1. Welcoming (Patxi)
2. Introduction of 1) Facilitators and Leaders, 2) Participants
3. Present the GW Objectives and Agenda (Patxi)
4. Where do we come from? (Leonard):
– GCs’ Ignatian advocacy: essential for justice
– El Escorial (2008) – Loyola (2011)
How have we come here – desire in the social apostolate to cooperate. El Escorial – Ignatian Advocacy, 8 networks came out of the meeting, later reduced to 5. Why advocacy? In the social apostolate, people said: best field to collaborate is advocacy, where we can do most if we work together rather than alone. SJ is involved in advocacy in all conferences, at the local level. Now we want to move to international level. Presidents of conferences have taken responsibility to make SJ more international body, and provincials are aware of this. This is one of the important attempts. We wouldn’t be here if Fr General hadn’t endorsed it, he is also very interested. This can be a service to the whole Society. You (participants) have been carefully chosen by different people, mainly presidents of conferences, took about 3 months.
Objectives of Workshop: half of the workshop = training; second half = help Core Groups to become effective working groups. Cells in white are session in which we will receive training, cells in grey – Core Group meetings, at least 14 hours, 9 meetings. Third objective: establish plan of action for 1-1.5 years, decide what’s going to happen, who does what. Gain ownership as Core Group members, become effective working groups.
Click here for the slides: Forethoughts y mejoras
Draft, proposal already prepared; issues that could be addressed by network. You need to have a first idea in order to do mapping. During the next year, we will need to map to see “who is in the picture”, what are their profiles. Then planning coming out of mapping. Work on the “picture” (next year). Then we will have clearer ideas of what the network may look like. “Picture” is in colour now, we see some people, people who are very interested, committed, but there may be more. Specific workshops for each network: May, June, July, August next year: members, contents, actions, ways of proceeding. About 12 people from all over the world for each workshop. Picture becomes clearer, not all focussed (maybe never, part of reality). Sunny day, hope for the future, reliable people… Here in Loyola, we will just see the first (rough) idea of our “final picture”.
Click here for the slides: Where have we come from
Click here to read full text of the presentation in Word: Where we have come fromGIAN
At El Escorial, advocacy actions were presented, key question: what is unique in Ignatian advocacy? Come together under one theme? All inspired by Ignatius, converted by accident. Retrace our roots, bring them to the task at hand. Universal body called to work together, networking is a necessity. Does common action benefit all involved – revisit question here, there is no point leaving our important works to come to Loyola, if there is no benefit in doing so. What is it that we can get out of this commitment. Elements that make our advocacy work Ignatian: insertion in lives of poor and marginalised (see Solomon’s prayer), being in solidarity, having lived and felt experience of being marginalised; rooted and anchored in the spiritual exercises: mediation to obtain live etc.; process of discernment, studying reality, analysis, reflection, pausing; expertise in studying, researching; sent on mission (call of the king): to the frontiers (‘popular notion’). Other elements, identify next few days.
Julie Edwards: history of determining five priorities – what happened to Africa and China? Are these the five priorities of the SJ or of the Social Apostolate? Higher Education? How universally owned are they?
Patxi: Apostolic priorities identified by Fr Kolvenbach, also in D 3: intellectual apostolate, Roman houses, migration, Africa, China. “Keep discerning” as SJ. The networks are different priorities, belong to the Social Apostolate: they were important, there were enough people interested in them, other issues were identified in El Escorial, but not enough people interested in them. There could be others, but these were selected. In Higher Education, Fr General told them to establish coalitions in Justice, Faith, Ecology => 3 HE networks: Human Rights, Ecology, Social Entrepreneurship. Social Apostolate wants to establish links with other apostolates, mainly HE – for good knowledge, rigorous research (also parishes, pastoral institutions, education institutions). These are not “private” networks, they belong to the Society.
David Hollenbach: Poverty, Economic Justice, not one of the focus areas? Does it run through all five networks? Such an important element of the Society. GNMR = extractive industries? Oil, diamonds? (just for clarification)
Patxi: Social Coordinators met in Rome three weeks ago – one of the most important apostolic challenges is poverty, coming from all the conferences. May come under several of the networks, but it has not been selected as a thematic issue for any of the networks. Difference between apostolic priorities (established in conferences) and priorities of the networks.
Solomon: GNMR addresses land, forest resources, related to livelihoods of people. Larger perspective, rules, legislation that govern the livelihood of these people. Mineral resources is separate, extractive industries first priorities. Within extractive industries, what to advocate for: discern during this workshop.
Walter Fernandes: Apostolic priorities: can we bridge the gap between them? (intellectual apostolate, poverty as a process and consequence of present type of development, important to have them as overarching issues rather than specific networks). Need very serious intellectual input, and fight against poverty so overarching issues should guide networks.
Leonard Chiti: hoping to find out how social centres around the world are doing advocacy on peace and human rights. In Zambia, we work in high-poverty environment, so from point of view of human rights, we do rights-based view of development (as opposed to economic growth model). Approach poverty question from human rights angle.
