Global participation has been on the rise, from the protests in Hong Kong to citizens vocalizing their requests through government initiatives to include their citizens in decisions making (e.g.: the European Union). GVI is keen to understand more how global participation itself has begun to penetrate the UN system, including in the current planning for the post 2015 agenda. GVI interviewed Otto Spijkers, Assistant Professor at Utrecht University and author of the article Global Public Participation at the United Nations, to understand more about this.

1) What initiated your interest in public participation within the UN and the need for it?

Personally, I always had an interest in examining the individual and his or her role within the global community. If you take the idea of a global community seriously, you have to see it as more than an abstract idea. But compared with a single individual, the global community is, of course, overwhelming in size, and this has as a consequence that individuals might not think much of their role in it. At the same time, more and more individuals are beginning to be more assertive, and they do want to take responsibility and be more actively involved in this large global community .

It is truly fascinating; I happen to also be a philosopher and you can relate studies on cosmopolitanism to this. With cosmopolitanism, there is a strand that if you let go of nationality and replace it with nothing else, you become detached from citizenship and ties to a nation and you can wander about free in the global community, without the barriers of nationality. You are free in an almost absolute sense. But there is a second strand of cosmopolitanism, which focuses more on obligations towards the international community, that need to be regulated and institutionalized, rather than on loosening the ties with a particular (national) community.  

Do you feel that cosmopolitanism is entering the UN system?

Well, former Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold once compared the UN with a painting. You can either look at the UN as a weird abstraction painted by Picasso, or you can view it as a painting made by the world’s citizens themselves. This is what’s key to the success of the UN system: that the world’s citizens identify with the UN, that they see it as their organization. It should not be viewed as some toothless State construction, not as a deus ex machina to save us all. Instead, the UN should be viewed as an organization people associate themselves with.  People should ask themselves: “how do I see myself as part of the UN system?” Take the Ebola crisis as an example; many are under the impression that it’s the UN’s responsibility to take care of its eradication. But if we are the UN, and if we interpret our role in this way, then we should view it is as our responsibility as global citizens to combat the disease through the UN.  
2) Do you feel the prime setback of the United Nations is its lack of incorporating the general public in the decision making process of various initiatives, such as the MDG’s?

The MDGs weren’t inclusive to begin with as it involved a very select group of experts who came to the conclusion that these goals were priorities for the world at large. The problem with this is that when it comes to decisions that affect the public, you need to have input from the public. But in case of the MDGs, the international community did subsequently embrace these goals, and began to work with them.

3) Do you think that the SDG experience represents a significant trend towards more participatory global governance?

I think the SDG drafting process can be viewed as sort of a global laboratory for experimenting with the possibilities of global participation at the UN. It’s testing what was traditionally seen as vital, and examining it against the public’s views. An interestingexample is climate change. For years, NGOs and the likes have claimed it as vital for development goal agendas. But when the general public was surveyed on this, their opinion on the importance of climate change was low in comparison to other priorities such as health and human rights making it to the forefront. However, this is only an experiment, for, in the end, the main decision-making bodies at the UN are still constituted by State representatives, which is very conservative and traditional.

4) You mention different types of participation in your article – “co-author”, “rubber-stamp”, etc.  How would you characterize the SDG UN experience of consultations?

There are indeed many types of participation. With “rubber stamping” in general, participants are only asked to approve a particular policy after it has been made by the institution. Not really policymaking, but it has them approve or not approve a decision, which is not present in the decision making process for the post 2015 SDG goals.

Another kind of participation is problem finding, which instead involves the participants being asked to define the problem themselves. This is present within the SDG formation with online, national and international consultations taking place. Thematic consultations involve experts who are asked to express their views, for example on the topic of water or maternal health. And those with relevant experience are asked to clearly state the problem. The overall idea is, bluntly put, that the poor know best what it is like to be poort. Then there is the advisory type of participation that is the most important for the SDG process. These advisors provide expertise or experience to the decision making process in determining how to go forward with the 2015 agenda. For example, the SDG’s solution network, which is representative of the scientific community, would draft reports based on their research, and these would be used to steer decisions through processes related to the SDG’s, such as working with policy makers on deciphering whether of not the considered goal is feasible.

5) What kind of participation do you think will be most prevalent in the future at the UN, and why?  Will the post-2015 process be the game changer in this respect?

 I feel that now that we’ve opened the Pandora’s box for participation, there is no way back once initiated. Nobody would ever say that global participation doesn’t work in understanding global needs. That being said, we need to streamline this process and make it more effective. We need to look critically to see who the stakeholders are, i.e.  those that create policy and those affected by it. Some well-known NGO’s have the loudest voices, but the loudness of your voice should not be decisive in who gets to participate and how. So the UN may have to actively look at other stakeholders, and encourage their participation.

And there are many types of stakeholders; these can consist of corporations, small NGO’s, organizers of the process (UN subsidiary organs and regional agencies) and the scientific community. The UN should take into consideration who it would like to participate within the development process and invite them, instead of facilitating ways only for the loudest NGO’s to participate.

In the end, the most important stakeholder is the general public. They are the uninvolved, yet potentially affected stakeholder. But as they don’t present themselves to the UN, it would be up to the UN to invite and encourage them to participate.

To read the full article of Prof. Otto Spijkers, click here.

