On Civil Society and Enduring Relationships

The Summit of the Future was an integral part of my professional life for more than a year. Naturally, I have been asked numerous times for my perspective on what actually took place.

Yet I find myself reflecting on a different set of lessons, an analysis of the “how” rather than the “what.” How was the process successful? How do we measure meaningful engagement of civil society? How did we expect change in the world to come about? And how were results achieved … or not?

The relationship between civil society and UN Member States is often defined in terms of advocacy and accountability. Civil society pushes for various outcomes and then it strives to ensure that governments live up to their commitments. This approach has helped humanity advance in numerous ways. But I find myself wondering: what kind of relational dynamic does this lead to?

I was talking to a Member State diplomat after an event in which a civil society actor had become quite contentious. In a conversation with the diplomat afterward, they said that when a participant becomes passionate in this way, the diplomat’s tendency is to shut down mentally, and disengage from the interaction altogether.

It’s a reaction that many of us would understand, and a situation none of us would want to be in. And one person browbeating another does not suddenly become a constructive or effective interaction, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the argument.

In speaking with Member States and UN agencies about what worked in the lead up to the Summit, relationships of mutuality and expertise, rather than pressure and protest, seem to have had the most lasting impact. Of course, this is not an either/or proposition; many different strategies can and should exist concurrently.

I recall a negotiation class in which my classmates told me that I would often “give too much” to the other side. When the professor asked me why I was willing to take a sub-optimal deal (in material terms), I said that while I did not get the maximal result in the short run, I believed that my approach would lead to something far more meaningful. After all, life is ultimately about relationships. Over time, my interactions would be characterized by honesty and mutual benefit, rather than mistrust and suspicion.

In the short run, I might not have secured what appeared to be a better outcome by traditional metrics, but the value of cultivating long-term relationships far outweighed the immediate benefits. This experience shaped how I view engagement at a larger scale, including in the context of civil society and Member States. And, in many ways, it is coherent with what the Baha’i International Community tries to contribute.

I am not naive to the challenges we face in the world and the urgency with which they must be addressed. But perhaps we fall prey to a collective naivety if we think that short term, transactional relationships—often built on competition, pressure, and compulsion, rather than cooperation, forbearance, and encouragement—can truly lead to the outcomes we seek.

What might this change look like in practice?

On the widest scale, humanity is united on one side of the table, facing existential threats like climate change, biodiversity loss, and nuclear conflict. To treat one-another as the problem may not only miss the space for good outcomes, but could exacerbate the risks we face.

Working from the same side of the table starts with agreement about the challenge before us, and then allows a conversation to continue. In fact, it can demonstrate that what may seem like solely one challenge (climate change) is actually part of a complicated web of challenges (employment and a just transition, education, inequality, historical injustice). Moreover, solutions that are collectively reached win greater ownership and better implementation. Accountability can become a source of positive motivation, rather than adversarialism. And the relationships built in this process are constructive and, we are learning, impactful.

So, what are my reflections on the Summit of the Future? Helpfully, the discourse has expanded significantly for conversations about justice, trust, solidarity, and our responsibility to present and future generations, and this is beneficial. In terms of specific outcomes, their success will only be evident in the coming years. Naturally, not all problems were solved in those few days, or in the outcome documents. But who thought they would be?

Moving forward, I am thinking about how our approach as civil society can continue to evolve to include more strategies that could help ensure that space is open to its contributions. Perhaps proactively seeking opportunities for a collaborative posture—as civil society, the United Nations, and Member States—can help us ensure that the promises made in the Pact for the Future (and other UN documents) become lived realities for people around the world.

Daniel Perell is a representative to the United Nations for the Bahá'í International Community and a member of the International Environment Forum.

SOURCE: https://www.bic.org/perspectives/civil-society-and-enduring-relationshi…