Bahá’í World/Volume 27/Dimensions of Unity in an Emerging Global Order

←Previous

The Bahá’í World Volume 27

Next→

[Page 193]

Martha Schweitz and Bill Barnes examine the increasing use Ofcodes Ofconduct among nongovernmental organizations, and compare this process ofum'tybuilding with the experience of the

Bahá’í community.

DIMENSIONS 0t UNITY

in an Emerging Global Order

n the middle of the last century Bahá’u’lláh proclaimed that a I new spirit of unity had entered the world, which would, paradoxically, as one of its effects, upset the world’s equilibrium.1 Unification Of the family, the tribe, the city, and the nation had been successfully achieved. The next stage in human social evolution must be, He announced, unity on a global scale: “The winds of despair are, alas, blowing from every direction, and the strife that divideth and afflicteth the human race is daily increasing. The signs of impending convulsions and chaos can now be discerned, inasmuch as the prevailing order appeareth to be lamentably defective.”2

These words, issued at a time when many imagined only enlightened peace and prosperity increasing through the spread of the great civilization of the West, must have sounded hollow and strange. They were, in fact, to prove prophetic.

1. Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1994), p. 136. 2. Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings, p. 216.

193

[Page 194],7,;,117;;; +341ng h;,l,.,,; *L,,1J;I_J_LL_,1J ,, L1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 nuumi 7:;17,

THE BAHM WORLD

The State System and Civil Society Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith, writing between the convulsions of two world wars, more specifically defined the fierce storm gathering on the near horizon of state relations and indicated what humanity had to do to protect itself from its sweeping, Chaotic winds of despair:

World unity is the goal towards Which a harassed humanity is striving. Nation-building has come to an end. The anarchy inherent in state sovereignty is moving towards a climax. A world, growing to maturity, must abandon this fetish, recognize the oneness and wholeness of human relationships, and establish once for all the machinerg that can best incarnate this fundamental principle of its lif .

While it is difficult to foresee how humanity will mature to reach the condition of world unity, it is clear that current structures and values must change. It is also Clear that people—ordinary Citizens—must take a large measure of the responsibility for bringing about this change.

In its February 1999 statement, Who 15 Writing the F uture? Reflections on the Twentieth Century,4 the Bahá’í International Community concluded that unprecedented opportunities are opening to every individual, institution, and community to participate in shaping the collective future of humanity. In its 1995 statement, The Prosperity ofHumankind, it identified the “efflorescence of countless movements and organizations of social change at local, regional, and international levels” as “likely the most important social phenomenon of our time.”5 It observed the “transformation in the way that great numbers of ordinary people are coming to see themselves” in the process of social change and further anticipated a recasting of present conceptions of what is natural in relationships between members of society and its institutions.

This essay first examines the role of “ordinary people” in

3. Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, 2nd rev. ed. (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1974), p. 202.

4. See pp. 255—68 of this volume for the full text of this statement.

5. Bahá’í International Community, Office of Public Information, The Prosperity ofHumankind (London: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1995), pp. 4— 5.

194

[Page 195]D IMENSIONS @ UNITY

governance in the context of the present moment in history, as the global system struggles to transcend narrowly conceived nationalism. It then considers one highly promising process, the adoption of codes of conduct by non-governmental organizations (N GOs) working in social and economic development. The codes—a useful Window to understanding how people are “writing the future”—explicitly state the NGOs’ Chosen values, goals, and methods. Finally, the essay compares this code process to the approach of the Bahá’í community by focusing on unity as its operating principle and describes how that community achieves, promotes, and expresses unity.

Imperatives in a Disintegrating Order In 1985, on the eve of the United Nations Year of Peace, the Universal House of Justice issued a statement entitled The Promise of World Peace. The document addresses many problems associated with global breakdown and refers to “the achievement since the Second World War of independence by the majority of all the nations on earth, indicating the completion of the process of nation building. . .”6

This statement implies not only that national statehood is finished as a socially integrating process, but, more threateningly, that the “anarchy inherent in state sovereignty” referred to by Shoghi Effendi has reached its climax or full measure of danger for destroying the human community. Humanity must move to the next stage in its collective social evolution—the stage of a global civilization—or suffer dire consequences. While the global imperative is to build a world Civilization that fully embodies the oneness of humanity, to construct a society on this ideal necessitates “an organic change in the structure of present-day society, a Change such as the world has not yet experienced.”7 The upheavals affecting every aspect of human life today are symptomatic of that organic Change and characteristic of times of rapid social evolutionary advance—the dying of an old order through the emergence of a new one.

The sovereignty of the nation state is under pressure from all

6. The Universal House of Justice, The Promise of World Peace (Haifa: Bahá’í World Centre Publications, 1985), p. 1. 7. Shoghi Effendi, World Order ofBahd’u 716%, p. 43.

195

[Page 196]THE BAHM WORLD

sides, undermined from below by “nationalistic” forces in the form of ethnic or other groups asserting their desire for autonomy and pressured from above through participation in treaties, international organizations, and other transnational structures necessary for dealing with urgent global problems but that also impinge on a nation’s independent decision—rnaking power. F orees of economic globalization, both in trade and capital, also exert pressure, driven forward by the collective actions of transnational business, investors, and the governments of the major trading powers, but still immune to control or even direction by the publics most affected. Structurally, the state is at the same time both too large and too small to solve modern problems.

To relieve such pressures, the modern state system must evolve and develop structurally in two different directions.

It must grow upwards to encompass larger unities within one commonly accepted system. Similar developments have occurred in past epochs, but in each case the smaller entity had to cede some of its sovereignty and governing responsibility to a higher emerging entity in the name of a larger collective good.

The modern state must also grow in its connection to the people and communities it is intended to serve. The great surge in demoeracy during the 19905, as measured by the number of relatively free and fair, multiparty electoral systems at the national level, is accompanied by increasingly strident demands for government at all levels to be more representative of and accountable to the electorate on a continuing basis—and accountable to all, not just the majority, the elite, or the influential.

Beyond these two directions of growth, the present state system faces the imperative of development on the inner plane. The system of nation states is more than the drawing of boundaries, the establishing of sovereign governments, or the creation and application of laws and economic regulations. More than the sum of its social and material arrangements, it has a spiritual dimension of values, beliefs and principles—a cultural and religious dynamic that has reached exhaustion. Each nation and people has its own inner tradition, but, in their current form, these cannot co-eXist in tolerance and separation in a globalizing world where interaction is forced on them. Through the resulting friction and mutual influence, a

196

[Page 197]DIMENSIONS g1? UNITY

new consciousness of human rights has made old inequalities and discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or other grounds totally unacceptable. Values and ethical principles that respect humanity and promote the well-being of all people must be found or forged, agreed upon, and assimilated. Growth in consciousness and values can be achieved only if sustained attention is paid to articulating global goals and universal principles, that is, to promoting a unifying moral discourse.

Hence, to erect a new order, spiritual and material dimensions of life must be united, higher and lower pressures met, and smaller and larger problems solved. While it is impossible to predict the exact steps that need to be taken in our collective human social evolution, certain points are obvious.

