European assembly: Could we have better meetings?

 

Editor's note: The following letter was circulated to the European Social Forum email list ( fse-esf@fse-esf.org ) on 29 March 2004. Although it makes reference to a specific time and place, the problems described still remain and the suggestions that it contains are of continuing relevance today.

 Dear friends,

We, participants to the meeting of the European assembly in London on the 6th & 7th of March 2004, want to congratulate the assembly on making good progress towards hosting the European Social Forum 2004 in London. We believe we managed to make some pretty important decisions, crucial to the advancement of the ESF process.

But, we must say that the experience of the meeting itself was negative. Frankly; those of us who attended their first European assembly were shocked. We are afraid that what we experienced as an unstructured, noisy, aggressive and confused culture of discussion will be a major obstacle to furthering our common process. But, that being said, we also believe that many of our problems can be mended without too much effort.

So, what were in our view the problems in London?

a) CONFUSION as to how we make our decisions. What do we mean by consensus? Can one person alone obstruct the will of the rest of the room?

b) UNFAIRNESS in the use of time. Some speakers were allowed to go on for much longer than others, the time regulation being totally at the discretion of the chairpersons. We recognise that in certain situations it might be necessary to let certain speak longer than an agreed time limit because they are clarifying key positions in a debate where hard decisions have to be made. But in London such key clarifications were cut off while people expressing arguments already brought forward were granted a lot of time.

c) FRUITLESS debates went on forever, with plenty of repetitions and few concrete and constructive proposals.

d) AGGRESSIVE ways of behaviour erupted in almost every debate. Shouting, heckling, etc remains a dominant impression when we remember this meeting in London.

What, then, are in our view the harmful consequences of these problems?

a) WASTE OF TIME. This meeting was much more inefficient than it needed to be. In many instances, much of the time spent debating did not bring new opinions or perspectives. The waste of time reduces both the quality and quantity of the work we get done through the assembly.

b) EXCLUSION. An atmosphere of confusion and aggression benefits those who are

* the most conflict-oriented

* the most self-promoting

* the most aggressive

* the least attuned to the needs of others

* the most co-ordinated with political allies in the room

and it tends to exclude those who lack these specific qualities. This is not to say that all those who know their way around a European assembly are all aggressive and self-promoting; on the contrary, many play very constructive roles. But the (culturally) excluded might be people who are new to the process (exactly those we most need to include!), people from smaller countries and organisations (who don't have a large delegation of allies to support them), and women. Women? Yes, if we were to do the statistics on who took the floor at our meeting in London, we're quite convinced it will emerge that this aggressive, laissez-faire political culture of ours benefits men at the expense of women.

c) DOMINANCE. The negative aspects of this political culture tend to elevate the power of the few (constantly at the microphone, often stating little new) over the many (sitting on their chairs, wanting the meeting to move ahead). This is because the will of the majority in the room almost never finds expression, while the shouters and the ones who eagerly run to the microphone are expressing themselves constantly. The lack of guidelines for the meeting also places vast powers with the chairpersons. When important issues are buried under endless, antagonistic debate, and time is running out, the room often ends up in the hands of the chair: we have the choice between accepting whatever “solution” he/she might propose on the verge of the meeting's breakdown, or having no decision at all. This role of the chairperson also tends to put him/her in conflict with the room, rather than in a truly mediating position where he/she builds up trust from all different groups and interests in the room.

d) FATIGUE. The described processes of inefficiency, exclusion and domination can make participants to the assembly feel powerless, and the overall effect might be one of deterring us from coming back next time.

All this should not be necessary. Because what we saw at the meeting in London, was a room full of brilliant, enthusiastic people. In spite of our political and cultural differences, we are all activists, and we have so much in common! Just think of it: How much must we not have in common, when we come together from all over Europe to sit through meetings like these? Most people wouldn't, you know...

So, we think we must be able to make the meetings of the European Assembly work better, for all of us. How? We will suggest a few guidelines. (Yes, we know we must strive for openness! Yes, we know we don't take majority decisions! Yes, we are suspicious of excessive formalisation, BUT: When we have put aside the formal constraints of traditional organisational democracy, all we are left with is self-constraint: We must all constrain ourselves at some points during the meeting, if it is to be a good and constructive one. So the process needs guidelines, agreed upon by consensus, that can help us develop the ability of self-constraint, together.)

Our suggestions:

Guidelines for the meeting of the european assembly:

1) By consensus, the meeting sets a time limit for each item on the agenda, at the start of this item.

2) By consensus, the meeting sets a time limit for speakers, at the start of each debate. The speakers are obliged to respect this time limit, and the chair is obliged to impose it equally for all. If necessary for clarification of conflicts that are keeping the meeting in a deadlock, the chair can allow a speaker extra time. This must be applied restrictively and stated clearly to the meeting.

3) All speakers must be put on the list of speakers by the chairpersons and called to the microphone before they can speak. To avoid endless lists of speakers who sign up to speak immediately, having already made up their minds on what to say regardless of what comes up in the debate, and where those wanting to respond to what was just said have to wait while 15 others speak, chairs can note down the names in groups of five. Once these have spoken, chairs can note another five names.

4) When we are running out of time (meaning: when the number of speakers signed up, or indicating that they would like to be, multiplied by the time allowed for each, exceeds the time limit of the item set by the meeting) the chair is obliged to do something about it. He/she must put forward to the meeting a choice between (a) extending the time limit for the item, (b) reducing the time for each speaker or (c) closing the list and/or cutting off the last speakers from the list in order to keep the time limit (but giving absolute priority to those who have not yet spoken in the debate). The central point is that it is the meeting, collectively, that decides how it wants to spend its time, and this is done in a way that maximises fairness and equality.

5) When decisions are to be made, chairs must ask the meeting if it is in favour of a certain proposal, and also if there is anyone present who is against it to the point of wanting to block a consensus. There must be a clear and uniform way of signalling that one finds a proposal for consensus unacceptable (for example that those who are against it are asked to stand up) so that the participants have a clear overview of the different positions. If only a very small number of participants (one or two for example) are against a proposal, they should be asked if they could abstain from blocking the decision in spite of not agreeing. There must be ways of expressing dissent without blocking the whole process from moving forward.

6) If there is a larger number of people actively blocking a consensus, or when a debate shows that there are strong disagreements in the way, the chair should propose to the meeting that an ad-hoc Consensus Group be set up. It should be made up of (preferably) one representative of each of the most extreme viewpoints and a mediator whom both parties accept. The Consensus Group goes to work on finding a consensual proposal on how to move ahead that might be put before the meeting. In the mean time, the debate is put on hold and the meeting proceeds with other items on the agenda.

7) The assembly should strive to appoint chairpersons that are perceived as somewhat “neutral” in the major conflicts within the assembly (as well as being up to the job, of course).

We would like to propose some version of these guidelines at the opening of the next assembly, in Istanbul. And we would like our suggestions to be discussed via email before we come to that meeting.

After the experience in London, we truly believe that some sort of improvement is urgently needed. Dear friends, if we really wish to create the movement that makes another, better and more civilised world possible, our first step should be to prove that another, better and slightly civilised form of European preparatory assembly is possible. Our meetings, like the European Social Forum, should be an open space, not a battleground.

In solidarity,

 

Magnus E. Marsdal

Attac Norway board member

Norway Social Forum board member

Kristin Riis Halvorsen

Norway Social Forum coordinator

Helena Tagesson

Attac Sweden board member and international coordinator

Swedish ESF coordinator

Pelle Dragsted

ESF Coordinator for Denmark International Forum

29/3/2004