance, its role, its working procedures, and the organization of its action or its governance. See the following sections.

The Charter, and more specifically the Charter project, whether it was perceived as appropriate, consensual and operative or fuzzy, oriented, or to be (re)discussed, was largely welcomed because it matched the palpable desire among most participants to give the Alliance a structure and rules allowing it to grow. Attachment to the Alliance, its value in the participants’ heart, was completely perceptible as much in the formulation of proposals or criticism as in the words of approval.

On the Working Procedures

45% of total answers. There are redundancies in this section and the section devoted to proposals.

This section privileges the points that the answers seem to consider as preliminary to everything that is debatable regarding the working procedures (see also the part devoted to proposals). The fundamental points considered below are concerned with the strong relationship there has to be between the nature of the Alliance, its objectives, and its working procedures. They are also concerned with the relationship between ethics and working procedures. Finally, it should be emphasized that there are many participants who need to consider separately the working procedures designed for the governance of the Alliance and the working procedures related to the work programs and the strategy.

A number of answers express that the text is difficult to read and to understand (regarding the organization): there appears to be a need to specify what the term "procedures" refers to and to mark a clearer separation between the objectives and the procedures by describing them. Are not these latter finally, all at the same time mechanisms, methods, tools, and forms of operation that make it possible to achieve specific objectives? Expressed is also a need to first think about the objectives of these procedures. Participants wonder whether the objectives of the procedures should be the whole of the Alliance’s objectives. For instance, should the development of decision-making mechanisms leading to concrete action on the field be considered as an objective of the Alliance? If so, it is proposed that other specific procedures or methodologies specific to this objective should be added to the list.

On the relations of the Alliance with the outside: two basic questions emerge, explicitly or not (through the diversity of Allies’ motivations, for instance). First, is the Alliance a place of shared resources or a core of activism? The answer to this question conditions the choice of the working procedures. When we read the answers, we wonder whether the Allies have decided on this question. Some seem to be seeking a middle road by looking for procedures for alliances with other institutions, undertakings, or social movements that for one reason or another would hesitate to get completely involved in the Alliance. How, then, can we forge alliances with them on limited objectives with suitable procedures and working spaces?

It would seem that the Allies, knowing their wealth of diversity and the diversity that the Alliance can offer, would like the Alliance to diversify its interlocutors and its partnerships and make its adaptability "to others" the quality added to its unity.

Another question at the same time: Does the informal character of the Alliance make it stronger or on the contrary does it hinder its development and its efficiency? There are differences of opinion on this question.

On the need to have assessment tools: most respondents are convinced that the challenges related to the working procedures reflect the challenges that the Alliance has set out for itself: need of high-quality procedures to manage complexity, collective intelligence, experience capitalization, and the elaboration of strategies.

Along the same lines, some answers underscore the importance of evaluating the accomplished work: to guarantee that the action is a positive contribution to the achievement of the common objectives. Evaluate the value of the experience in itself (theoretical - practical contribution, reinforcement of citizens’ actions, etc.). Previously define the conditions that guarantee - as much as possible - the contribution of the action to the common objectives (promotion of collective tools, circulation of information on others’ work, etc.).

On the collective and interactive dimensions of the decision-making processes and the elaboration of proposals: the answers express a need to reinforce synergies, collaboration possibilities, and cross-cutting or even cross-disciplinary interaction. We note that there is a demand for procedures to facilitate the emergence of "local alliances" or "geographically local projections of the Alliance."

On the ethics of the governance of the Alliance: The continued-support and mediation group has a special place in the concerns expressed by the Allies. We have already mentioned the problem of the number of members (seen as too low) and of their geocultural representativeness. There are questions about how this group would work, about the choice of its members, and about their renewal. Previously to these aspects and beyond the one strictly concerning the Charter guarantors’ group, there is a question that seems important for a number of Allies: Why not confront contradictory analyses by experts, which would make it possible very quickly to identify not only the points of agreement and those of disagreement, but also the reasons and the references on which disagreements are based? For these participants, it is important in a project based on certain ethical principles to be clear about the limits of the ethical validity of this undertaking, as all ethical positions have their limits, which should be specified.

On relations among Allies. Everybody agrees on one fact: the Alliance Web sites are absolutely central, to the point that they are practically confused with the Alliance. Hence, there are many who wish to say that the Alliance is not limited to its Web site and that it is indispensable to maintain and develop relations outside of the Internet.