First, it is unrealistic to expect that, acting on their own initiative, existing state structures and those centers of power associated with them in the cultural, economic, and social realms will respond soon to the challenges posed to their own power. The nation state system cannot forge a global order of peace and prosperity as long as it is also driven by the contradictory purpose of keeping national identity, sovereignty, and prerogatives intact in the process. As the Bahá’í International Community has written, “It is obvious that, whatever its past contributions, the longer the nation state persists as the dominant influence in determining the fate of humankind, the longer will the achievement of world peace be delayed and the greater will be the suffering inflicted on the earth’s population.”8 Yet, since sovereignty currently resides with the nation state, the task of determining the form and dynamic of the emerging world order is an obligation that rests in great part with heads of state and with governments.

Second, the failures of the present state system provide unprecedented opportunities for people to arise and shape their own filture. The world’s peoples must seize these opportunities and take the initiative to transform the existing order.

8. Bahá’í International Community, Who is Writing the F uture? Reflections on the Twentieth Century. (New York: Bahá’í International Community, Office of Public Information, 1999), p. 8.

197

[Page 198]THE BAHQ WQBLD

Civil Society Responds Civil society refers to the totality of all the groups and organizations, formal and informal, organized by people outside of government structures.9 It has been described as a mosaic. Viewed at close range, all one can see are separate and irregular, sometimes peculiar, shapes and colors. Standing back, however, one sees designs and forms emerge that wholly transcend the sum of the parts. The depth of civil society has been linked to the strength of democratic traditions and has been identified as a nation’s “social capital.”10 Because the work and activities of most Civil society organizations are motivated by shared goals or shared needs, it is where most people pursue What matters most to them and Where they develop the abilities for participating in collective efforts. For this reason, civil society has been described as comprising the Character-forming institutions of human society.11 Fueled by the aspirations of ordinary people working at the grassroots to create more responsive social programs, however small, multifarious independent groupings must at first organize themselves outside the centers of power of the present order, creating a kind of parallel community that impacts upon established society and whose goal is the establishment of a just human society. They create social pressure from below on established centers ofpower, stemming, in turn, from humanity’s impulse to demand its right to dignity and respect, and knowing its own value irrespective of social or political position or status. Relationships between

9. In many contexts, “Civil society” includes all commercial, for—profit enterprises; in others it may not. Civil society includes groups of every description: bowling leagues, farmers” cooperatives, religious organizations, human rights advocacy groups, charities, academic institutions, professional associations, PTAs, labor unions. Many are created to serve a public purpose. Some can successfully bridge deep, traditional divisions in pluralistic societies. A few represent the worst elements in a society, such as racist or hate groups.

10. See the writings of Robert D. Putnam, including Making Democracy Work: C ivic T raditions in Modern Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992).

11. Don E. Eberly, Americas Promise: C ivil Society and the Renewal of American Culture (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publisher, 1998), p. 128.

198

[Page 199]

DIMENSIONS QE UNITY

members of society and its institutions are being recast from the ground up as a result of this transformation in how great numbers of people are coming to see themselves.

Neither the concept of Civil society nor its existence is new. What is new is the rapid growth in developing countries in the number of CSOs (Civil Society Organizations) created to serve local or national development purposes, the increasing professionalism of many CSOs created to serve a public purpose, the growth in the number of €808 operating internationally, and the linkages and networks developing among CSOs within nations or internationally. Although some CSOs have a long tradition ofbeing actively involved with governments through lobbying or other activities, a much wider range of organizations is now seeking some sort of “partnership” relationship with governmental bodies, from the local level through to the organs of the United Nations. They work on economic and social development, human rights and humanitarian assistance, relief of the hungry, and the rescue of refugees. CSOs (including what are often known as NGOs, voluntary or non-profit organizations, or humanitarian groups) are a major new force in global society. They represent a powerful initiative taken by citizens to structure their own lives and set their own goals.

This kind of social grassroots activity in so many places at the same time is unprecedented in human history, reflecting a deep desire on the part of individuals everywhere to take a hand in shaping their own destiny. It holds out the hope of the emergence of new moral Vision and forms of leadership in human governance, through which new Civil capacities can be built.

Yet this is not the whole picture, for these multifarious, energetic, and important movements often work at odds or in competition with each other, since each has its own agenda, goal, and Vision. One danger in this situation is the potential for these groups simply to evolve into another form of that which they are attempting to replace. They are prey to many of the same shortcomings of the governments they criticize, as can be seen when large NGOs become increasingly politicized, or when conditions imposed by funders are allowed to dictate a CSO’s policies. That is to say, to

199

[Page 200]i7. 1 -L.‘¥ L, 7 , a *1 - Lil miillilrgr)__‘_9g

THE Bahá’í WORLD

the extent that CSOs come to resemble existing structures of power they, too, Will become increasingly anarchic.

Nevertheless, as a whole, the proliferating roles of €805 in public affairs represent experiments in governance with the potential to permanently reshape the way our governing processes are understood. One indication of the impending shift is the recent popularity of the term “governance” in place of “government.” The latter, as generally (and rather narrowly) used in public discourse, refers to the hierarchical structure and set of institutions that Wield political power in a nation, at the local, subnational, or national level, and how they function. The term “governance” includes this structure but focuses first on how public affairs are, in fact, managed. Such focus leads to a heightened emphasis on informal over formal structures and processes, on Change over time, and on the participation and roles of non-governmental actors, such as private organizations, for—profit business, CSOS, media, academia, Citizens’ movements, transnational corporations, and even the global capital market.12 Using the term “governance” implies a change in perception, away from our government-centered way of imagining the world, Which has never been entirely accurate and is becoming less so every day.

Forgoing preoccupation with governments and state sovereignty, people can open the way to promoting the evolution of the state system both upwards toward more inclusive structures and downwards towards the citizenry. CSOS are a major force in both of these processes, as they develop methods to hold governments accountable to the public and promote global arrangements to address urgent problems. They are also central to meeting the challenge faced by the state system on the inner, moral plane.

12. The Commission on Global Governance defines governance generally as “the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs.” Our Global Neighborhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 2. Implicit in the term “governance” is a choice not to accord privilege to the formal, legal, and structural. In other words, when one discusses “governance” (at the local through global levels), one is looking at how an issue or a geographic area is managed or governed without assuming that the government is central to it.

200

[Page 201]7M, W=LJ_;L_L L J— ,_ < l "17;" ; 7 I it; a , 74 ,: ,- ,, 77 7; _J¥_J:H¥‘L—lg~rgi—L ##1##, A . WWA-, ,

DIMENSIONS 9E UNITY

One can see how this challenge is being met in recent codes of conduct that have been adopted by NGOs working in social and economic development. Many NGOs have grown mature enough to start defining themselves in terms of codes of conduct that identify their aims, goals, and purposes, as well as their ethical standards of conduct. Principles and standards are agreed upon as the basis for bringing about desired social Change, thereby creating civil structures that form eharaeter—perhaps initially a national Character, but gradually a more universal, ethical character.

Currently, these codes are in a very early, transitional stage. They address concrete problems. Although there are many universal elements within them, they also retain much that is culture-specific or that reflects the local corruptions against which they define themselves. This is inevitable at this stage in their evolution, but universal codes will gradually emerge as the world increasingly unites.

