General

2015: a Wonderful and Horrible Year

Posted on by Susanna Cafaro

For the good and the bad, no doubts that we will have many reasons to remember this year.

From the summer on, it has been a crescendo of multilateralism: the third Financing for Development Conference in Addis Ababa in July, the adoption of the sustainable development goals in September. Finally, the adoption of the new Paris Agreement on climate change in December. Even the new committment by OECD and G20 to improve international tax co-operation  to counter international tax avoidance and evasion looks promising.

There is a new, evident and increasing awareness that many problems of this globalised world cannot be managed by single countries. The international commitments look ambitious, even if their enforcement is still problematic.

Together with the official initiatives, many private ones show the same awareness, if not a bigger one. So many organisations from the civil society joined their efforts to support the SDG, a big number of them worked to make the Paris agreement feasible, pushing their governments to commitments to heal the planet. Many important initiatives were launched which are a real force for good (to quote the beautiful one promoted by the Dalai Lama).

But we have also other reasons to remember this year: one million of migrants reached the European shores, several thousands died in the Mediterranean sea, innocent victims fleeing wars or poverty. Bloody regimes still oppress their people – whose ISIS is only the scariest example. The death toll of terrorism counts in thousands in middle east and in many near countries, the Paris events being only the tip of the iceberg. The price paid by children is impressive: Boko Haram has kept more than one million children out of school across Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad and Niger , according to UNICEF.

You can be wildly optimist if you focus on one part of the story or desperately pessimist if you chose to pay attention to the other part. The truth is: this years fed both the narratives and it’s up to us to select the one which empowers us to do more and better or the one which scares us to death.

I don’t remember another year like this one.

I have never been a Manichean, so I wonder if it is only my impression or really the world is stretched between these two opposite forces, the force of connection and that of discord.

Do you feel, like me, that we should contribute somehow to the bright side?

 

We are all French, we are all Europeans.

Posted on by Susanna Cafaro

candle

After the tragic events in Paris on Friday evening, we Europeans were all under shock. From Italy to Sweden, from Greece to Portugal, we grieved and lightened candles and prayed. We all knew that Paris was a symbolic place (how powerful): the attack was brought against our core values,  the values of a democratic, liberal society, based on the rule of law and the respect of fundamental rights, free, multicultural, sexually-liberated, open.

The freedom of speech, of religion, of circulation are suddenly at risk and we know that we have to fight a new kind of struggle (of war, if you want) – totally different from the previous ones – the war to keep our societies open, because if we react in the old-fashioned style with  closure and protectionism and hate, if we step back from liberty of speech and religion, the enemy has already won.

It’s not an easy task. The immigration emergency, the rise of populism and the risk of extreme right political parties taking advantage of what has happened is definitely high. The point is that our states have partially failed in making us feel safe and, at the same time, open. We can observe decaying national identities as here and there states failed the challenge of integration; moreover the worsening of economic conditions favored urban subcultures and rebellions of the excluded ones. Jihadists grown up and living in Europe are a very bad symptom of our societies’ health status.

We must roll up our sleeves and rebuild trust in our values, which are the very fabric of our identity.

We felt all Europeans after the Paris tragedy, we recalled what makes us stand together against terror, let’s start from there. Let’s work on our European identity, which shouldn’t surface only in the bad moments, but help us overcome the failure of states with its motto “united in diversity”, able to comprise all of our populations, all of the honest migrants who came here for a better living and are ready and willing to respect our values.

Of course, any reaction, military, political and diplomatic should be likewise European. To be as symbolic and significant as the aberrant acts which injured Paris, heart of Europe.

The Case for Technocracy (and the Case for Democracy!)

Posted on by Susanna Cafaro

International organizations are mostly technocratic institutions. Central banks are definitely technocratic institutions. Many national authorities responsible for supervision and monitoring are inherently technocratic.

It sounds like a bad thing, as technocracy means literally power in the hands of technicians or experts. And experts are selected after the evaluation of knowledge assets and experience. So, basically, if an institution is an example of technocracy, it is not an example of democracy.