Muhigirwa Ferdinand: Five priorities of Fr Kolvenbach, two are related to regions, but three are not (those are dimensions of Jesuit life). In 2008, advocacy meeting in Kimwenza: three main priorities for Africa: Education, GNMR, Peace & Human Rights. Happened to be included in El Escorial, so at level of Africa, all social apostolate priorities are included in networks. But if nothing is going on at local level, international level will have difficulties.
First stop, outside the house: The Call of the Temporal King. Second stop, in the kitchen: To the Fathers attending the Council of Trent. Third stop, in the main family meeting room: On being Confessors to Kings. Fourth stop, outside the chapel of the conversion: Conversion and contemplatio ad amorem. The conversion text I will quote in full here:
He had been much given to reading worldly books of fiction and knight errantry, and feeling well enough to read he asked for some of these books to help while away the time. In that house, however, they could find none of those he was accustomed to read, and so they gave him a Life of Christ and a book of the Lives of the Saints in Spanish.
By the frequent reading of these books he conceived some affection for what he found there narrated. Pausing in his reading, he gave himself up to thinking over what he had read. At other times he dwelt on the things of the world which formerly had occupied his thoughts. Of the many vain things that presented themselves to him, one took such possession of his heart that without realizing it he could spend two, three, or even four hours on end thinking of it, fancying what he would have to do in the service of a certain lady, of the means he would take to reach the country where she was living, of the verses, the promises he would make her, the deeds of gallantry he would do in her service. He was so enamored with all this that he did not see how impossible it would all be, because the lady was of no ordinary rank; neither countess, nor duchess, but of a nobility much higher than any of these.
Nevertheless, our Lord came to his assistance, for He saw to it that these thoughts were succeeded by others that sprang from the things he was reading. In reading the Life of our Lord and the Lives of the Saints, he paused to think and reason with himself. “Suppose that I should do what St. Francis did, what St. Dominic did?” He thus let his thoughts run over many things that seemed good to him, always putting before himself things that were difficult and important which seemed to him easy to accomplish when he proposed them. But all his thought was to tell himself, “St. Dominic did this; therefore, I must do it. St. Francis did this; therefore, I must do it.” These thoughts also lasted a good while. And then other things taking their place, the worldly thoughts above mentioned came upon him and remained a long time with him. This succession of diverse thoughts was of long duration, and they were either of worldly achievements which he desired to accomplish, or those of God which took hold of his imagination to such an extent that, worn out with the struggle, he turned them all aside and gave his attention to other things. 2
There was, however, this difference. When he was thinking of the things of the world he was filled with delight, but when afterwards he dismissed them from weariness, he was dry and dissatisfied. And when he thought of going barefoot to Jerusalem and of eating nothing but herbs and performing the other rigors he saw that the saints had performed, he was consoled, not only when he entertained these thoughts, but even after dismissing them he remained cheerful and satisfied. But he paid no attention to this, nor did he stop to weigh the difference until one day his eyes were opened a little and he began to wonder at the difference and to reflect on it, learning from experience that one kind of thoughts left him sad and the other cheerful. Thus, step-by-step, he came to recognize the difference between the two spirits that moved him, the one being from the evil spirit, the other from God.
Click here for the slides: Julian Filochowski: International Advocacy and Influence
Just sharing experiences, not here as an expert. Much of what I have learned, I have learned from people in this room, Rafael Moreno, CINEP people, Center of Concern… We sit at one another’s feet and have discussions.
Generic points on advocacy in the global North. There is no single golden bullet, not like learning excel or ppt. It’s more like making a journey with 4-5 vehicles from Siberia to Rome, Lusaka to Rome etc. You have to prepare, know how to drive, have navigator etc. Complex process, long journey. Many factors involved.
Tomorrow: practical implications for managing advocacy & advocacy networks.
AMDG – working for change, positive sustainable change that impacts lives of the poor. Gloria dei vivens homo. Not for the greater glory of the Church or the SJ. Not to increase our profile, promote our fundraising for high schools and colleges. Our mission would be lost and integrity compromised if we lost sight of AMDG.
Most of the time, non-poor people will act on behalf of poor people. Gap between those two groups is an important tension, that we have to hold at the heart of advocacy.
GC35, but also GC32 (1974-75).
Aims: new, reform, enforcement, elimination
Advocacy used in different ways, doesn’t translate easily. Spanish and French restrict advocacy to lobbying – but advocacy means all the tools available: Policy – evidence, analysis, propose (bring depth to our advocacy); Delivery – lobbying (quiet conversations, well-argued papers), campaigns (demonstrate popular support, advocacy “projects”, time-limited, particular allies), communications (media, popular education, multiplyers).
Wide context – processes and trends beyond our control (globalisation, demographic changes, new technology…, drivers of change). Non-linear events. “Events” are the biggest “problem”, change quickly and dramatically. We need to be flexible and nimble: stay in touch, keep the high ground, keep moving (US Marines).
Multinational companies, international organisations etc. present themselves in a rational way, with rational ends. Win-win situations when we propose what is in their interest. Usually, we are dealing with values, not interests. Possibly their interests and your values coincide temporarily. Morality alone is not a persuasive argument for companies or government to change. Examples: Panama Canal; Ethiopia.
