Presidential Forum: Discuss, respond, tell others what you think...
This section is explicitely here to create discussion in regards to the HIC Presidential Election. Every HIC member and friend is invited to leave a comment and to join in the discussion.
All comments must have proper identification otherwise they will not be published.
Need help posting a comment? click here!
18 comments:
I like to ask the candidate/s (at the moment there is only one) HOW they want to meet
(with the words of companion Davinder) the challenges in the “inner world, outer world and another world”.
What are the main challenges, especially in the “inner world” and “outer world” ? HOW, by which measurements can HIC "become more responsive to members, innovative and results oriented"? HOW can HIC become "more people-centred, activist and reflective"?
And, in connection to this: What is the task of the president in relation to the HIC bodies? And what are the tasks of the bodies, including the GS and the board, in order to become more effective?
Knut Unger, Habitat Netz/Witten Tenants Association, alternate board member Europe
Thanks to Knut for stimulating some discussion. Perhaps to be more specific, I think one of the critical inner/outer world issues for any HIC presidential candidate to address here is the strenghtening of the Coalition's visibility and message so as to reflect the tremendous creativity within it. Perhaps HIC would never be able to realize its full potential--like the human brain, only using a fraction of its actual capacity. However, HIC's unique potential for posing alternative solutions to our common world habitat crisis needs to be better understood both internally and externally. As the crisis spreads and deepens, that HIC President's role, as its political leader, becomes ever more important.
The process of identifying HIC's new president has advanced without debate. We have one candidate, who has kept very discreet.
This tranquil process can be good or bad. It is good that the Coalition is in a phase of unification without internal conflict.
Yet, it is bad that we do not know what HIC members expect from its new president.
As HIC's secretary, I hope the new president will be the voice of all of the messages that emanate from the Coalition to what Davinder calls the "outer world"; also I hope that he guarantees the coherence of our work, the "inner world" (our Coalition).
With the difficulty and high expenses of meeting once a year – how will we ensure that all the members of the Board have a say and give their support in the construction of another possible world?
For this, we need debate.
ESPAÑOL
El proceso de identificación de un nuevo presidente de HIC va avanzando sin debate.
Tenemos un candidato, por cierto muy discreto.
Este proceso muy tranquilo puede ser muy bueno como puede ser muy malo.
Lo bueno es que la coalición vive una fase de consolidación sin conflicto interno.
Lo malo es que no sabemos lo que los miembros de HIC esperan de su nuevo presidente.
Como secretaria de HIC espero que el nuevo presidente sea el portavoz de todos los mensajes que emanan de la Coalición hacia lo que Davinder llama el "outer world" (o sea nuestro entorno?); que sea también el garante de la coherencia de nuestro trabajo, el "inner world" (o sea nuestra coalición).
Con lo difícil y caro que viene a ser reunirse una vez al año, ¿cómo haremos para que todos los miembros del Consejo se expresen y canalicen sus aportes hacia la construcción de otro mundo posible?
Para esto necesitamos debate.
FRANCAIS
Le processus d’identification du nouveau président de H.I.C. se poursuit sans débat.
Nous avons un candidat, incontestablement fort discret.
Ce processus extrêmement paisible peut être considéré comme très positif tout comme très négatif :
Ce qui est positif est que la Coalition se trouve dans une étape de consolidation sans conflit interne.
Ce qui est négatif, c’est que nous ignorons ce que nos adhérents attendent de leur nouveau président.
En tant que Secrétaire Générale de H.I.C. j’attends du nouveau président qu’il soit le porte parole de tous les messages qui émanent de la Coalition vers ce que Davinder appelle le «monde extérieur» (notre environnement), qu’il soit aussi le garant de la cohérence de notre travail, notre «monde interne» (notre coalition).
En considérant les difficultés et le coût que représentent une réunion annuelle, comment parviendrons-nous à faire en sorte que les membres du Conseil s’expriment et collaborent à la construction d’un autre monde possible ?