Technocracy has old roots as among the most ancient civilizations the power was in the hands of those who had knowledge. It was an assumed truth that knowledge goes hand in hand with wisdom (and sometimes even with divinity!).

Nowadays, there are some good reasons to choose technocracy over democracy, even if it isn’t often the case:

  1. We want that our authority takes not the more legitimate or shared decisions, but the best ones.

This happens when decisions are just too difficult for non-experts, as it happens in the field of monetary policy: deciding which is the right amount of money to print or which is the correct interest rate to keep prices stable in the current circumstances is the result of a knowledge-based approach. Only few people are qualified enough to understand the difficult mathematical reasoning behind this kind of decision.

2. We want independent, impartial decisions.

An antitrust authority under political influence or pressure by public opinion wouldn’t do properly its duty. Similarly to the judiciary, monitoring authorities have to apply rules impartially, in good faith, after a qualified evaluation.

Some international bodies are similarly  committed to super partes evaluation, to focus on the common interest which is not necessarly the interest of the majority. This is the case for the European Commission which interacts regularly with the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, in charge to  represent respectively the majority of states and the majority of populations, so the Commission offers a different perspective.

Conversely, there is a wrong reason to choose technocracy over democracy, it is the lack of trust in the political elite and the need for a radical change (I think of all the so-called “technical governments” we had in Italy in the past two decades, for instance).

It is a lie we tell ourselves: a minister plays necessarily a political role, no matter where he comes from or how he has been chosen. So, this is just a way to mistify or hide the reasons behind political decisions which are never simply “technical”.

All the organizations whose powers require political discretion, states in the first place (but not just states) cannot be managed as technocracies. Such a choice would turn back the clock to pre-democracy ages, while what we want is to improve our level of democracy.

Moreover, even if the activity of a technocratic authority is not, by definition, democratic, choosing the experts in charge for technocratic decisions – chief officers, board members, central banks presidents – is definitely a political decision, so we expect it to be democratic.

Some international organizations, which still obey to the technocratic model, increased their role over time and should introduce democratic elements to complement the technocratic ones – just like in the EU the technocratic body -which is the Commission- is complemented by the Parliament and the Council.

Finally, how can we trust a technocracy?

All the technocratic institutions show  – or should show  – two basic features to guarantee that their power will not be abused:

  • a clear mandate
  • an accountability framework

They don’t operate in a splendid isolation, they enjoy relevant powers for some good reason. It is up to them to deserve people’s trust using them properly or – if it is the case – to be held responsible for their misuse.

These two elements  – a limited allocation of competences and a duty to be accountable-  reconcile democracy and technocracy, so the two may be an useful completion one of the other.

The Global Goals and All the Ways to Communicate Them

Posted on by Susanna Cafaro

Sustainable development goals are ambitious. They are milestones intended to change the world in the next 15 years.

As you can read, the 5 Ps in the preamble reveal a broaden view…

The Goals and targets will stimulate action over the next fifteen years in areas of critical importance for humanity and the planet:

People

We are determined to end poverty and hunger, in all their forms and dimensions, and to ensure that all human beings can fulfil their potential in dignity and equality and in a healthy environment.

Planet

We are determined to protect the planet from degradation, including through sustainableconsumption and production, sustainably managing its natural resources and taking urgentaction on climate change, so that it can support the needs of the present and futuregenerations.

Prosperity

We are determined to ensure that all human beings can enjoy prosperous and fulfillinglives and that economic, social and technological progress occurs in harmony with nature.

Peace

We are determined to foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies which are free from fearand violence. There can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development.

Partnership

We are determined to mobilize the means required to implement this Agenda through arevitalised Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, based on a spirit of strengthened global solidarity, focussed in particular on the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable and with the participation of all countries, all stakeholders and all people.