Politicians & companies want to be seen doing “the right thing”, guarding their reputation. Creates many possibilities of offering win-win situations to change policies.
Has changed from confrontational approach: define problem, what do we want to see changed in law, practices, attitudes, what are the obstacles, who can make change happen, opportunities for change, moments, who are our allies and what are they doing?
Target right action to right people at right time to secure change. Maximises efficiency of campaigns, helping us invest our limited resources. Keep power analysis light, don’t waste time, just good enough to direct actions strategically. Update as necessary, key actors change. Identify champions (strengthen), blockers (undermine), swingers (convince) within power analysis. Example: Landmines campaign.
Outline of what we are trying to achieve and how we intend to get there
List of people we intend to interact with. Distinguish between forums of national governments (needs critical mass) and policy making organisations (change in approach). National governments at international meetings, often don’t have set position and may welcome contributions from civil society. Domestically, traditional advocacy (campaigns, lobbying). Private companies fight back against civil society advocacy, threatens their bottom line. Long engagement, do very careful research, companies hope that they can exhaust civil society organisations. Access to Church: trust of key advisors. No institution is as monolithic as it may appear from the outside. Jesuits have all sorts of ways in.
Not obedience to provincial. Not public relations, not “catalyst” to encourage faster change while being unchanged. It is all about passion, being part of process. Great danger of cynicism, repeating spiel over and over again. Need regular total immersion in issue you are dealing with. If passion wears off, better move on to something else.
Case will collapse if what we are saying turns out not to be true. Example: working conditions in the electronics sector, Mexico and China. Also, making the evidence matter – it doesn’t usually speak for themselves. Example: coming up with the idea of “jubilee”, debt relief; EU Common Agricultural Policy = dumping on the poor.
Trace impact of policy and action to effects and consequences on communities, families, individuals. Example: landmines campaign, bringing victims to Europe. “Statistics are human beings with their tears wiped off.”
Jesuits uniquely placed to do this – careful collection of evidence, in-depth research.
Example: Debt cancellation
Protests are no substitute for concrete proposals, will achieve little. Proposals must be within realistic reach (not easy but realistic, can be done). Really good political intelligence required from advocates.
Examples: development box (opt-outs from trade treaty negotiations), recruitment of 33 countries; labour standards in the electronics industry.
The golden rule: I’ve got the gold so I make the rules…
Find allies among governments, sometimes allow them to be in their team. Important places for networking. Example: food security. Other allies: personalities, organisations. Danger to become celebrity-led, but celebrities can help. Example: Food companies joined activists on Common Agricultural Policy.
Julie Edwards: Just Leadership programme: What we really need to do is partner with them, influence their hearts and minds, e.g. with banks. Transformative, win-win, their interests. Are we just giving them an easy ride? Others say that this is the new millennium, new way, challenged from within. Jesuit business schools are meeting in Peru, wondering what’s their role in the process. Should we be working in a new paradigm, have we polarised this too much.
Julian: We’ve got to look for those people in institutions that share our values and help them become agents of change within the organisation. That’s what Jesuit education should be doing – produce people who have ethics. They can become allies. Advocacy is not anymore confrontation, we try to persuade people. Find those people. But I don’t have illusions that this will change the world, just one element, one factor. Something we have to do.
Jim Hug: Thanks to Julian for brilliant presentation. Game has changed: awareness of environmental limits of resources and pressing concerns of climate change. Major tipping point, disastrous results. Need change in model of development. People are becoming more aware, could trigger change but we’ve got to be able to imagine quite a different approach to development.
José Ignacio García: To add more complexity… We are facing limits, language and possibilities change because of that. In Europe, there is a growing awareness of the limits of our political institutions. Clear social unrest in old democracies, clear message that this system is not working well enough for them. System not flexible enough to respond to new challenges.
Julian: Very depressed after Copenhagen, seemed to puncture global consensus on environment. Pleased that ecology is part of GIAN, put some energies and resources into it here.
Walter Fernandes: Continue issue of complexity. Thanks to Julian for best summary I’ve ever heard. Till the 80s we were busy with advocacy at national level, it was possible, we changed many policies. Then came liberalisation and globalisation. Most decisions are taken elsewhere (Washington, London), therefore need for international alliances. Interests of advocacy groups in South completely different from North – still trying to bridge gap. Maybe advocating “against each other”! What to do? Second problem: campaigns hijacked by fundamentalist groups (e.g. corruption in India). How does one deal with that? Another example: Egypt – Muslim brotherhood? Libya – oil companies? Co-opting mechanism, hijacking processes.
MK George: More complexity: mining lobby in Karnataka, there is enough evidence but lobby is so strong, how do we get a real breakthrough?
Muhigirwa Ferdinand: question – international advocacy, powers, processes, what is international about it?
Julian: we are combining our efforts transnationally, even if we may be focussed on mining in the Congo. As part of a transnational network, we may also act nationally. Not a defining difference between national and international, maybe transnational is a better word.