Voilà pourquoi nous avons besoin d’un débat.
1) How will the Presidential candidate achieve the "social production of habitat" ?
2) How can we - HIC - outreach to many more partner advocacy organisations around the world , increasing the strength of all of our voices in achieving decent living habitats for all ?
3) Can and how should HIC help to achieve the Millennium development goals ?
4) In the UN Habitat Debate magazine March 2007, p6 "Three Things we Should Know About Slums" Daniel Bau, Director of UN-Habitat's Regional and Technical Cooperation Division, writes "Slums are economically useful, a reflection of the human divide, and a bedrock of human resilience" . But much needs to be done - holistic approach to improvement, "...affirmative action to secure the urban poor access to land, housing, credit and basic service", and "participatory and transparent governance". Is Daniel Bau correct? How can HIC accelerate these changes?
How (through which communicational channels) will the HIC President be aware of the member organization´s needs in order to support them?
In the same stream of thought:
What are the tasks of the president and the board in relation to member organizations, so as to propose viable solutions and agreements in each different region for the "inner/outer world". How will the president address the relationships between the regions and the globalized world?
There well may not be a crisis within the Coalition, however this could be a symptom of apathy and not reflect a participatory relationship. We must address these external/internal issues as a Coalition in order to create proactive policies that build a world with more possibilities for those that have been excluded.
Rosario Corrizosa
Fundación AVP para el Desarrollo Social
(translation GS)
In these Presidential Elections, 31 out of 62 members with a right to vote belong to Latin America and the Caribbean (which is almost 50%) which is obviously a large amount of people that are not represented in the candidate’s proposals. In this last electoral step, we must address concrete demands and commitments.
Is there going to be only one candidate? What happened with the other nominations? Will the elections be definitely held? Without any opponents? From which proposals must we choose from?
Analise Melendez
FUNDAPROVI
BOLM0005
(translation by GS)
The fact that only a few members take part in a general debate on the aims and aspirations of HIC is not to be taken as a sign of disinterest. HIC's members are autonomous bodies which each have their own priorities. Some of them are in a permanent struggle for survival.In order to ensure their continuous support of HIC it is important that the organization is seen to be effective and successful in its efforts.
I am convinced that HIC is on the right way, but what can we do to make it more effective? The following suggestions are made as a contribution to the debate on what is expected from a new president. Many of them are not new.
Housing as a human right. This is and remains HIC's ultimate goal. But recognizing and proclaiming the right is not enough, Implementation is the catchword. HIC should be more solution-oriented.
Social Production. By emphasising that inhabitants can make a contribution to the realization of adequate shelter, we have implicitly recognized that in most cases they need others as partners: local and national governments, international organizations, maybe private enterprise. We should give more thought on how inhabitant groups might relate to these partners.
Financial Support. Housing for the poor can hardly be realized without outside financial support. Can we develope model conditions which combine a maximum degree of popular participation with methods to avoid corruption?
Sparring Partners. HIC itself should look for possibilities of constructive cooperation with outside bodies. In doing so it should maintain its critical attitude and foremost act as advocate of popular participation and empowerment of the vulnerable.
Evictions. Much is already being done to draw public attention to the evil of mass forced evictions. Can we think of more effecive methods?
Millennium Goals. It is upon HIC to denounce the "slum goal" as insufficient and to give it a higher visibility.
Privatization. We should give wide publicity to the consequences of privatization. We should work on (local) governments not to cooperate in these processes.
PR and Publicity. As has been mentioned by others, HIC's most important instrument in the struggle for adequate housing is its voice. How can we strengthen it?
Our Expertise. If we want to be taken seriously in the international discussion on housing policy, we should develope our knowledge as well as our vision on important issues. Could we organize a seminar on "what is needed to solve the problem of slums", on "land for housing"? Possibly in cooperation with outside experts.
WSF. We should continue to support it as a counterweight to the world-wide trend towards commercialization, use it as a place to forge alliances, support its development towards a pressure group.