Many will notice that this list is much longer than the previous one, the list of Millennium development goals, written fifteen years ago. The focus is not just on the people, but on the planet too and on all the living creatures on it. As somebody said, “What does not benefit the hive, is no benefit to the bee.”

Are they achievable? Yes, they are. But if we look at the previous 15 years we can tell than setting a direction doesn’t guarantee that we are going to reach the target. Nonetheless, it is far better than not setting it at all. If we fall short, we’ll be somewhere on the way. Somewhere closer.

Of course, the goals and their formulations are the results of negotiations and compromises – not necessarily the best possible – and the follow-up won’t be easy (you can read something more here)

Nonetheless, this new 15-years-race has been better prepared than the previous one.

First of all, the SDGs are the final results of many different levels of contribution, which have involved an impressive number of people. Even if the diplomatic and political level played the decisive role, it has been preceded by on-line polls (involving more than 8 million people), thematic and national consultations, large debates, meetings with civil society.

The idea is that creating a sense of ownership – through a bottom-up dialogue, inclusive planning structures such as the World We Want Platform  and multi-stakeholder partnerships – will benefit its delivery.

Another powerful idea is that communications is in itself a key to making the targets attainable.

If a majority of people around the world will believe in the goals they will become achievable. Not only because private action will join the efforts of government and international organizations, but also because – on a deeper level – a sort of global awareness will make them appear realistic so that many small actions will add up to the big ones.

The effort to communicate the new goals appears, in this early stage, already impressive.

For instance, for the number of testimonials…

…or for the different targets, including children

…and for the spontaneous involvement of private companies.

Virgin, for instance, has created an app in support of the global goals, wich could transform all of us in superheroes to join ‘the global goals alliance’.

I’ve chosen for myself the superpower “partnership for the goals” ( no.17)

Embarrassing, isn’t it?

But what I think is really great, it’s the idea that we can contribute in many different ways and so several different platforms are just being created to offer us occasions to engage, such as the PEOPLE + PLANET PROJECT or the Global Citizen Community.

Quite interesting as a start, isn’t it?

Four Ideas for a Better UN. A Proposal from the Elders

Posted on by Susanna Cafaro

Chaired by Kofi Annan, The Elders is an independent group of global leaders who work together for peace and human rights. They were brought together in 2007 by Nelson Mandela.

The proposal was originally posted here

The United Nations now:

The dynamics of the United Nations

The Proposal: A UN fit for purpose

I. A new category of members

In principle, the existing permanent members claim to be ready to welcome new members. But their sincerity has not been tested, because the rest of the membership cannot agree on essential points: which countries, and how many, should be new permanent members, and should they, like the existing ones, be given a veto over the Council’s substantive divisions? In the view of many, the use or abuse of the veto is responsible for some of the Council’s most conspicuous failures, when it does not intervene in time, or with sufficient force, to protect the victims of genocide and other comparable crimes. Those states are understandably reluctant to give yet more powers the right of veto.

We therefore propose a compromise. Let the states which aspire to permanent membership accept instead, at least for the time being, election to a new category of membership, which would give them a much longer term than the two years served by the non-permanent members, and to which they could be immediately re-elected when that term expires. This would enable them to become de facto permanent members, but in a more democratic way, since it would depend on them continuing to enjoy the confidence of other member states. By making the Council more democratic, this change would increase its legitimacy in the eyes of the world, thereby enhancing its authority and so also making it more effective.

II. A pledge from permanent members

As already noted, on too many issues the Security Council is deadlocked by the failure of its permanent members to agree on a course of action, with the result that millions of people are left to suffer while great powers score debating points off each other. As the UN’s founders understood, without the united support of the permanent members, both material and moral, the Council cannot act.

None of us has forgotten the Holocaust, Rwanda, Srebrenica, Saddam Hussein’s campaign against Iraq’s Kurds, or the killing fields of Cambodia. No part of the world has been spared these horrors. So the political will must be summoned to prevent, or at least limit, their repetition.

