Image de l'Alliance

Forums >

Alliance 21: Making Another World Possible
Evaluations, Visions, Proposals, and Projects
Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and United World
April 2003

The first three parts :

- Evaluation and Vision of the Future
- Proposals and Projects
- Report on the Participatory Process Used for the Evaluation and Future of the Alliance :

- The second stage of the Alliance


Part Three :

Report on the Participatory Process Used for the Evaluation
and Future of the Alliance

EIFE and e-forums, and Porto Alegre Meeting
March 2002 - April 2003


Interpretation of the 28 appraisals and 25 comments.

There was tremendous agreement that we should continue working cooperatively and thinking about new challenges in the coming years. Moving in this direction, the Alliance is not understood as being a blank page, but rather as the continuation of a construction already started.

The immense majority (although with some contrary appraisals) also considered it necessary to find a form of governance of the Alliance that is both participatory and transparent, and that makes it possible to create and to steer the collective process on the basis of the needs and projects of all the active groups. Along the same lines, it was agreed that after the Lille experience, it is necessary to progress collectively on the methods for the construction of a “collective intelligence.”

There was also a fair amount of agreement regarding the establishment of a representative coordination. Nonetheless, one comment wondered whether we should be speaking of a representative or a democratic system.
There was also some suggestion that we should design a management model for a decentralized organization. In this vein, some opinions felt on the one hand that a decentralized organization is necessary but should include a collective body to structure it, and on the other hand that would be better to speak of a form of articulation according to the active subsidiarity principle.

For that, a free and self-managed forum would be necessary in which the coordinators could debate their different points of view on the overall process and on these articulations. For that, it could be useful to set up a discussion forum published on the Alliance Web site so that everyone can read, follow, and participate in the discussion as much on the Web site as through e-mail, although there were also in part some unfavorable opinions because such forums already exist, such as the EIFE e-forum.

An immense majority also argued that there should be a better distinction of everyone’s role and that the empowerment process should be more clearly identifiable (others spoke instead of not fixing people in roles but of thinking instead of the functions that need to be filled).

In the whole process, they was also a majority of opinions (although in a smaller measure) in favor of generating a debate on "the conditions for an autonomy of the Alliance", on whether it is really opportune for the Alliance and the FPH to separate and whether they can actually do that.

At the same time, there was a disparity of opinions on whether the new stage of the Alliance will require some leadership and resources from the FPH and some comments were opposed to this “leadership.” Moving in this direction, it was considered that the FPH should give better support to the continuous development of the Alliance, while giving it the freedom and opportunity to find the best way to continue.

They was also a majority—with some disparity of opinions—who thought that there should be some thought on what it is to be a member of the Alliance in a cross-cultural process, on what bases decisions are made, and what procedural basis would be the most appropriate to define priorities in the cross-cultural context of the Alliance. Someone asked that we should be more practical on such complex issues and someone else, on the other hand, confirmed this idea with the need to elaborate a Charter of Principles of the Alliance.
There was also mention (with a significant number of unfavorable appraisals) of the need to have a discussion on the rights and duties of Allies.

Most were opposed (there was large disagreement) to the idea that a member of the Alliance should be delegated by an organization that is financed by it FPH, so that every organization that has been actively involved alongside the FPH should have a voice.

 2001 Alliance pour un monde responsable, pluriel et solidaire. Tous droits rZservZs.