HIC President. He should strengthen HIC's public relations and inspire members, make them feel proud of being part of an international movement. He should support the General Secretary, who is responsible for carrying out HIC's programme, formulated by the Executive Committee and approved by the General Assembly.
I couldn't agree more with the statement made by Hans - There are HIC members who are interested in the organisations work but who are trying to work on other issues. When sections of the organisation´s work cross the work they are doing in a tangible way, then they will certainly take up the mantle. Large bits of HIC's work focuses on the campaigns but other elements should be incorporated and I think Hans has laid out some workable ideas.
Carmen Griffiths
CRDC - Jamaica
My questions were directed to the CANDIDATE/s and I wanted to know which CONCRETE OPERATIONS they propose in order to overcome the obvious operational deficits and challenges of HIC.
The missing response by the candidate/s is frustrating, but hardly more than just a confirmation of what I thought before: The HIC problems in operations and related organizational governance can not be solved by a president. The HIC-president is only a voluntary function without operative HIC basis. The president thus only can be some moral authority who raises his/her voice from time to time.
Another role for the president has no fundament in the constitution nor in practice.
For decision making and collective governance we - besides the General Assembly - have a global board of elected represents. I am confused that this privileged governing body only interacts at few expensive face-to-face meetings. Yes, we also should have an executive committee. Never heard anything about that prominent body.
Frankly speaking: If we do neither have a working board nor executive committee why should we expect that a presidential candidate communicates?
For operations - including the important task of facilitating the board - we have a General Secretary and an office. It seems that, regarding concrete tasks in advocacy and campaigning, the GS often waits for the president and sees her role more or less as an administrator.
Such an orientation cannot work for HIC. We need the General Secretary to be the permanent voice and face of HIC global. She is the leading manager of all operations, internally and externally. Thus it is her task to develop the contents of public interventions by promoting internal debates and implementing the results in public action. To organize these tasks she even has the GS office as an organizer of the internal and external operations of our coalition.
Sometimes I have the feeling the GS office is mainly captured by administration. Some administration is necessary, but administration of action, and not of wind: Elections of persons who do not operate for HIC as a collective is a fundamental waste of resources.
From a practical viewpoint we do not need elections, we need cooperation on campaigns and projects and collective organizational governance.
Dear all,
I allow myself to react in French to this message to express my point of view; I think that Ana could translate it to English.
My concern is: why should we deal so much around this nomination that was made in a totally democratic way. A call to nomination process has been made. The choice was made on Davinder. Why should we drop all that? Why did the people not react on time?
Why postpone the date, what are the goals aimed by such an action?
We have to respect the will of all these people that made an effort to participate to this first nomination process.
Davinder has no other competitor; why could not he be the HIC’s President now? Is there any need to vote?
We really rely on your good sense and thank you.
Cordially
Khady
translated by GS
Thank you Khady!
What a pleasure to hear your concrete proposals and grounded reflections.
Answering your questions, here is an observation of the HIC phenomenon: It seems that everything has to be discussed, debated and negotiated; all debates are desperately slow; with many dreams, with quite a lot of mistrust and lack of practical collective efforts; it seems that the logic of the Lone Ranger shadows the will of collective capacity; and the other problem is the silence that many members and the candidate maintain.
Nevertheless we must value the positive aspects of this exercise: the transparency of the process; little by little, the increasing participation of members in the debate; by identifying the next HIC President, we have the opportunity to be more aware of the challenges in global networking on housing issues; the formulation of long term collective proposals for everyone to have a place in this other world we are building together to live in peace and dignity. In midst of this great challenge, the figure of the HIC President is but a piece of the greater machinery. The future of the Coalition is in the hands of each and every one of us.
I am sorry, but on behalf of Habitat Netz e.V. I have to claim that the election procedure is not democratic, not legal and not valid.
It is our common understanding that in an ELECTION you must be able to choose between alternate options. These alternate options must be very clear and transparent to the voters.