We therefore call on the five existing permanent members to pledge themselves to greater and more persistent efforts to find common ground, especially in crises where populations are being subjected to, or threatened with, genocide or other atrocity crimes.

States making this pledge will undertake not to use, or threaten to use, their veto in such crises without explaining, clearly and in public, what alternative course of action they propose, as a credible and efficient way to protect the populations in question. This explanation must refer to international peace and security, and not to the national interest of the state casting the veto, since any state casting a veto simply to protect its national interests is abusing the privilege of permanent membership.

And when one or more permanent members do feel obliged to cast a veto, and do provide such an explanation, the others must undertake not to abandon the search for common ground but to make even greater efforts to agree on an effective course of action.

III. A voice for civil society

When they can agree, the permanent members too often deliberate behind closed doors, without listening to the voices of those most directly affected by their decisions, and present their elected colleagues with ready-made resolutions leaving little room for debate. To remedy this, we call on all members of the Security Council to make more regular and systematic use of the “Arria formula” (under which, in the last two decades, Security Council members have had meetings with a wide variety of civil society organisations), to give groups representing people in zones of conflict the greatest possible opportunity to inform and influence Council decisions.

At present, meetings under the Arria formula are too often attended only by junior officials, whose reports can easily be ignored. In future, we call on the heads of the delegations of all countries serving on the Security Council, including the permanent members, to attend all meetings held under this formula in person. Members of the Council must use such meetings to ensure that their decisions are informed by full and clear knowledge of the conditions in the country or region concerned, and of the views of those most directly affected.

IV. A more independent Secretary-General

At the United Nations, it is the Secretary-General who has to uphold the interests and aspirations of all the world’s peoples. This role requires leadership of the highest calibre. Yet for 70 years the holder of this post has effectively been chosen by the five permanent members of the Security Council, who negotiate among themselves in almost total secrecy. The rest of the world is told little about the process by which candidates are identified, let alone the criteria by which they are judged. This barely follows the letter, and certainly not the spirit, of the UN Charter, which says the Secretary-General should be appointed by the General Assembly, and only on the recommendation of the Security Council.

To remedy this, we call on the General Assembly to insist that the Security Council recommend more than one candidate for appointment as the Secretary-General of the United Nations, after a timely, equitable and transparent search for the best qualified candidates, irrespective of gender or regional origin.

We suggest that the next Secretary-General be appointed for a single, non-renewable term of seven years, in order to strengthen his or her independence and avoid the perception that he or she is guided by electoral concerns. She or he must not be under pressure, either before or after being appointed, to give posts in the Secretariat to people of any particular nationality in return for political support, since this is clearly contrary to the spirit of the Charter. This new process should be adopted without delay, so that the United Nations can make full use of it to choose the best person to assume the post in January 2017.

IS THERE A WAY TO STOP TECHNOLOGIES WHICH BREACH (OR MAY BREACH) HUMAN RIGHTS?

Posted on by Susanna Cafaro

(originally published on ODBMS.org)

The European Parliament voted on Sept. 8 a report presented by the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats focusing on human rights and technology in third countries. In it, the EU Parliament claims that the Union should take a clear stance against those authoritarian regimes which use spying and hacking technologies to violate human rights. In order to do so they should lead in preventing this kind of technologies from falling into the wrong hands.
In the same day, the Parliament amended a Commission’s initial proposal to ban animal cloning to include the cloning of all farm animals, their descendants and products derived from them, including imports into the EU.

What do so different topics have in common?
They expect to have an impact on technology, or the use of technology.

Every year, the level of concern about the possible use of new technology raises exponentially: artificial intelligence, big data, drones, space race, not to speak about genetics or nanotechnologies (and being a lawyer I stop here, I’m sure my little list sounds poor and even silly to scientists).
Could we ever expect to stop technological evolution? And would it be something good?
The answer is clearly “no” to both the questions.
Technologies are the new borders of humanity exploration: pushing the limit to expand knowledge is in our very nature and enhancing human well-being through technological improvement is a moral obligation, especially where it is desperately needed.

