Electing Our Leaders

[* Originally published within the electronic publication, The Drum Beat - click here for archives.]

If democracy is so good and wonderful, why do no we not elect, democratically of course, the people to fill the main leadership posts in international development?

Imagine the scenario: When the time comes to agree the next Executive Director of UNICEF, the person to fill that post will be elected by children. Everyone aged 10 to 18 years old [0 to 9 is probably a little young!] anywhere in the world will be eligible to vote. All candidates would need to present their manifesto highlighting what they would seek to achieve over the coming 5 years thereby signifying how they wish to be judged and held accountable. In all corners of the world, Children could consider these ideas, engage the candidates and vote. Voting could be by web site, email, post or ballot box. Schools, youth groups, development agencies and governments would be mobilised. This would be an excellent example of participation in action. The same process could apply to the next Director of The Gates Foundation, future World Bank Presidents, the Oxfam Executive Director and other major posts. Based on the mandates of these organisations the appropriate constituencies would be engaged and they would decide who would lead them.

This flight of fancy [some may call it delusional to a degree that requires treatment with very powerful drugs] was prompted by a new development surrounding the recent 'election by governments' of the new Director General of WHO, to whom we send our congratulations and best wishes. A group of organisations, including the Exchange Programme, a Communication Initiative Partner, sponsored a communication initiative that included an on-line debate through which people anywhere in the world could quiz the candidates for the new head job at the World Health Organisation. This was accompanied by an on-line opinion poll that facilitated people indicating the candidate they would most like to see in this very important post.

At The Communication Initiative we took our normal steps to highlight and support such a communication initiative - a mention in The Drum Beat, inclusion in DB Click: Health, summary on the web site, and a note to people who might be specifically interested. Many other organisations took similar, often more substantive steps. The organisers of this debate and poll report tremendous interest and engagement from many parts of the world. This is confirmed by the data The CI has collected related to our very small part in this process. Click here for the summary of this initiative. The large numbers of users accessing this page confirms the wide and substantive interest in the idea of engaging in the election process for development leaders.

But why are elections for the most senior international posts a communication issue? Apart from the inherent participation value of such a process it provides a major development communication opportunity. Such an election initiative creates 'space' - to use a word and concept that is common in Latin American communication thinking. Space is created for people to participate in a substantive decision with genuine impact. A communication platform is created. The process of an election provides a platform for a range of issues and ideas to be debated and actioned. The platform is flexible. The nature of the process, results and impact will vary according to the context. It is a simple communication idea - one that is easily adopted in many different circumstances. The process of elections for the most senior international development figures will prompt dialogue and ideas concerning this process extending to many different local, national and international organisations. Some of those groups will review their present election processes. Others will consider adopting such a system. We have learned from the communication experiences of effective social movements that having an idea spread like brush fire is much better than a detailed programming approach in which individual bundles of wood are gathered, organised and individually lit.

A communication platform such as an election process for the most senior international development leaders also potentially draws the various strands of development communication into inter-related action - it makes us all stronger. The process would create considerable dialogue and debate and give significant added weight and voice to the perspectives of those directly experiencing development issues - these are central tenets of communication for social change. It provides a major hook for media and public relations - a solid, substantive and meaningful process with which the media can grapple. Many people will not be used to voting and participating in such election processes - for example the children highlighted in the UNICEF example - so new knowledge will need to be acquired and behaviours learned, which plays to the behaviour change and IEC strands in communication for development. The election process - indeed the very idea itself - will need marketing, thus tapping the skills of social marketers. For cultural reasons the election process will differ in different settings - requiring the insights and support of people and organisations with local, cultural and community communication roots.

Two communication trends could move the idea of popular elections for development organisation leaders from delusional fantasy to some form of reality. There appears to be a growing trend towards greater accountability and participation in development. Even if this is mainly rhetoric, such rhetorical noise at minimum establishes an atmosphere for action - a 'space". The new communication technologies provide the vehicle for that action. OK, not everyone is wired by any means and children in developing countries would find, for the moment, the most difficulty in participating in any UNICEF election, to continue our example. But as the new technologies spread and low cost ways of engaging with such technologies are further developed, such objections will increasingly disappear.

Perhaps the best way forward is to recall the old joke about the elephant - a metaphorical elephant, chosen merely for its size, I hasten to add, before offending a very large number of people. How do you eat an elephant? You eat it in small bites.

Perhaps, continuing the example, the children of the world - and constituencies in other development areas relevant to the organisations pursuing their interests - could be polled in non-binding referenda. Maybe, as an even smaller 'bite', groups of children in a range of countries could be physically convened to interview and dialogue with candidates through the new technologies, concluding with an expression of their perspective on who is best to lead what is, after all, THEIR struggle. At the very least we should mobilise the new technologies with their exceptional real time and interactive capacities to take the pulse of the people from whose name - the poor, children, women, people who are HIV positive, and many others - the leaders of major international development organisations draw their moral weight and influence.

The governments who elect or appoint the leaders of UN agencies, philanthropists who donate huge sums of money and membership elected or appointed Boards of Directors for the big organisations may object to such an idea. They could quite validly argue that these are inter-governmental organisations, that it is their money and they have been elected to a Board of Directors by their membership. However, I would argue that the impact and scope of the major leadership jobs in international development both transcend those comparatively narrow constituencies and demand much wider engagement when deciding who will lead them, making major and crucial decisions that affect the lives and livelihoods of millions. Those people - the people most affected by development concerns and problems - living with and affected by HIV/AIDS, living on less the two US Dollars per day; living in bad environmental situations; etc - have a legitimate stake and say in who will, in effect, lead an important aspect of their cause. And it is a communication role to facilitate and give voice to that expression of their preferences and choices.

Of course there are other sides to this issue. Perhaps none of what is proposed above is relevant or possible. Maybe how the leaders of international development organisations has no effect on their performance. Does the very structure and funding of international development organisations mean it will never be appropriate for the people in whose name they work and from whom they draw influence and power, to be engaged in playing a central role in electing the leaders? It could be that the new technologies will be assigned to a future where entertainment and service provision trumps any role adding to democratic processes. Perhaps this is a marginal role for communicators or a communication activity with marginal pay-off for development progress.

Or maybe not? What do you think? What are the insights from your work and experience?

Warren Feek

wfeek@comminit.com

June 2, 2003