Why call us just in elections? What we take? Go here a thread of an interesting debate that has been giving these days about how it should be the involvement of ESF acts more or less public with political parties, following a call from one of them for a desaiuno (note that it is close to election time ...).
------------------------------------------------ -
Participant 1 [...] idea was to refuse offers at election time ... Although bueno, remaining 3 months. But I say, may refuse to make sense of media present, no? If the offer retrieval is a private meeting, that problem would have? In the background is also necessary to think that aprtidos have their times and will not stop to think about the election program more than six months before an election.
-------------------------------------------------
Participant 2 I think it does not follow that the FHS meets with the parties in period
election (I think so we're already in full therein) do not know what formulas
would be acceptable, but bueno, I understand that any party may make a proposal, and the best way to make it come to a sector is a formal meeting or
, mostly through the Coordinator Galician NGDOs ...
-------------------------------------------------
Participant 1 course Participant 2, I think you're right in everything you say, the forms are
forms, but for me the only reason why I met with one game would be if it uses the meeting as an image laundering. I insist if the meeting was in private and without advertising, would not see the problem.
------------------------------------------------- -
Participant 2 valley, I want it over there means it is clear that
seek an image laundering ... but the fact that we propose meetings precisely election period when the rest of the time never agree
of us already suspected, so thinking of promoting the themes present in
oenegueiros permanent agendas of political parties think better left for another time.
Although it is also true that what can be achieved if
this time is more than handy at another time ... but it still does not convince me.
what others say?
--------------------------------------------
Participant 3 I still think that meeting with political parties is appropriate
regardless of when it is. I think
tenemos capacity Nuestro message to be distorted in
and to clearly explain why social Nuestra base hacemos
one thing u otra.
-----------------------------------------
Participant 1 I echo the words of Participant 3.
The elections can not be the excuse, it makes us anti-political, not apolitical
. Are the forms to a lesser extent, and especially the use of our image
which should lead us to reject certain offers.
-------------------------------------------
Participant 4 my worries me among other things a lack of strategies advocacy of ESF (and I think now would by itself galega coordinator of NGOs, and that is where I believe should be forwarded to parties who want to know more about cooperation and how to implement in their programs, specifically the advocacy committee.) -------------------------------------------
Participant 5 is also true that you spoke of not accepting invitations at election time, and I agree, does not interest us seize the moment to say the picture to open and receptive to the political parties. But I also believe that if we never met them, they know our position on this type of "events", or our philosophy, or the contributions we can do or achieve, and in that sense I agree with Participant 4 (and also with Participant 3). Moreover, the saying "playing not to enter," and we "almost" forced to listen to their proposals, especially in what concerns us as an association.
--------------------------------------- Participant 6 I believe that when dealing with politicians must be very careful.
Let me be clear that we are not anti-politicians for failing to address them,
but nonpartisan. Image is everything for
political parties and seek election period they make the bed and the world
dancing around them. If we want to advocate, we must have a clear strategy and
bookmark us time. And to mark the times
to a political party, we must be known and accepted by the population,
by our experience. For example, greenpeace mark
times and parties are unable to go against because they risk
votes of people who value what he says Greenpeace. They are politicians and politics do not meet
parties.
So I do not think we should accept an invitation to a party without clear what we
claim or that we tell our
or advocacy strategy. I do not think we should accept an invitation from a political party
without seeing the other parties. I do not think that at this time may do some good
meet them, rather than to make us turn
photo and are as good serving NGOs (if only
if interested).
But I could be wrong and that the experience is very positive and
all that, hopefully, but I do not.
In conclusion I would make one question: What if at breakfast the party
ask us about our position on the Law of Augas?,
because parties are turning to this issue in the fundraising and
not fear a clear position on an issue in which we work. If
say we have no position, we were wrong (it is our field of action) and if we try to position ourselves we will never be neutral and we joined in a party.
-------------------------------------- Participant 4 The greenpeace equivalent in cooperation and advocacy could be
Intermón, and they certainly would also through
coordinator, who is the head negotiator visible in regard to cooperation
Galicia (at least should be for those who make it ...).
I do not agree with all participants 6 ways if we are to such a site and ask us for something we have to take a stand. If we are discussing and debating aspects can comment on what we agree and those points where there is debate (and that, in my opinion, gives a much more realistic and "critical thinking" to be plated discourse often generated by a small number of organizations).
------------------------------------- Participant 1 course
if Participant 6, hai unha thousand possible reasons that meeting polas so can not bring anything, even hurt. [...], But I remember that at that time was very clear that the thing was an act of face to the gallery. This time, no idea, do not know what they want the party, but the invitation is for us to see the contradiction holds. For me it is not the same "election" than "propaganda." Being in an election period does not itself imply that every act of aprtido be a "wash" image, although unfortunately it is so in most cases.
------------------------------------
Participant 4 Speaking of this subject the other day in the incidence of co-ordinating committee, commented that it possibly on more generic issues where there is some consensus in NGOs that are part of the Coordinator, the coordinator itself if it can be a valid interlocutor (and just a way of strengthening the coordinating role that these calls had been diverted precisely the coordinator). But
on many occasions, there are NGOs that already have a strategy of focus and are capable and they are interested in being partners with parties into more specific topics, assuming that not all NGDOs share exactly a model of development to pursue more than some general themes as poverty eradication, access to basic services and social justice, but sometimes this is very vague. Not to mention ways to reach and work for this development model, where they share things like the code of conduct, and indicators of transparency and good government are evolving but there are also many differences. Thus, the NGO
experticia experience and showing a particular theme or sector, or rely on broad social support, partners can be sought by the parties or on their own search parties and in any case, maybe buy a good coordination in sectors or theme (which can be the role of coordinator of NGO if any play calls seeking views on certain subjects reporting of NGOs working on these issues). What happens is that this is the usual, after all how the roll and that someone takes advantage of some contact with this or that NGOs who knows someone, or have a friend who knows someone ... And this consideration leads me to desdecirme that the more normal and desirable has been the coordinator of that to be the spokesperson, but you must see places and topics.
As a concrete proposal,
the model that convinces me, if you want to make an impact (and it has resources, it is best not to meddle) is the "Proactive" , ie, the themes that have something to say as FHS in cooperation (TpDH, access to basic services, free software ...) we're the ones who sent a
argue the every game when we know that they are preparing their electoral program (8-10 months before an election, something similar to what we did when
elections at USC) and then, once it has less time if you want to be convened in whom we count on the person (for all games!). That's how I think an NGO can not be political and partisan