But, how could we make sure that knowledge goes hand in hand with wisdom? How to avoid that the final result of this quest is nothing but self-destruction?

We face here two different problems, both difficult to solve: the How and the Who.

I. How the development of new technologies could be scrutinized in order to stop the research addressing wrong goals (goals of destruction of people or planet or control over other human beings)? How to avoid the misuse of technology which could have peaceful and fruitful applications?

II. Who should be in charge to do so?

First of all, an assumption seems inevitable: there isn’t much we can do at national level, not even at continental level. It’s even too easy, nowadays, to move a lab or a factory from one country to another, to shop among legal systems just to find the most accommodating (or the most interested) one. Even without moving, the product or the patent which is the outcome of a research can easily be sold abroad.

About the “how”, I doubt any international treaty could be effective. Too long negotiating processes, too difficult to verify the real implementation. Most of all a lack of flexibility in its content would make it immediately outdated. By the way, how many treaties should we need?

The only way to address the point is in identifying an evaluation body, in charge of screening in “the interest of humanity”.
And here comes the “Who” problem.

I don’t think that academic records or prizes and accomplishments would be enough to choose somebody for such a sensitive position. A clear commitment in the interest of humanity is needed for the members of such a value-centered group.
There are actually some bodies of scientists or experts in the UN, as the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, whose members are appointed by national governments according to a geopolitical distribution.

I am not sure this is the best formula (and I’m not sure to know the best formula), but I think that it should be possible to agree on some basic key points:

  • High profile of members (both ethical and scientific) recognized at global level;
  • Pluralism and diversity (and of course gender equality);
  • A transparent appointing process (by whom? The UN General Assembly? Or involving the same scientific community?)
  • Affiliation with a global organization or agency able to endorse and give authority to recommendations.

I don’t think that such a body should enter into details of single projects, but It could take charge of deep evaluation in areas of concern, to be submitted by states, international organizations or NGOs.
These are nothing but early reflections on a topic which I hope will be developed over the next months and years.

The scientific community – both academic and entrepreneurial- is called to join this debate and to be at the forefront in guaranteeing its own integrity in the interest of humanity.

Data for Humanity: An Open Letter

Posted on by Susanna Cafaro

I have the pleasure to host an important initiative by professors Roberto V. Zicari and Andrej Zwitter to raise awareness of the principles in the context of the use/access of data, facilitate exchange between people and organizations who share the goal and the principles, and support data initiatives that are dedicated to these principles around the world.

Data for Humanity: An Open Letter

Information is power and data is its raw material. We are experiencing an unprecedented ascent of Big Data, the development of data science and the increasing omnipresence of data analytics. We are also witnessing both the promise and the peril of the ubiquitous acquisition of personal data by organizations of all types.

Given its novelty, and the current shortcomings of codes of conducts and legal regulations, data entrepreneurs, governments, data scientists and educators have yet to find the right balance between the power that data give and the responsibility that comes with it.

This development of datafication of the world comes at a time with great challenges, such as climate change, mass migration, deterioration of personal privacy, and protracted conflicts.

Therefore, we believe that it is important to help encouraging people and institutions to use data on sound principles that serve humanity.

We want to bring people from different disciplines and professions together, who share the motivation of using Data for the Common Good and for Human Wellbeing, in order to ensure that data serves humanity.

Goal:
To bring people and institutions together who share the motivation to use Data for Common Good / human wellbeing

We encourage people and institutions who own and/or do work with data and who share the following principles to sign this letter of support.

Principles:

1. Do not harm

2. Use data to help create peaceful coexistence

3. Use data to help vulnerable people and people in need

4. Use data to preserve and improve natural environment

5. Use data to help creating a fair world without discrimination

Professor Roberto V. Zicari, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany

Professor Andrej Zwitter, University of Groningen, the Netherlands

To sign the open letter, please follow this link:
http://www.bigdata.uni-frankfurt.de/dataforhumanity

Is There a Right To Internet Access?