We only have one candidate. In this case the voters must have the option to vote YES, NO or ABSTENTION.
In the HIC voting call a NO is not an offered option.
Point 2 says "Members can decide to vote or decide for abstinent" This must be understood that a NO is not a possible option.
Point 3 says "voters can select one of the candidates or the blank option". In fact there is only one candidate. A "blank option" obviously is not a NO.
Point 4 says "The blank option means that the voter is not satisfied with the candidates but wants to fulfil his/her democratic responsibility". This even does not express that "blank" is a NO.
In fact a "blank" vote never can be a NO nor a clear ABSTENTION, it is an invalid vote.
Consequently this means: The candidate would be "elected" whatever the number of his supporters and "blanked" emails is.
Coming back to Khady, in smaller and informal groups in can be nice to appoint positions by consensus. But HIC is a formal association and has to follow some minimal formal rules. Even if everybody loves and applauds the candidate there must be a formal procedure of legitimation. The HIC constitution clearly states "Article 9 1: The President is elected by the General Assembly from among the members of the Association." A part from the question where the General Assembly is in these proceedings the constitution clearly indicates an ELECTION and even the call for the vote uses the word ELECTION.
Thus, we are forced to organize an election, even if some may think there is no alternative. However, we even cannot be sure that nobody wants to vote with NO.
Thus, this form of "election" is not only a formal mistake, it is even a fundamental violation of democratic principles directed against the rights of the members.
In this procedure the president is elected before the elections took place. Those who nominated the candidate at the same time have decided about the president. The members have no choice. They do not get asked if they agree or oppose. They just can applaud the silent candidate or be silent, like him.
It would be very easy to change the proceedings. But although I indicated my protest in time, there is no change.
Meanwhile there will be a couple of vote, which of course are all invalid. The election has to be repeated.
Those who designed this proceedings wanted to make a Josef Stalin joke, right? Well, after we got your joke, when will you start the serious election?
July 4 2007
Knut Unger
on behalf of
Habitat Netz e.V.
Schillerstr. 13
D-58452 Witten
This is to thank HIC members who expressed their views on my statement titled ‘HIC Triple Worlds Leadership Challenge’. I created the Triple Worlds analogy as a device for collective strategic thinking. The comments given by the members suggest that the analogy is useful. I use it also to breakdown and manage the complexity that surrounds transnational social movement organizations like HIC, particularly in a globalized world or space.
The leadership organ of HIC is the Board. It is the governing or the steering mechanism of the Coalition. It includes the president, representatives of the regions, social movements and standing or thematic committees. There is also the Executive Committee within the Board. The shared responsibility of the President and the Board is to help to achieve effective coordination, cooperation and coherence among and between the organs of HIC structure: Secretariat, Regional Focal Points, HIC -WAS, HSEN, HIC – HLRN and Working Groups – Social Production of Habitat, Housing and Privatization and so on.
A role of the President is to observe the interface between the HIC inner and outer worlds, with hindsight, insight and foresight and to translate the collective wisdom of the Board into action. I am an activist and an intellectual, more of an enable and a facilitator, but not an ‘all-knowing guru’. Therefore, I do not claim to have the golden answers to the questions raised by some members, which are of substantive, procedural and even of structural nature – whether HIC even requires a president! The best we can do is to collate the members’ contributions to the blog and place them before the Board for reflection at an opportune time.
Dear Davinder,
thanks that you finally found time to give some answers.
Thanks especially for your clarification that the leadership organ of HIC is the Board, and for your interpretation of the tasks of the president related to that organ. I am admiring your great knowledge including your systemic insight in organizational development and your capacity to bring complex situation to a point. I am appreciating your stressing of the "facilitating" function of a president, and I am very interested in your slogan "translate the collective wisdom of the Board into action".