Non-Governmental Codes of Conduct

Origins and Character

Recent non-governmental codes of conduct or codes of ethics have been developed primarily within national groups of organizations (national networks), but in some cases by transnational 0r sector-specific networks. They will be referred to here as “NGO codes,” because most of the participating organizations define themselves as non-governmental organizations dedicated to serving a development—oriented purpose. Codes currently in effect include the following:13

0 Code of Conductfbr Non—Govemment Development Organisations Of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid;

- Code ofEthics Of the Union of Bulgarian Foundations and Associations; - Code ofEthz'cs Of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation;

0 Declaration ofPrz'ncipleS OfNon-Govemmental Organizations Of the NGO Confederation of Colombia;

13. The codes are listed here alphabetically by the name of the country of the adopting NGOs or, in the case of the last three, by the name of the transnational organization. They will be referred to hereafter simply by the country or organization name.

201

[Page 202]T Lt; BAHA’l WORLD

0 Voluntary Development Organisation: The Guidin g Principles of the Voluntary Action Network India;

- Code of Conduct of the Japanese NGO Center for International Cooperation;

0 Code ofConduct of the Lesotho Council of Non-governmental Organizations;

- NGO Code ofConduct of the NGO Federation ofNepal;

° NGO Code of Ethics for Social Development Organizations in the Philippines;

- Code of Ethics for NGOS of the South African National NGO Coalition;

0 InterAction PVO [Private Voluntary Organization] Standards of the American Council of Voluntary International Action in the United States;

- NGO Guidelines for Good Policy and Practice of the Commonwealth Foundafion;

- Relations Between Southern and Northern NGOs: Policy Guidelines of the International Council for Voluntary Organizations; and

0 Code ofConduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Non—Govemmental Organizations in Disaster Relief.

Similar codes are in various stages of preparation by other networks, including the Arab Network for NGOs and emerging groups in the former Soviet Union.

It should be noted that these codes have all been adepted by NGO networks, that is, by established organizations whose members themselves are NGOs. They are not codes adopted by a single NGO for its own purposes (although those also exist in various forms) but have been drafted and negotiated among the member organizations of a particular network. In all cases, the negotiating process has been highly participatory, generally lasting at least a couple of years, and involving repeated discussions among the member organizations followed by redrafting and further discussion. After a code has been adopted, in most cases the member organizations are requested to certify that they are complying or bringing their practices into compliance with the code. In many cases, complying with the code has become a requirement of membership in the network. Some codes, such as that of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, include highly developed implementation procedures by which a standards committee can review the practices of a member organization or even receive complaints that a particular organization is not complying.

202

[Page 203]DIMENSIONS cl: UMLY

The experience with the Philippine code is notable, in that a few member organizations have been expelled from the network for noncompliance.

As evident from the names of some of the adopting networks listed above, they are generally networks of NGOs dedicated to “social development.” The networks adopting codes in Australia, Canada, J apan and the United States are composed of NGOs that work primarily in overseas aid and development. In developing countries, the organizations in the adopting networks are, generally speaking, more diverse in their aims and purposes, but are mostly working on domestic social and economic development issues, including human rights and environmental problems. Many of the member organizations are themselves networks or associations of much smaller, local, grass roots “people’s organizations.”

Traditional charitable organizations have a long history of selfregulation, dating back to the post-World War I era. For example, standards for charities in the United States were developed to assure the public that charitable contributions for the benefit of veterans were being put to their intended use and were not being wasted or diverted. The recent NGO codes, most of which have been adopted within the past ten years, are also intended to increase public confidence in the non—profit sector and thus encourage financial contributions. NGOs are dependent on financial support from the public, from foundations, and from other donors, sometimes including governments. The codes all include standards for responsible use of funds and disclosure of financial records. These range from the simple statement “We shall exercise scrupulous management of goodwill donations from fellow citizens and finances from public sources, make effective use thereof and report on their use properly” (J apan), to extremely detailed accounting forms and requirements (Australia).

While in some cases building on this experience with self—regulation of charities, the recent NGO codes go far beyond this purpose in directions that reflect the rapidly evolving rcle Of the non-profit sector in public service, both domestically and internationally, and in policy-rnaking. As non-governmental actors increasingly seek to participate in activities and processes that have in the past been the exclusive domain of government, they

203

[Page 204]T Hj BAHAj WORLD

are being called upon to identify themselves more fully and to justify their participation. The legitimacy of the governing process in an era of increasing democratization requires as much. NGOs have typically been very reluctant to risk compromising their own individual missions and identities by entering into Close association with other organizations and have been very protective of their right of independent decision and action. For many, circumstances are now requiring that this change. While continuing to capitalize on their uniqueness as separate organizations, and still entirely free to Choose and pursue any legal purpose or mission, NGOs are coming to understand the necessity for and means to achieve common positions, strategic alliances, coordinated action, and proof of accountability in order to work effectively as “partners” of governments and intergovernmental organizations.14

The recent codes are an exercise in self—identification for the groups subscribing to them. Some also begin to describe desired types of relationships between governmental and non-governmental actors and set forth substantive principles and goals for directing collaborative development work. As a whole, these codes represent an early attempt to define the nature and purpose of non-governmental participation in governance in the development field. In the long term, they may also be seen as early steps to advance governance generally by promoting moral values and approaches to decision making and institutional development that mark a substantial improvement over current practices.

Common T hemes

The way in which a number of common themes are treated illustrates the foregoing conclusions about the nature and significance of the NGO codes. Such treatment varies, of course, from code to code. What is more surprising, and highly promising in terms of establishing patterns for a new era in governance, is that they are often so similar.15

14. The code in Colombia stresses that NGOs should join “NGOs of higher rank” (network and umbrella organizations) for the sake of “higher cohesion, cooperation, and projection.”

15.The codes were not, of course, developed in isolation from each other. NGO networks learned from each other in the process of developing the(cont.)

204

[Page 205]DIMENSIONS 95 UNITY

Nature Ofthe Development Process

The NGO codes present a View of social and economic development that is participatory, people—centered, sustainable, and focused on both the immediate and long-term needs of the poorest and most marginalized segments of societies. In other words, development is not something that is done “to” a “target population” but “by” people for themselves, in cooperation with others, as they develop over time both individual and group capacities for responsible decision making and joint action. The codes in Japan and Nepal, for example, emphasize the goal of promoting self—reliance rather than dependency among the socially disadvantaged. The code in Canada has an extensive section on development principles that address “the urgent demands of fundamental human rights, the natural environment and the peaceful management of conflict,” that focus on the “root causes of global inequality and not merely its symptoms,” and that aim to “promote social justice through the equitable distribution of power, wealth and access to resources.” The code in the United States provides that even When material assistance is given in emergencies, the goal should be to avoid creating dependencies and to lay the basis for longer term development.

Value ofNGOS in Development

The NGO codes are founded on the assumption that NGOs are critical in achieving the goals of development. The code in South Africa states that “South African society is Characterized by inequality” and that “the government Will not be able to implement effective reconstruction and development Without strong, informed and effective NGOs.” More explicit than most of the others, the code in India states:

India, as a nation, is firmly committed to Democracy, and V01untarism is an essential pillar for Democracy. . .There is a Visible erosion of ethics in public life and Within the institutions of governance. This distressing situation, compounded With the large scale of poverty, unemployment and illiteracy, demands

15. (cont) present codes. A few are very closely related to each other and use some similar language, but even these have significantly distinctive features.