Posted on by Susanna Cafaro

It’s difficult to be or feel a global citizen if you cannot access the internet.

This is the first  powerful gift we received from internet: the elimination of remoteness. No matter if you are in Europe or Africa, in some little island  or on a mainland, in a crowded metropolis or in a lonely countryside: you can join a global debate, sharing your thoughts.

The second powerful gift is that we said goodbye to that sense of loneliness or estrangement typical when your thoughts are different from those of the ones around you. Whatever your point of view, you can connect with like-minded people. You are not alone.

… and the power of imagination, the force of dreams is multipled by connections.

This silent revolution had an impact (still to be measured) on our culture, on economy and politics. And on our rights. Internet became a main vehicle for freedom of expression, right to information, even political activity.

Revolutions and political campaigns of the last decades would have been inconceivable without it

Does it mean that accessing the internet is a new generation human fundamental right?

I’d like to say so. Nonetheless, as a jurist, I have my doubts.

A true fundamental right should be granted to all, it’s universal, inalienable, non-discriminatory. A fundamental right couldn’t be denied in any circumstance. It is both a right and an obligation: for states, to grant it.

Are international law, states, or other public subjects, able to guarantee this right to all? Unfortunately not, not yet. Nonetheless I think this is the new target, or the new standard that we should imagine -at least- as  a civil and political right. And I’m not alone to think so.

Nobody could deny that it is instrumental and sometimes even necessary to the right of information, freedom of expression and democratic participation. If we think of the global public sphere, we should admit that interacting and participating is necessarily channelled through internet and – when it is not- remoteness without internet translates in high costs and lack of information, in one word: discrimination.

Providing free wifi to all is a target that many countries around the world are still unable to grant. Others could, but are still far from providing it. Economic interests and market structures, as they are, are a powerful obstacle. Ad hoc policies should be put in place. Some states are at the forefront of this revolution -as Estonia or Finland- in France the Constitutional Court took a bold stance for it.

What is self evident, so, is that if we cannot (yet!) impose to state to provide free access to all, we can nonetheless qualify as an infringement of several human rights any censorship or denial of service.

And here is one of these strange legal paradoxes: accessing the internet is not a right, being denied the access is an infringement of a right. It is the best way, nowadays, to shut up a political protest, cut off the communication, isolate. And even if legal documents don’t state in clear words the birth of a new fundamental human right (at least I couldn’t find it), several ones declare that denying access to the internet is a severe infringement of democracy and fundamental rights.

Financing for Development, Why it is so Relevant

Posted on by Susanna Cafaro

On July 13-16, leaders from around the world gathered in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, for the Third Conference on “Financing for Development.”

It is the first of a series of crucial meetings which will take place this year:

In September, world leaders will gather in New York to adopt a new set of global goals for sustainable development.

In December, leaders will converge in Paris for a new climate deal.

The Addis conference is a first big test for global cooperation, it will also lays the foundations (hopefully) for the success of the following events. In fact, vast financial resources and investments are needed to achieve the new sustainable development goals by 2030: to end extreme poverty, tackle climate change, and reduce inequalities.

Why does the conversation on financing for development matter?

Since the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals 15 years ago, the world is quite changed: poverty, inequality, unemployment, or exclusion are issues on the agenda of all states, not only of  developing countries. New players emerged: the role of the BRICS on the global financing scene became more relevant; non-state actors increased their role as well: private foundations, advocacy NGOs and global campaigners.  There is, finally, a universal agenda.

Addis Abeba will test the political will to make this agenda advance. Success will require joint efforts by States, International Organizations, private investors and civil society.

It is just the beginning of a long season of negotiations.

To learn more about the  conference, visit the UN’s Financing for Development website , and join the conversation online using the hashtags #FFD3 and #action2015.