Whether referring to the pleasure of meetings, the feeling of a common identity, the symbolic force of a gathering (as in Lille 2001), the efficiency in work that local relations afford, the wish that the Alliance should encourage and facilitate all of these is extensively shared. But nothing is said about how to encourage and facilitate these direct relations. Meetings have a cost. And here we are no longer sure whether it is Allies speaking to the Alliance or to a donor.

On the Calendar

40% of total answers. Seen as an agenda, a horizon, it is liked. Seen as a list of tasks to accomplish according to specific deadlines, it is wished to be more explicit and more consistent with other agendas outside of the Alliance.

On Participation Intentions

100% of total answers.
Fidelity and passion are the words! All participants wish to pursue the adventure and there are nearly 600 declarations of intentions (accumulated) to participate in the various Charter groups and follow-up committees.

On the Number of Answers The consultation obtained about 320 answers. This is short of the desired objectives.

Potential participation was re-solicited. We can question the efficiency of the solicitation, communication on this consultation in general, the responsiveness of Allies, and their desire to be a party to these preliminary considerations for an important phase of the evolution of the Alliance.

An Inventory of the Proposals This inventory takes up the sixth Analytical Summary.

Constituent Charter: The Text and Its Evolution

 The text must gain in legibility (conciseness). A short version should be drawn up.
 Do away with the ambiguity in the text between procedures and objectives.
 Procedures: mechanisms, methods, tools, operation, annals, directory, quarterly summaries, experience banks, Web site, rules according to which an initiative can recommend itself of the Alliance.
 Objectives: the five points brought up in the text.
 Objectives: there should be a distinction between those that are related to the governance of the Alliance and those that are related to the "working program" of the Allies.
 Specify how the Web site is funded and who is in charge of its maintenance. Also specify the structure of the Web site. Specify the functions of the different groups and committees.
 Assign levels of priority to the five objectives:
Level 1:
1. Define the governance
2. Finance the future development of the Alliance
Level 2:
3. Structure the relations and debates
Level 3:
4. Develop the working methods
5. Build the memory (records)

 Calendar: It would be preferable to consider the five working lines under the working procedures.
 The text deserves to be simplified to make it accessible to most people. Start from "plural, responsible and in solidarity": it is only these three concepts that need to be clarified to give a clear image of the "world that we choose."
 Open an manage an e-discussion list on the Constituent Charter. Objectives of the list:
 Once the Charter is approved and in force, participants of the list will review it point by point, for a period to be determined, for its present ambiguity and for any future experiences and conflicts in its interpretation.
 At the end this period, the definitive version of the Charter will be proposed again to the Allies for consultation. If it is accepted, the CSMG will be the guarantor of the amended text.
 Participants of the list will be in continuous interaction with the CSMG.
 Another possibility: this task could be assigned directly to the CSMG, provided that it is enlarged and that its discussions on the revision of the Charter are public.

 The definition given for a "citizens’ alliance" in the introduction must not only bear on the "international" nature of these collective processes. This form of social organization can be reproduced on a local scale. Such dynamics should be encouraged.
 Specify whether the procedures and the calendar are part of the Charter.
 Rename the "objectives" section as something like "findings and commitments," which is a better reflection of its content.

Alliance Architecture and Governance

 Between on the one hand the autonomy of decision of the different work groups and workshops, and on the other the opinions, recommendations, and decisions of the CSMG, there seems to be room to intensify the development of participatory tools enabling the Allies’ involvement: a common forum for discussion, the elaboration of proposals, a working procedure for collective decision making regarding orientations (choice of partners, projects to be supported, geocultural choices, methods, tools, and so on). Organize these procedures on the basis of lines, themes, and socioprofessional networks that are easier to identify.
 In the framework of the Constituent Charter and in compliance with the CSMG, organize: * regular, decentralized meetings open in priority to persons for whom it is difficult to participate, in particular via the Web site; * a permanent e-discussion list to design and develop themes and fields of action not backed by the FPH.
 Fractalize the Alliance by organizing "small Alliances" at local scales (a country, a region of the world, a continent).
 Reinforce the territorial rooting of the Alliance.

Funding of the Alliance

 Propose a procedure, with means and methods, to enable joint-fund raising. Objectives:
 Reinforce (the autonomy and the area of action of) the Alliance as a system of governance and a process for governance.
 Reinforce in a transparent way the relations between Allies and fund providers (FPH, other foundations, international alliance of small donors, "Ally solidarity taxes" among the different projects), relations based on a previously established decision-making procedure.
 Support the FPH in its determination to back as a priority the institution of the governance of the Alliance.