205

[Page 206]

TEE Bahá’í WORLD

proactive social action to ensure the advancement of the deprived sections in particular and the well being of the people in general.

At this juncture, Voluntary Organisations, upholding the basic principles for the general good of the common people, would be able to play a very crucial role in safeguarding public interest and advancing human development. Such organisations with the power of conviction, knowledge and ability, [have] already demonstrated the Viability of voluntary development action and are dedicating themselves to the task and the challenge of building a nation based on values such as transparent and accountable governance, social justice, equity and dignity and respect for diversity.

The code in Nepal defines a social development organization as a “process of systematic initiatives carried out by the people with their own decision and desire to improve their quality of life utilizing the human potential to the fullest extent.” The guidelines of the International Council of Voluntary Agencies states that “creation and strengthening of development institutions at the grass-roots and national level should be one of the major priorities in development today.”

Accountability

Most of the NGO codes make some reference, brief or extensive, to the concept of “accountability.” An “unaccountable” organization would be, for example, one in which decisions are made behind closed doors by the founders or hereditary leadership, who in turn are under no duty to the members or anyone else to justify or explain their actions, use of funds, etc. While this may be acceptable with members’ consent in a private organization that serves only the interests of its members, it is not acceptable in an organization that is seeking to participate in governance in some way. NGOs dedicated to development are making a claim on the public trust, not only for financial support but also as they help communities organize and participate in all aspects of development work. Publics are entitled to demand—and they are demanding—that such NGOs be accountable for their actions. The most basic requirements of accountability are that the organization have a clearly specified purpose or mission and a transparent internal management system, free of conflicts of interest,

206

[Page 207]DIMENSIONS 95 UNITY

discrimination, favoritism, secrecy, corruption, and all other unethical practices. Some of the codes explicitly require an elected, independent board of directors and specify its responsibilities. Another critical aspect of accountability is proper, complete, and open financial accounting which, as mentioned above, is stressed in all of the codes but with varying degrees of specificity.

Beyond these questions of how an organization is managed, accountability refers to duties owed by the organization to all “stakeholders,” that is, to everyone Who has an interest in or is affected by the organization’s work. The code of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, for example, says that, “We. . .hold ourselves accountable to both constituencies,” meaning those who wish to assist during disasters and those Who need assistance. The code in Bulgaria states that “accountability due to society goes beyond the narrow requirements of the laws.” The Commonwealth Foundation guidelines state that an NGO is accountable to the public, to its members, to its beneficiaries, and to its funders.

In practical application, accountability to all of these stakeholders generally means that the NGO must report regularly on its activities, publish its financial information, have a system for evaluating the results of its work, hold meetings where all aspects of its functioning can be discussed, and employ other means as necessary so that its operations will be transparent to all concerned. Over time, if an organization is seen to be conducting itself ethically, remaining true to its mission, managing its funds responsibly, and making progress towards achieving its purposes, trust will be established. As trust grows, an organization will usually find itself presented with opportunities to expand its responsibilities and influence. The converse will be true if an organization is held to account and is consistently found lacking.

Relationship to Governments

It is quite common for NGOs to be “implementers” of government programs, that is, to receive government funds to carry out a designated project. Beyond this role, many NGOs wish to have a say in proj eet design and to participate in general policy-making

207

[Page 208]Trna BAfiM WORLD

as well. The code in the Philippines states that, in relation to governments, the member organizations Will “strive to create an atmosphere of openness and mutual respect based on the perspective that people’s organizations and non-government organizations are important components of any democratic society,. . .foster a continuing dialogue. . .[and] insist on mutually agreed upon objectives and methodologies for specific projects.” Some of the codes specifically include advocacy (lobbying or trying in other ways to influence government decisions or policy through persuasion) as an appropriate NGO activity. The code in Colombia includes, as a duty of NGOs, “to respect legitimately constituted authorities” and “to participate in the design of public policies at all levels, in order to solve the problems of the country.” The Commonwealth F oundation guidelines,16 in a section on “good policy and practice on the part of governments,” state that “Governments should at all times endeavor to work in partnership with NGOs.” They suggest several governmental structures to facilitate government/ NGO consultation “in the general policy making process and in the planning and design of relevant government programmes,” such as desk officers for NGO/government relations in each ministry and NGO representation on advisory committees.

Participation

“Participatory development,” in its broadest sense, means that people should be in control of their own course of development at all stages, from determining goals and priorities to actually carrying out development work. At a minimum it means that the people most affected by a particular development project should participate in decision making, as protagonists rather than as a “target population.” This generally requires building the capacity of local people’s groups, Which, as mentioned, should itself be a priority goal of development. As the code in the United States says, “Participants

16. The Commonwealth Foundation is not in itself an NGO but a governmentfunded organization. It convenes a Commonwealth NGO Forum every four years—an NGO “summit” attended by representatives of NGOs in all Commonwealth countries. In 1995, this F orum “endorsed” the guidelines, intended not only for NGOs but for governments and funding organizations as well.

208

[Page 209]Dllv‘lENSIONS O_F UNITY

from all groups affected should, to the maximum extent possible, be responsible for the design, implementation and evaluation of proj ects and programs. . .A member should give priority to working with or through local and national institutions and groups, encouraging their creation Where they do not already exist, or strengthening them where they do.” The code in India, in its footnote defining “beneficiary participation,” explains that “Participation refers to power and can be acquired through training. Merely being present in a decision-making process cannot be called Participation. One has to contribute to its formulation. Similarly, doing an activity is not Participation. Taking responsibility for an effective action will be Participation.” The guidelines of the International Council of Voluntary Agencies recognize that “Participatory development takes a long time, it is unpredictable, and the long-terrn impact is difficult to measure. Donor and intermediary NGOs must allow sufficient time, funds and flexibility to enable community groups to carry out their own needs assessment, programme formulation, implementation and evaluation.”

Diversity and Interczttltural Relations

Most of the codes include the principle of respecting the diversity of the peoples with whom the organizations work, including their culture, religion, values, traditions, and history. Many codes aim for a model of “partnership” among groups, as well. Several focus on the messages and images conveyed in communications to the public. The code in South Africa aims to build an organizational culture that will “recognise all cultural groups as equal Partners in developing the organisation.” The Commonwealth F oundation guidelines require that agencies operating in countries other than their own “avoid acting in paternalistic, sexist, racist or elitist ways.” The code in J apan aims to “establish equal partnership with people and NGOs of developing countries and elsewhere.” It continues, “Cognizant that we in the North share responsibility for the problems faced by the people in the South, we shall promote the learning to be global citizens, so as to deepen our understanding of the problems of global scale, including the North-South issues, and reexamine the way we live and [think].”

209

[Page 210], 7*, ‘Lv ‘17 7 .Li 7 ,V__—L .l,

Tris B&A'i WORLD

The code in Canada requires organizations to avoid, in their public communications, “messages which generalize and mask the diversity of situations; messages which fuel prejudice; messages which foster a sense of Northern superiority; [and] messages which show people as hopeless objects for our pity, rather than as equal Partners in action and development.” The code in Lesotho adds to a similar list “idyllic messages (which do not reflect reality, albeit unpleasant) or ‘adventure’ or exotic messages;. . apocalyptic or pathetic messages.”