Gemma Burford is Research Fellow, Values and Sustainability Research Group, University of Brighton

Most contemporary development work focuses on what is visible from the outside (e.g. observable behaviour change, tangible outputs, or measurements of complex system dynamics).   An Integral Sustainable Design approach balances these exterior perspectives with discussion of interior dimensions – how people feel, what their subjective experiences are, and what’s valued within a particular organisation or community.  This is essential because human beings don’t usually analyse situations scientifically before taking action: many of our decisions are based on emotions and deeply held values.

An Integral approach is also distinctive in its recognition that different people are motivated by different things, and that we have to meet them where they are – not where we wish they were. If we don’t make space for subjective dimensions such as values, emotions and personal experience in the design of our projects, they may come back to haunt us later, like the thirteenth fairy in the story of Sleeping Beauty.  Social, environmental and economic projects are all equally susceptible to the consequences of neglecting subjective realities:

–          A new water pipe stands unused, because the women’s morning walk is the high point of their day – they value social bonding, and paying their respects to the spirit of the mountain spring, far more highly than `efficiency’ or `convenience’.

–          A microcredit initiative has disastrous consequences because the well-meaning founder is outnumbered by self-centred committee members, motivated by their desire for wealth and social status.

–          A coordinator is hired for a conservation program based on indigenous ecological knowledge, but constantly undermines it with her fundamentalist belief that there is only one ‘right way of knowing’. While Integral Sustainable Design is already becoming established in fields such as architecture, there is an urgent need to apply its insights to international development.

The emergent post-2015 process offers a unique opportunity to shape the global development agenda for the next 15-20 years, but most of the discourse is still centred on deciding whether goal A is more important than goal B: “Would you rather feed your children, educate them, cure them of malaria, protect them from rape, or mitigate climate change so they can survive to adulthood?”   Despite knowing in our hearts that these issues are all complex, messy and profoundly interconnected, we still persist in treating them as separate and attempting to rank them in order of priority.   An Integral Sustainable Design lens can help us to recognise the common roots of many global problems: outdated systems, egocentric values, feelings of apathy and despair, and destructive or unproductive human actions. With this in mind, the response looks very different.

We can stop designing projects to tackle one problem at a time, and focus on finding ways to foster individual and collective ‘mindshifts’ – from self-centred to planet-centred worldviews – to eliminate the root causes of multiple problems.  We can stop obsessing about what’s not working right now, and get on with empowering people whose vision is already planet-centred (and my guess is that there are plenty of those around…) to start co-designing and co-creating the futures that they actually want. There’s still time to campaign for a radical and genuinely holistic post-2015 agenda – but the windows of opportunity are rapidly closing.  To all Integral thinkers out there: this is our time to stand up and be counted.  Every minute that we don’t speak up brings us one minute closer to a global development agenda set out in the same old way, perpetuating the same old patterns.  Who can we talk to, who can we e-mail, what can we tweet, to infuse the post-2015 decision-making process with a new vision before it’s too late?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Since the initial set up of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s), a typhoon of initiatives, partnerships, alliances, and statements have been launched in effort to both promote awareness of the issues at hand and urge governments in developing nations to action. Most in particular, the push for the fulfillment of goal number 4 and 5 have led UN agencies such as UNICEF, UNFPA, UNDP and UN Women to launch campaigns that highlight the importance of these goals, given the touched upon child health and maternal mortality.

As we approach 2015 and the rushed consideration for how to proceed beyond the deadline becomes the main focus for all talks, a key  question to ask ourselves is whether, and how, progress towards participatory global governance, global partnerships and the holistic systems approach to child mortality and maternal health can transform outcomes?

The WHO had created the Partnership of Maternal and Newborn Child Health (PMNCH) division, which brought together NGO’s and international health organizations that focused on maternal health. The division highlighted that a global partnership was needed in order to tackle maternal health issues in countries such as Papua New Guinea and India while also supporting the unique differences of each organization to help contribute to the big picture. For example, the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), with their Outreach programs focusing on ultrasound in OB/GYN training in under-served regions, joined forces with WHO in providing details of ultrasound needs worldwide and the particular benefit of the technology in improving perinatal and maternal mortality ratios.

This helped transform outcomes, through giving insight into a particular niche within women’s health that proved crucial in helping identifying issues and anomalies that could be prevented with this technology, and ISUOG has collaborated with other organizations of the partnership (i.e.: FIGO, UNFPA, etc) to deliver ultrasound technology or offer aid to doctors in OB/GYN.

But is this the most systemically effective method towards achieving both sustainable results post-2015 and help under-served countries finally improve their levels of female mortality? Are partnerships vital in general to help reach desired outcomes?

Let’s get the discussion following and answer below!

Relevant information:

They’ve posted and now it’s time to vote! Submitters have entered GVI’s Photo contest to show us what inspires them to continue to pursue their work within or around the UN system and how a project in mind helps fulfill their purpose. The prize for the winner is $1,000 in support money to fund it.  So help us pick the best and vote on which picture truly showcases their purpose and passion. To vote in the Photo Contest, click here.

GVI  (Global Vision Institute) is a network, catalyst and think-tank for creating a universal-values-driven international system. GVI empowers actors and teams in and around the United Nations to translate values into behaviours, relationships and organizational culture, as well as the processes, programming and policies of the international system.