Relations between Allies and the Alliance and among Allies

 Include a principle of responsibility for the launching of information and initiatives.
 Commitment of the members of the network to share information/experiences must be stipulated in the Charter.
 Specify the qualities of an Ally or the objectives of partner organizations. Offer the possibility to know one another better.

 First produce a complete inventory of the Alliance: number of active members, from which countries, which partner or member institutions, which activities, where (on which subjects, workshops, actions) the Alliance is present
 Plan procedures for a categorized involvement depending on the nature and the intensity of interaction that Allies propose.
 Reinforce collaboration among the different workshops and work groups of the Alliance.

Annals, Communication, Assessment

 The Annals should constitute a true added value to the memory/records of the Alliance and not just be linear activity reports.
 Define who will coordinate the editorial group of the Annals, how the group will work, how it will collect the content, and how exhaustively.
 The Constituent Charter could specify how Allies’ actions will contribute to the development of the Alliance, and how the Alliance will contribute to Allies’ actions. It could propose a number of performance indicators to evaluate these mutual contributions.
 Guarantee that an action claiming the Alliance as its reference should not be implemented simply to confer personal advantages to whomever implements it.
 Evaluate the value of the experience in itself (theoretical and/or practical contribution, reinforcement of citizens’ actions, etc.).
 Define the conditions and assessment tools that will guarantee (before, during, and after the action) the contribution of the action to the common objectives (promotion of collective tools, circulation of information on the work of others, etc.).

Logo and Rules for Initiatives to Be Considered As Alliance Initiatives

 Specify the nuances between reference texts and working or operation texts, and further specify how to use the logo of the Alliance
 Lengthen the period of submission of an initiative before it is launched or refused.
 Circulate the proposals for initiatives by e-mail.
 Specify how an initiative is refused. Consider explicit support by two or three members for an initiative to be co-opted.
 Plan solidarity for a member who might run into problems in an initiative that he or she might have taken.

CSMG and Other Follow-up Groups

 Criteria for the composition of these groups: * inclusion of a person from the FPH in the CSMG to guarantee the Foundation legacy; * attach to the CSMG and the other groups one or several persons with no financial connection to the FPH in order to guarantee the autonomy of the Alliance.
 Criteria for group transparency: the groups and workshops of the Alliance make their work and deliberations public to the best of their possibilities. In the Web site, a section can be opened to publish the groups’ progress reports.
 Replace co-option with a democratic procedure for the renewal of the members of the CSMG.
 Increase the number of members of the CSMG to increase its geo-socio-cultural representativeness.

Calendar

 Achieve consistency between the rhythms, cycles, and deadlines of the Alliance and the Allies and the very diverse local rhythms.
 Assess the strategic lines proposed every other year before they are renewed.
 The calendar should be more attentive to the major political, economic, and social events that will be federating the construction of the planet.

External Relations

 Periodically approach, through a manifesto, global-governance institutions (depending on the case).
 Work on procedures to form alliances with other institutions (multilateral, governments), companies, or social movements that, for one reason or another, might hesitate to get completely involved in the Alliance. Find how to "make an alliance" with them on limited objectives with appropriate procedures and working areas.
 Do some thinking on how to circulate information. Set up an information and communication cell that can increase the value of Alliance initiatives, members, and their "social intentions."

Answers to Board Recommendations of June 14

Alliance Inventory

This part, in an appendix, attempts to establish the most complete list possible of Alliance actions: workshops, publications, collective working process (forums, elaboration of proposals, etc.), tools, methods, meetings, etc., existing or having existed thanks to, for, and with the Alliance. Not available when this report is being drafted, it will be provided to Board Members by October 17.

Geographic Distribution of Participants
Europe: 51%
Africa: 25%
South America: 10%
Central America: 4%
North America: 3%
Asia-Oceania: 7%
Middle East: less than 1%

The geographical distribution of the questionnaires, which would allow the calculation of the rate of answers per geographical zone, is not available at the drafting of this report.

Lille 2001

About 10% of those who participated in the consultation were in Lille. For many among them it is a reference, a symbolic event experienced as exemplary.