Potential of the C ode Process

Admittedly, the NGO codes are not purely an exercise in enlightened governance. In some cases the motivation for adopting them has been the hope of forestalling restrictive government regulation or redeeming the reputation of the non-governmental sector after highly publicized incidents of embezzlement or other unethical and/or illegal conduct. Many of the codes use vague terms without defining them, few are written as carefully or specifically as a law, and the adopting organizations may well have varying interpretations of the same code. Although some codes may be enforced through the sanction of loss of membership in the NGO network, this is more likely to occur for Violating financial reporting requirements than for ignoring a more vague injunction concerning, for example, participatory decision making or respect for other cultures.

In spite of all of this, however, the NGO codes remain highly promising. Since most have been in effect for only a few years, it is too early to evaluate their impact on the member organizations or on the non-governrnental sector as a whole, let alone any more far-reaching effect. But the pace at which new codes are being drafted and adopted is accelerating, and the older codes such as the one in the United States, now almost ten years old, are spawning efforts by their networks to raise performance standards further. At least in the near future, it seems highly likely that efforts toward non-governmental self—regulation in the development field will continue to spread, deepen, and produce increasingly enforceable standards.

210

[Page 211]

DIMENSIONS 9_F UNITY

In the longer term, the evolution of NGO codes may signal both the beginning of maturation of certain segments of civil society and a new stage in relations between government and civil society organizations. Instead of dismissing CSOs as “special interest groups” (in a pejorative sense) “lobbying” for their own particular cause, some governmental institutions at the local, national, and international levels are coming to View CSOs as Vital and indispensable actors in the democratic process. CSOs link people with their governments and with international institutions in ways that can ultimately serve the public good. They give voice to public concerns and priorities that they feel governments are not addressing adequately. The perception, backed by the reality, that the C805 are conducting their affairs ethically, openly, for a declared public purpose and based on explicit human values cannot help but raise their credibility and strengthen their influence. CSO self—regulation through codes of conduct may also be seen as staking a claim to the moral high ground, placing human well-being above private interests and all ideologies, a claim that cannot be ignored indefinitely by governments and business.17

It is not suggested, Of course, that the present NGO codes will themselves lead the world to a new era of humane governance. It is suggested, however, that the perceived need in every region to adopt such codes, the ability of networks of diverse NGOs to negotiate and adopt them successfully, and the similar Visions and principles enunciated in codes in radically different societies signify that a new era is already upon us.

Unity as Operating Principle Bahá’ís believe that this new era is one in which 01d structures are collapsing and new ones conducive to world unity are being born.

17. At the February 1999 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan challenged the business community to enter into a Global Compact to embrace core values in human rights, labor standards, and environmental practices. The International Chamber of Commerce, which has taken upon itself the role of the “voice of business” at the UN, responded in July 1999 in a meeting with Annan that the business community had taken up this challenge.

211

[Page 212]T HE ELEM WORLD

The Bahá’í writings state that the coming of Baha’u’llah has imbued humanity with “a new and regenerating Spirit” that “is manifesting itself with varying degrees of intensity through the efforts consciously displayed by His avowed supporters and indirectly through certain humanitarian organizations.”18 Given the impending “organic change in the structure of present-day society,”19 it is not surprising to see in the NGO codes indications of things to come and striking conceptual parallels to Bahá’í teachings. It is also instructive to explore how the codes and the Bahá’í teachings differ, focusing the analysis on the principle of unity.

Unity F irst

The one word that stands most closely associated with the Bahá’í Faith, its beliefs, principles, and institutions, is unity. The Bahá’í Faith proclaims that there is one God, that all religions are one in essence, and that humanity is one people. As Shoghi Effendi wrote in 1931:

Let there be no mistake. The principle of the Oneness of Mankind—the pivot round which all the teachings of Baha’u’llah revolve—is no mere outburst of ignorant emotionalism or an expression of vague and pious hope. Its appeal is not to be merely identified with a reawakening of the spirit of brotherhood and good-will among men, nor does it aim solely at the fostering of harmonious cooperation among individual peoples and nations. Its implications are deeper, its claims greater than any which the Prophets of old were allowed to advance. Its message is applicable not only to the individual, but concerns itself primarily with the nature of those essential relationships that must bind all the states and nations as members of one human family. It does not constitute merely the enunciation of an ideal, but stands inseparably associated with an institution adequate to embody its truth, demonstrate its validity, and perpetuate its influence. It implies an organic change in the structure of present-day society, a change such as the world has not yet experienced.

18. Shoghi Effendi, World Order OfBahd ’u 7165/1, p. 19. 19. World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 43. 20. World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 42—43.

212

[Page 213]DIMENSIONS 9E UNITY

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, Baha’u’llah wrote, “So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth. . .This goal excelleth every other goal, and this aspiration is the monarch of all aspirations.”21 Most who promote peace would agree that unity in some form is the goal towards which humanity is striving. But Baha’u’llah also made this startling declaration: “The well-being of mankind, its peace and security are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established.”22 How can unity be both the precondition and the goal?

The Universal House of J ustice has written that the “oneness of mankind. . .is at once the operating principle and ultimate goal” of the Faith of Baha’u’llah.23 In Who IS Writing the F uture? , the Bahá’í International Community wrote that one of the most deeply entrenched, unexamined assumptions of the twentieth century is that

unity is a distant, almost unattainable ideal to be addressed only after a host of political conflicts have been somehow resolved, material needs somehow satisfied, and injustices somehow corrected. The opposite, Baha’u’llah asserts, is the case. The primary disease that afflicts society and generates the ills that cripple it, He says, is the disunity of a human race that is distinguished by its capacity for collaboration and whose progress to date has depended on the extent to which unified action has, at various times and in various societies, been achieved.24

Unity, then, is the primary quality that must Characterize any successful effort to overcome political. conflict, material need, injustice, and other ills of society. Any collective effort at any level, from the family through international affairs, must be grounded in unity as its “operating principle” if the effort is to contribute to the healing of the “primary disease that afflicts society and generates the ills that cripple it.”

21. Cited in World Order ofBahd’u ’lláh, p. 203.

22. Cited in World Order OfBa/ui ’u ’lláh, p. 203.

23. Universal House of Justice, Letter to the Bahá’ís of the World, October 20, 1983, reprinted in Helen Hornby (ed.), Lights oquia’ance, 4th rev. ed. (New Delhi: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1996), #1848, pp. 545—46.

24. Who Is Writing the Future?, p. 7.

213

[Page 214]TiiE Bahá’í WORLD

Dimensions of Unity

To the extent that collaborative action in the past has led to lasting human progress, at least some degree of one or more of the following dimensions of unity has been present:

- Knowledge of unity: participants know that they are somehow connected, interdependent, or sharing a fate.

° Feeling ofunity: participants feel unified on some level due to group identification (family, ethnicity, race, religion, nationality, gender, eta), common interests, geography, the presence of other dimensions of unity in the group, or other Circumstances.

° Ethical unity: participants share their most fundamental values (ethical, moral, spiritual).

° Unity ofpurpose: participants are agreed on the purpose of their joint effort.

° Unity of methods: participants subscribe to common methods for making decisions and resolving conflict.

° Organizational unity: participants are joined in some agreedupon institutional structure.

All of these dimensions of unity are interrelated, but they are also distinct from each other and one can exist without another. It is instructive to look again at the NGO codes with this framework in mind.