DECLARATION FROM THE ADDIS ABABA CIVIL SOCIETY FORUM ON FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT

“We, members of more than 600 civil society organizations and networks from around the world that have been engaged in the process leading up to and including the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa, July 13-16 2015), convened a CSO Forum in advance of the conference. We have the following reflections and recommendations to convey to the Member States of the United Nations and the international community. We want to express appreciation for the participation and access civil society was accorded in the preparatory process so far.

As the first in three important UN Summits on sustainable development this year, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (“Addis Agenda”) has the opportunity to set the tone for an ambitious and transformative agenda that will tackle the structural injustices in the current global economic system, as well as ensuring that all development finance is people-centred and protects the environment.The world faces challenges in the form of historic levels of inequality within and among countries, the confluence of financial, food and environmental crises, the underprovision of essential services and pronounced employment deficits. However, the draft outcome document does not yet rise to the challenges that the world currently faces, nor does it contain the leadership, ambition and practical actions that are necessary.

In what follows, we highlight our overarching concerns about the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (“Addis Agenda”), followed by our reflections and suggestions on its different aspects.

The Addis Agenda as it stands undermines agreements in the Monterrey Consensus of 2002 and the Doha Declaration of 2008. It is also hardly suited to function as the operational Means of Implementation (MoI) for the, post-2015 development agenda, which is one of the goals of this conference, and to inspire the hope of reaching a successful agreement towards COP 21 in Paris.

The Third Financing for Development (FFD) conference must unequivocally assert that development processes should be led by countries under the ultimate responsibility of the States through participatory processes to include all right-holders. The principles of democratic ownership and leadership have been affirmed in many global forums since Monterrey and it is now time to place it at the heart of the whole financing framework as a fundamental qualification of countries’ policy space, which the draft Addis Agenda itself recalls. An enabling environment for civil society agency is essential.”

The Double Face of Identity

Posted on by Susanna Cafaro

How many identities do you have?

My personal experience is: the more you have, the better. 

Let me give you my personal example:

I don’t think I have a strong local identity. Maybe it’s the fact that my parents didn’t grow up in the same town where I was born. Or it’s that I’m not able to speak properly its dialect. It’s also possible that my town doesn’t cultivate a strong identity itself: criticizing Brindisi (Italy) is a much-practiced sport among its citizens. It’s a pity: it’s a nice place with a marvelous harbor and some 30 centuries of history surfacing here and there.

I don’t have a strong national identity either. I don’t know if it comes from my father passionately criticizing all the Italian governments, one after the other since I can remember. Or the fact that we don’t get particularly emotional over football matches…

Don’t get me wrong: I love my town and I love my country. But this doesn’t prevent me from looking at them critically. Or to love other places and other countries.

I suppose this helped me to develop further identities.

For instance, a strong identity as a human being (maybe encouraged by a childhood populated by cats, dogs… even snails).

For example, a European identity when I discovered as a teenager that some brave men had started to integrate the continent as a reaction to the second world war. A continent which has, historically, a cultural identity of its own.

And, later on, a sense of belonging to a global community, when I understood how many global problems need to be tackled jointly by all states and citizens (and usually they are not!).

Moreover, I have  – as all of you – a number of other definitions applicable: I’m a woman, I’m a daughter and I’m a mother, I’m a professor and a researcher, I’m a reader and I’m a writer, I’m a traveller and a seeker and so on… Identities more or less relevant, but all true. Which make me part of communities of human beings who share with me traits, interests, needs, passions.

Exclusive or dominant identities are – conversely- dangerous. 

People dominated by an exclusive identity – be it national, ethnic, religious or any other – assume it is a divide. The world is composed by “us” and “them”.

It’s the source of all conflicts, the negation of what makes us similar, emphasizing the differences.

I cannot say that identity is a bad word. It’s important to have roots, as long as it does not prevent our trunk to grow upwards and our branches to expand in many directions.

But using identity as a trench is the result of fear for whatever is different. And invoking limiting identities as a reason for political choices is a way to spread fear (and sometimes hatred).

It’s easy to recognize a fanatic approach, but sometimes even a shortsighted populist approach just plays the same dangerous game.

Stay alerted!