However, I don’t believe that the wisdom of an "international social movements" lies only in the board and I am convinced hat "translation into action" cannot be the task of the president or even the board alone. "Enabling" action requires structures which are broadly mobilizing , which therefore must be very participative, transparent and have a broad basis of common understanding. From my understanding the whole HIC has mainly the role to facilitate processes in the "outer world" of social movements. The other role is to condense the intrinsic wisdom of the movements to effective interventions a global levels. Obviously these roles are not very well plaid by HIC global and even the hinge between the two roles is not fuctioning well. How do you want to improve that, as a faciltator and enabler?
If you say that it is the prominent task of the president to "translate the collective wisdom of the Board into action” I am missing an answer HOW, by which concrete measurements, you want to ensure that great task. To begin with the first step: HOW do you think can the board become a collective producing wisdom? At the moment the board only meets to some seldom and expensive face to face meetings, and there nearly is no collective decision making between these meetings. It is also a very obvious point that the control on the implementation of board decisions is rather week. Do you think that this situation can be accepted for the "leadership organ"? How do you think, the president-facilitator can help to improve the situation? What will you do to ensure that the Executive Committee will do it’s task? And first of all: How do you plan to communicate with the board collective in order to hear the "collective wisdom"?
The only precise definition on the president’s extra role in the constitution is this : "Meetings of the General Assembly, the Board and Executive Committee are chaired by the President." The president is the chair of the meetings and debates, a facilitator. Today, between the yearly meetings, we hardly have a facilitation of collective debates. We seldom have a translation of initiatives between the board members. We very seldom see a stimulation of a board debate.
How do you plan to ensure the urgently needed improvement of the facilitation of our decision making and control on the implementation?
Knut Unger
Habitat Netz
P.S: I have to remind the moderators of this block to publish our yesterday protest against the illegal form of the voting procedures.
I, too, feel that we have spent more time on the electoral process that on issue of urgent concern. While I appreciate deeply the respect and honouring of process in order that we are inclusive, I also wish we met as a board on conference calls, and I wish Ana had more exposure on issues -- she is excellent and makes a fine representative for us.
I appreciate Anita’s call to the General Secretary that she should organize conference calls or other types of collective board debates via given technologies. It is very urgent, and since long I don’t understand why she isn’t doing it.
I am very sad, that we did not receive any replay on the very well based arguments against the this invalid board elections, neither from the Election Committee, nor from the board, nor from the General Secretary nor from the acting president or the candidate or anybody else. As an (alternate) board member I first of all have to feel responsible for the accountability of our elected representatives. I really hoped to prevent this, but I openly have to make the motion that these election proceedings are illegal. If there is no decision before, I am forced to make this a case at the next ordinary board meeting and at the general assembly. And if these initiatives will not get supported I have to hurry to get rid of my responsibilities and resign from my function. I cannot tolerate such basic violation of democratic rules.
Knut Unger
Habitat Netz e.V.
Alternate board member for Europe
It is strange to say that an election is illegal because there is only one candidate when there have been months when someone else could have been nominated but wasn't . That should mean that the voters believe that the one nomintion is the right one otherwide they would have nominated someone else. I think we should get on with the election but also suggst to Davindar that, as president, he be less silent even if only with a few wise words from time to time.
We NEVER said that it is incorrect to have only one candidate.
As we have clearly stated these elections are formally incorrect and INCCORECT because the form of the election does NOT ALLOW A CHOICE between YES and NO to the only candidate. Without a choice it is not an alection.
I don’t understand why this very clear and easily understandable argument gets misinterpreted by board members here.
Instead of that we would expect that board members worry about the very obviously invalid and non-democratic form which is blaming the candidate as well as of all of us.
It seems that we expected too much when we called for a democratic correctness.
Finally we propose the following solution:
According to the constitution it is the General Assembly which elects the president.
A correct internet vote would be much more inclusive, but in this case we will have to insist that the next General Assembly repeats the election.
The partcipants of the assembly then of course will take into account the results of this acclamation.
Knut Unger Habitat Netz
Post a Comment