An essential aim of the codes is to create or strengthen the basis for unified, collective action, not only by the adopting NGOs themselves but by the communities and other groups and institutions with which they work. A Bahá’í View would suggest that the most meaningful measure of the value of the NGO codes is the extent to which they effectively promote these dimensions of unity. They are all evident to some extent.

Organizational unity within the existing NGO networks gives the member groups the institutional framework within which to create the codes. Unity of purpose and unity of methods are eVident in the codes’ nearly unanimous espousal of certain essential goals for development and a participatory approach, broad as these may be. The essentials of a rudimentary ethical unity are

214

[Page 215]DIMENSIQNS 9E UNITY

also apparent, necessarily beginning with primary human Virtues: honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, and respect for others who are different. The value system is dominated by concern for the wellbeing of those most in need.

The feeling of unity is strong within, and sometimes among, certain NGOs, due to the deep sense of shared commitment to a noble purpose, which is at once the source of strength and energy of effective NGOs and which often distinguishes them from other sectors or groups in society. Some Civil society organizations have had remarkable suocess—relative to typical experience in our fractured world—in overcoming traditional barriers between groups in societies through their focus on a shared purpose that transcends those differences. Feelings of unity derived from common purpose may also have a longer term effect in wearing down prejudice and creating habits of cooperation across barriers.

As for knowledge of unity, the codes’ injunctions to respect other cultures and traditions, to work on a basis of partnership rather than paternalism, and to present realistic but not pitying or prejudicial images of those in need all support a world View in which every individual and group is to be respected, valued, and treated as an equal. This approach is generally within the stream of the “multiculturalism” movement, which consists of developing personal Character traits, social values, and human relations that reflect the idea of globalism and can bridge gaps between cultures. Again, given the experience of our fractured world, this is a tremendous stride towards creating a climate of mutual tolerance and respect.

The potential for extending all of these dimensions of unity is evident in the codes, as NGOs carry out their work in countless communities and endeavor to influence governmental policies. Development work that does not promote unity within families and communities, among social groups and organizations, or across cultural and national lines, may temporarily ameliorate some of the suffering but will not be able to heal the “primary disease that afflicts society and generates the ills that cripple it.” Future generations will owe a great debt of gratitude to those who now have grasped this reality and are struggling to transcend prejudice, hatred, and suspicion.

215

[Page 216]THE Bahá’í WORLD

Another observation that can be made in looking at the NGO codes in light of Bahá’í principles is that the world is “backing into” the dimension of unity that the Bahá’í Faith places before all else: consciousness of the oneness of humanity. States and peoples are willingly 0r unwillingly being drawn into ever—increasing contact, with resulting conflict or cooperation, by the forces of environmental interdependence, technological progress, economic globalization, and armed threats. Isolation is no longer an option. Excessive competition is destructive to all, and the effects of severe conflict cannot be contained. One need not be especially prescient to realize that people need to get along with each other on both a domestic and a global scale, but this is not possible if a group maintains its superiority to others, its inherent right to special privileges, or its entitlement to exercise disproportionate 0r unaccountable authority. Because the fate of each nation and group is intertwined with that of all others and with the fate of humanity as a whole, initiatives like multiculturalism, world citizenship movements, people-to-people diplomacy, and interfaith dialogues have emerged that generally deserve high praise and broad support and participation.

From a Bahá’í point of View, these initiatives must culminate in a still more all-encompassing and transforming conviction in the oneness of humanity, as described above by Shoghi Effendi.25 While the Bahá’í community itself can as yet only partially grasp the implications of this principle, all of its efforts are directed towards understanding it, living it, and building institutions to embody it.

“The bedrock of a strategy,” writes the Bahá’í International Community in The Prosperity ofHumankind, “that can engage the world’s population in assuming responsibility for its collective destiny must be the consciousness of the oneness of humankind.” The statement continues:

Deceptively simple in popular discourse, the concept that humanity constitutes a single people presents fundamental Challenges to the way that most of the institutions of contemporary society carry out their functions. Whether in the form

25. See quotation in text at note 20 above.

216

[Page 217]DIMENSIONS o___§ UNITY

of the adversarial structure of civil government, the advocacy principle informing most of civil law, a glorification of the struggle between classes and other social groups, or the competitive spirit dominating so much of modern life, conflict is accepted as the mainspring of human interaction. It represents yet another expression in social organization of the materialistio interpretation of life that has grogressively consolidated itself over the past two centuries.2

Consciousness of the oneness of humanity is the only basis for unity that cannot itself generate disunity. Many forms of the dimensions of unity mentioned above—in particular, unity based on group identifieation—oan divide people, creating “us” and “them,” “self" and “other.” Some groups and organizations even find their primary identity in defining themselves in opposition to others. It is only by recognizing and living the oneness of humanity that all divisions and all prejudices can be permanently obliterated.

Moreover, the “watchword” of the law of Baha’u’llah is “unity in diversity,”27 which “distinguishes unity from homogeneity or uniformity.”28 While an individual can no more live apart from humanity than a cell can from the body, cells are differentiated, and it is their distinction that enables the body as a Whole to become something transcending a collection of parts. This is the organic unity of humankind.

The Bahd ’iApproach Because it incorporates all the dimensions of unity discussed earlier, the Bahá’í community provides an unusually developed model of unity from the grassroots to the global level. The Bahá’ís’ world-wide unity in all the essential dimensions makes their community a powerful society-building force that addresses the outer and inner challenges posed by the crumbling nation-state system.

Bahá’ís understand that humanity’s great task is to transform by stages the separate nations and peoples of the earth into an organically and spiritually unified world. But While Bahá’ís share many

26. Prosperity OfHumankind, p. 6. 27. Shoghi Effendi, World Order ofBahci ’u 716%, p. 42. 28. Prosperity OfHumankina’, p. 7.

217

[Page 218]TEE BAHA’I WORLD

goals and principles with other people striving to advance society, the Bahá’í approach to realizing these goals stands in contrast to their approaches, which start from some point within the increasingly anarchic state system and attempt to weld disparate interests together. While the work of these groups is highly laudable, internal and inter-group clashes often occur over methods, organization, procedures, values, and purposes because the participants are not fully unified in essentials.

In contrast, the Bahá’í community’s approach begins from a state of internal unity and seeks, by developing its understanding of the Bahá’í message and administrative order, to extend the range and strengthen the bonds of the unity that characterizes it. In terms of the dimensions of unity listed previously, the Bahá’ís’ knowledge of unity stems from their shared belief in Bahá’u’lláh and His Vision of world unity.29 Their feeling of unity flows from this belief and Vision but also, at the most profound personal level, from nurturing a love for each person as a spiritual creation and expression of God’s love for us all. Their ethical unity results from following the universal values enshrined in Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings. Their unity of purpose comes from their common plan of development for the global Bahá’í community, Which each local Bahá’í community helps construct and carry out. Their unity of method, Which allows them to act in concert to realize their Vision and plan, originates from the same fundamental principles of action and decision making found in every Bahá’í community. The source of their organizational unity is the global Bahá’í administrative order. Thus, the Bahá’í community’s precondition for action is an established internal unity, its operations are united and unifying, and its goal is a greater, more developed unity.

