|
The United Nations operates according to the norms of a Parliamentary House of Representatives in which regional representation is according to one vote per member country. According to the Functions and Powers accorded the United Nations:
‘Each Member State in the Assembly has one vote. Votes taken on designated important issues, such as recommendations on peace and security and the election of Security Council members, require a two-thirds majority of Member States, but other questions are decided by simple majority.’
The Beyond 2008 NGO Forum, which was one of five processes convened in 2008 to advise the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, purported to be the voice of the world’s NGO on illicit drug policy and intervention.
However, representation to the Vienna forum, held July 7-9, 2008, was not in any way selected according to the norms of the United Nations’ own democratic representational model. Rather the process used by the non-UN organisation which convened the NGO input for the United Nations was chosen according to what it titled a ‘balanced’ representation of NGO views on drug policy and practice.
This is akin to an Australian House of Representatives being chosen, not by popular vote of Australians within their respective regions, but by a non-voted Senate-style spread of ideological viewpoints and interest groups. And because the United Nations does indeed work by democratic representation, rather than ideological ‘balanced’ representations of interest groups, the Beyond 2008 NGO Forum did not in any way give a reliable picture of what the majority of NGOs worldwide think or believe re drug policy simply because there was no attempt at democratically seeking a majority view on any one drug policy.
The statement read by Drug Free Australia’s Secretary, Gary Christian, at the close of the Vienna NGO forum showed the inadequacies of the approach:
Concern Regarding Beyond 2008 Ngo Forum Procedure and Representation
‘Members of the International Taskforce on Strategic Drug Policy attending the Beyond 2008 NGO Forum applaud the efforts and enterprise of the organisers of this event.
However, if we as a forum of NGOs purport to speak for the world’s NGOs, we must have necessarily, from the beginning, used a different process of representation to this forum than the process that has been used.
The stated starting assumption of this forum was that it represent a ‘balance’ of NGO ideological outlook and engagement. This is very different to a democratic model in which the weight of representation in this room regarding drug policy would closely equate to the surveyed weight of NGO opinion on various issues back home.
Such an alternate democratic model of representation would require that: - Every relevant NGO, not just a selection of NGOs, be invited to provide input through a transparent survey process. In Australia just 142 of more than 300 NGOs were invited to do the original survey.
- This survey would extensively survey the weight of the varying drug policy opinions between NGOs and quantify responses. There was no quantification of response in our Australian consultation process.
- Once responses to the survey were quantified, representation to this forum would then be chosen to reflect the outcomes. Our Australian representation was chosen on the basis of who could afford to attend (evidence attached) and not in parity to any quantification of varying views.
- Without the very necessary quantification of views, there is a less than transparent process for choosing representatives. A thoroughly democratic process would have yielded a representation where all contentious issues could have been quickly solved by a vote, and a majority voice recorded. This is not to deny that our processes here have not been without value.
Alternately, this forum’s assumption of a balanced ideological representation allows certain perspectives to punch above their weight in the achievement of consensus if, for instance, the real NGO community back home votes 70/30 on that issue. Our concern is that representation according to an artificial imposition of balance, rather than democratic representation, would likely have yielded different recorded outcomes on some of the more contentious issues before this forum.’
The Beyond 2008 forum was akin to less than half of Australians being invited to vote for a Parliamentary representative, votes not being counted, and then their Representative being chosen according to who could afford the role. This is not adequate to the requirements of UN democracy or reliable and representative input.
|