A Space Devoted to Testimonies

A section for testimonies will soon be available on the Alliance Web site. Inviting free prose, it will also propose, with no obligation, a few reference points to guide the testimonies in order to facilitate their evaluation of these. A series of optional questions is being drawn up. Its latest version is:

Last name, First name
Age
Where you are from
Where you reside
An Ally, since when?
Activity within the Alliance
Main contacts/partners/collaborators in the Alliance
How did you discover the Alliance?
Can you describe what motivates your participation in the Alliance?
How do you place the Alliance in the political, philosophical, social, humanist, etc. landscape that you imagine?

Thoughts of the Consultation Facilitation Team on the Rules for Initiatives to be Considered as Being Alliance Initiatives: Ethical and Technical Aspects

There was some discussion within the Consultation Facilitation Team on the mechanisms for the publication, discussion, and (non-)validation of initiatives requesting the Alliance label. Considerations dealt with the efficiency of the mechanism, its relevance, its technical implementation, and guaranteeing its ethics. The result of this discussion follows in the form of a procedure (with comments), not completely finalized, which will be operational in the relative short term.

Reminder of the “principle of previous information: any Ally who wishes to take an initiative in the name of the Alliance is held to presenting it on the Web site and showing that the project complies with the Constituent Charter. Agreement of the other Allies is considered as obtained if there has been no motivated objection in the month following the publication of this information on the Web site.”

The proposed procedure is: * Open a "New Proposals" section * Present a form to be filled out: * Last name, first name, e-mail, who are you? * Introduction of the project with attachments if necessary. * Contacts of people wishing to participate in the project.

 As a result of the form filled out, a page presenting the above information with a reminder of the principles of the Charter.
 Possibility, on the same page, for anyone to give his/her opinion and to vote for or against the project as an Alliance project (if someone wishes to speak of it on the general e-discussion list of the Alliance, he/she will launch the discussion him/herself).
 Possibility of signing up as someone interested in the project.
 Number of days left before the decision is made to launch the project or not.
 All of this in one or several languages.

A link to the New Proposals section will be on the home page and all new projects will be presented in the newsletter What’s New? (or this latter will always contain the suggestion to visit the New Proposals section). It can be explained here and there (in the above-mentioned section, on the home page of the Alliance Web site, in the newsletter, etc.) that the rule is, for instance: a proposed initiative is set aside to be placed on line at a fixed date (in order to make up for possible variations in the date of release of the "What’s new?" newsletter). If the project is accepted, it is given a place in the most appropriate section of the Web site . If it is not accepted, it remains in the records of the "New Proposals" section, but there is no further possibility of voting on it. In any case, all the projects remain in the section, which comprises three parts: current proposals, accepted projects (with a link to the page presenting its follow-up), rejected projects.

Possible problems that were highlighted, questions that were not resolved during the discussion:
 Possibility of too many solicitations of all kinds, difficult to manage, in particular by the team in charge of the Web site.
 A concern to adapt the procedure as best as possible to the principles of the Charter.
 Risk of falling into the digital divide present in the Alliance as elsewhere.
 Risk of setting up a procedure that is not equitable depending on whether or not one is already in a more-or-less close relationship with the Alliance, Allies, or the FPH.
 Is the role of the Web site to indicate a new proposal in order to raise interest and discussion on it, and contacts for it, or to get more deeply involved in Alliance labeling (or its refusal)?
 Should the Alliance, through its Web site, merely propose some form of attention to the project initiator or should it adopt a more centralizing stance to the detriment of autonomy and flexibility?
 Does the CSMG (which does not yet exist) include in its vocation to be systematically called upon in case of some form of blockage?
 How can we make sure that the project initiator is not just coming to look for a logo, a label: require him or her to present the reasons for his/her/ wish to put the project under the Alliance umbrella, make sure he/she has an active relationship with one or several Allies/Workshops, make sure that with his/her project, he/she will really contribute to the collective work of the Alliance?

In conclusion, the team would like to set up a light organization structure (with a minimum of computer development and procedures to follow) to offer as quickly as possible a place where these projects can be presented and fruitful contacts between project initiators and possible collaborators can be made.

Personal note: my first steps in the Alliance as facilitator of this consultation was a great pleasure. The "site 21" team has been largely responsible for this pleasure. Finally, it was exciting and rewarding to get an overview, from a privileged vantage point, of the number and diversity of persons, Allies or friends of the Alliance, who are working all over the world ... I deeply hope that this reporting work will have contributed to the evolution that the Alliance wishes for itself.

QUANTITATIVE GRAPHS

If you haven't done so, we strongly encourage you to first send us your answers to the questionnaire.

- Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and United World -
- Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation for the Progress of Humankind -