The difference between approaches that do not put unity first and the Bahá’í approach is analogous to the difference between making a necklace by placing pearls in a row and attempting to string a thread through them, or stringing the pearls one by one

29. Wendy Heller, in her article “Covenant and the F oundations of Civil Society” (The Bahá’í World 1995—96, pp. 185—222) explains the historical and potential role of the religious covenant in organizing “civil society,” there meaning non-religious social institutions.

218

[Page 219]DIMENSIONS O_F UNITY

along the thread. While the goal and final product of each approach is the same, the organization of the two efforts to complete the necklace is vastly different. The first method engenders conflict and frustration and will likely fail, while the second will certainly end in success.

Global unity must be built in every area in which the existing nation state system is disintegrating. Shoghi Effendi stated that in order to stem the anarchy resulting from the breakdown of the state system, the oneness and wholeness of human relationships must be established. These relations, being a “fundamental principle of life,” create a new dynamic in all areas of social life. Such a dynamic motivates a broadbased rebuilding of civil society’s character—fomnng institutions in such a way that they will embody the oneness of humanity, the pivot of all Baha’u’llah’s teachings.3O

These relationships are not new. Social advances never occur in the absence of unity, and previous societies obviously valued some form of oneness and wholeness in their relationships. The oneness of human relationships, arising out of the urge of human beings to form groups, unifies individuals in a purposeful collective social experience. The wholeness of human relations allows full play to humanity’s creative drive and fosters expression of the entire range of human potentialities, because these relations develop in response to the challenges of novel situations. While there are now and have been relationships within all societies that meet these definitions, today, for the first time, the scale is global.

What, then, would the oneness and wholeness of human relationships look like and how would they operate on a global scale? Though no complete answer to this question can be given, certain aspects of these relations can be understood because they are already functioning embryonically within the social order established by Baha’u’llah.

30. “The Bahá’í Faith upholds the unity of God, recognizes the unity of His Prophets, and inculcates the principle of the oneness and wholeness of the entire human race.” Shoghi Effendi, from his statement prepared for presentation t0 the United Nations Special Palestine Committee in 1947, cited in The Bahá’í World 1992—93, p. 294.

219

[Page 220]—7.7_.__7 ,7 7 777777 7 7 777 7,_7_7r 77 77 7 -7—7 7.7 7 77%7 77.97777 7 7 _77‘77

T HE BAHM WORLD

The Emergent Bahá’í' Model At the foundation of the Bahá’í administrative order are the stable, unchanging forms of the Local Spiritual Assembly, elected everywhere by the same direct method, and the Bahá’í Nineteen Day Feast, which is the common institution of Bahá’ís around the globe. National Spiritual Assemblies and the Universal House of Justice are elected by indirect representation. Members of the appointed institutions—the Continental Boards of Counsellors and Auxiliary Board members—serve in their individual capacities as advisors to Bahá’í communities and to the elected institutions at every level, fulfilling a critical role in the moral education and development of the community as a whole. Universality of values within this system (e.g., absence of prejudice, equality of the sexes, truthfulness, trustworthiness) and purposes (e.g., spiritual development, unity of all human beings, justice) are essential elements of each part of this order and its functioning, and the touchstone of its stability and simplicity. Yet, because each level of the order has its own sphere of jurisdiction and individuality, it can also continually modify its secondary aspects to respond innovatively to change. Besides these formal institutions of the Bahá’í administrative order,31 a number of experiments in social organization, such as social and economic development projects, are being organized by Bahá’ís on the local, national, and international levels to serve the needs of their larger communities. Yet this diverse growth occurs within what the Universal House of Justice calls “a single social organism, representative of the diversity of the human family, conducting its affairs through a system of commonly accepted consultative principles.”32 The diversification that results from experimentation within social structures shows the dynamic aspect of oneness and wholeness. The Bahá’í community is one example of this process.33 But there is more to the concept.

31. While these are not the only institutions of the Bahá’í administrative order, others such as the annual Convention and the Bahá’í fund are subsidiary to our discussion.

32. Promise of World Peace, p. 19.

33. The work of rebuilding civil society, particularly as exemplified in the rise of NGOs, can be seen to complement the efforts of the Bahá’í community.

220

[Page 221]D IMENSIQNS O_F UNITY

Creating the oneness and wholeness of human relations marks, historically, the end of an era when separate societies evolved more or less independently of each other, and the dawn of a global society that will advance as one unit. The oneness and wholeness of human relations means that all human beings will be incorporated within a single framework of social relationships, without sacrificing expression of the diversity of cultural influences. Thus, the primary identity of every individual will be as a member of the human race, and all cultural, national, ethnic and racial identities will be subordinated t0 and derive their meaning from this. The Bahá’í administrative order exemplifies this aspect of the oneness and wholeness of human relationships since it is part of the world order of Baha’u’llah, which “encompasses all units of human society; integrates the spiritual, administrative and social processes of life; and canalizes human expression in its varied forms towards the construction of a new civilization.”34

For example, the Bahá’í Nineteen Day F east “may well be seen in its unique combination of modes as the culmination of a great historic process in which primary elements of community lifeacts of worship, of festivity, and other forms of togetheness—over vast stretches of time have achieved a glorious convergence. The Nineteen Day F east represents a new stage in this enlightened age to which the basic expression of community life has evolved.”35

Another primary element of these relations, the incorporation of spiritual reality into social relations, is conspicuous by its decline in culture everywhere. Relationships without a spiritual foundation developed by acts of prayer and meditation as expressions of devotion to and worship of a Sacred Reality cannot nurture the whole human being. If human relations are truly whole, the inner world of individual searching for spiritual transcendence, the collective human world of social interaction, and the natural world of the body must all be found in them.

At the basic level of Bahá’í society, the Bahá’í Feast, with its devotional, administrative and social components, embraces all of

34. Compilation 0n the Nineteen Day F east, compiled by the Universal House of Justice (Thornhill, Ontario: Bahá’í Canada Publications, 1990), p. 1. 35. The Nineteen Day F east, p. 2.

221

[Page 222]T1113 BALM WORLD

these worlds. Likewise, the Local Spiritual Assembly, operating as the fundamental unit of the Bahá’í administration, is a focal center of the community’s spiritual, social, and material activity.

Since the relationship between the individual and society is a reciprocal one, entering into social institutions that embrace the spiritual, social and material worlds of human existence entails an enlargement of individual social responsibilities. F ew societies today aside from the Bahá’í community give individuals so much responsibility or educate them in the requirements of participation in these new responsibilities. It is their “divine” institutions that make the Bahá’ís an organized moral force. The Feast, for example, because of its threefold purpose and through the process of community consultation,

links the individual to the collective processes by which a society is built or restored. . .the Feast is an arena of democracy at the very root of society, where the Local Spiritual Assembly and the members of the community meet on common ground, where individuals are free to offer their gifts of thought, whether as new ideas or constructive criticism, to the building processes of an advancing civilization. Thus it can be seen that aside from its spiritual significance, the common institution of the people combines an array of elemental social disciplines which educate its participants in the essentials of responsible citizenship.36

Fuelling these institutions to function effectively as communitybuilders in every part of the world are three closely related and unifying operative principles of unity: the right of every individual to an unfettered search for truth; consultation on any and all problems; and universal participation.

While the independent search for tmth implies the right of each person to his or her own opinion based on that search, these differences must be harmonized if unity of perception, purpose and action is to be achieved. Thus, “[c]0nsu1tation, frank and unfettered, is the bedrock of this unique Order.”37 But consultation is not just a

36. The Nineteen Day Feast, p.3.

37. Shoghi Effendi, cited in Consultation: A C ompilation, in The C ompz‘lation ofCompilations: Prepared by the Universal House of Justice 1963—1990 (Mona Vale: Bahá’í Publications Australia, 1991), Vol. 1, #192.

222

[Page 223]

DIMENSIONS QE UNITY

forum for exchanging thought and opinion, facts and ideas; it is both a means to and a form of decision making.

As a means of decision making, consultation brings different individual perspectives together in a spirit of collective search to discover the whole truth in any situation. The consultative environment is created Within an atmosphere of mutual trust and regard on the part of the participants, regardless of their age and experience. In true consultation there are no individual leaders and private interests, because the well-being of everyone is the real object of discussion. With open discussion welcomed, people can more easily agree on the true nature of any problem, the desired solution, and the approach to this end. Hence the Bahá’í writings state that “the shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the Clash of differing opinions.”3’8 In full and frank consultation, Which is nevertheless courteous in tone and spirit, individuals find their common mind, united upon the truth. Thus, Consultation is a process of collective transformation, turning individual insights and perceptions into the common possession of all.

In short, the consultative process harrnonizes the rights of individuals to express their opinions and the requirements of the collectivity for the stability of a working consensus. It brings out the cooperative side of human nature, yet does not sacrifice individuality in the process. Baha’u’llah states: “No power can exist except through unity. No welfare and no well-being can be attained except through consultation,” and “Consultation bestoweth greater awareness and transmuteth conjecture into certitude. It is a shining light which, in a dark world, leadeth the way and guideth.”39

The intellectual dynamics of coming to an understanding and agreement about truth have profound social effects within Bahá’í communities. The process of consultation produces people with an understanding of public tasks and facilitates their involvement in larger public affairs because it develops the skills required to participate in solving social problems. Moreover, since each local Bahá’í community sees itself as one part of the world order of

38. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, cited in Shoghi Effendi, Bahá’í Administration (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1953), p. 21. 39. Baha’u’llah, Cited in Consultation.“ A Compilation, Vol. 1, #167, p. 168.

223

[Page 224]

THE BAHM WORLD

Baha’u’llah and applies to the local situation His universal ethical and social principles, the work of all communities easily interconnects, thereby developing the collective capacity to solve problems beyond the local level as well.

The third principle, universal participation, implies that every individual, regardless of age, social position, educational or family background, has a right to contribute whatever he or she can to the community’s development, while for its part the community has the obligation to create opportunities for individuals to contribute. It also implies that every individual has a spiritual and moral obligation to be of service to the community, for the spiritual strength of any community is measured by the breadth of participation in the services performed within it.

The last point to be made about the Bahá’í model of the oneness and wholeness of human relationships is its global integration. Organizational and spiritual unity is achieved structurally and purposively because everywhere in the world, at the local, national and international levels of Bahá’í society, the interconnected institutions Of the Bahá’í social order function according to like practices, are constituted by the same set of procedures and make and communicate decisions through similar channels. Like every cell and organ of the human body, every Bahá’í institution is itself a ground plan of the complete order. This unity of structure and harmony of function in Bahá’í social institutions both enable and define new kinds of collective action. F mm the local through the regional and national to the global levels of organization, there is a transfer, accumulation and reorganization of energy, making an increasingly powerful moral force for unity that seeks to find greater social expression, while from the global Bahá’í institutions flow the coordinating vision, the inspired guidance and detailed plans that link and combine every Bahá’í purpose with every other.

In light of this organizational structure and purpose, Shoghi Effendi describes how the Bahá’í community’s “world—embracing, continually consolidating activities constitute the one integrating process in a world whose institutions, secular as well as religious, are for the most part dissolving.”40 This community is weaving an orderly

40. Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 194.

224

[Page 225]

DIMENSIONS Qf UNITY

world polity that “constitutes the one hope for a stricken society.”41

Conclusion

More than one hundred years ago, Baha’u’llah wrote that the “prevailing order appeareth to be lamentably defective.”42 Today this has become obvious. The defects and limitations of the nationstate system are generating ethical and structural challenges to governance and spawning numerous attempts to either repair the rifts or create a new order.

The next stage in the collective social evolution of humanity is world unity—as yet only a dimly foreseen system of governance in which diversity is protected and valued, centralization is kept to the necessary minimum, and human loyalties and identities are world-embraeing. To move in that direction from our present anarchic nation-state system, current governments need to evolve upwards into larger functional structures, downwards into stronger association with the public, and inwards by shifting their ethical foundation to one that can support global unity. Groups of citizens dedicated to promoting human well-being are actively responding to these needs and contributing immensely to both structural and ethical transformation. Networks of NGOs involved in this work around the world have matured to the point of being able to agree on codes of conduct articulating shared goals, values, operating principles, and ethics. The striking similarities among these codes and the global outlook and perspective they embrace are promising signs of a new global order struggling to be born.

Recently, the positive and well-publicized contributions of civil society to better governance have generated tremendous enthusiasm for the potential of NGOs to remedy the ills of humanity in the face of state governments’ incapacity and too-narrow perspective. This confidence in civil society should not, as some cynies say, be regarded as a passing fad, but neither should it be espoused without deep consideration of the reasons for non-governmental success to date. Establishing unity is the prerequisite to solving humanity’s problems at any level, and the more profound and encompassing

41. World Order ofBahd ’11 716%, pp. 194—95. 42. Baha’u’llah, Gleanings, p. 216.

225

[Page 226]J M- A J. I LiLfiu L1,; 1 J_A_1%J_,L..L-LLU_M MLWIMWA LLJL .5. 1

THE Bahá’í WORLD

the unity, the more successful any effort for human progress. This is the fundamental standard by which to evaluate the worth and potential of modern social movements.

Organizations of civil society will succeed in their efforts to the extent that they create unity among diverse participants in order to promote the public good. Since the concept of unity is susceptible to so many understandings, the six dimensions of unity outlined in this essay are offered as a way to make the idea more tangible and to identify degrees and types of unity relevant to building stable and just social structures. Ultimately, it is the consciousness of the reality of the oneness of humankind that can inform the social institutions and pattems of behavior necessary for a new global order. In contrast, efforts that lack an encompassing framework of unity threaten to dissolve into the same Chaos that characterizes the nation-state system. Evaluating the NGO codes of conduct from this perspective shows that, to their great credit, the adopting organizations have generally committed themselves to achieving broader and more inclusive levels of unity than exist otherwise in their societies.

Examined from the same standpoint, the experience of the worldwide Bahá’í community shows that its teachings require and are in fact inspiring an unparalleled global system, unified in all of its essential aspects, both structural and ethical. Each local, or national, Bahá’í community is not an independent social entity with its own self—defined code of conduct, attempting to link with others who have undergone a similar process of development. Each Bahá’í community sees itself, and identifies its essential nature, as constituting one part of the collective reality of the world order of Baha’u’llah through the local application of the universal ethical, social and organizational principles of the Bahá’í teachings. The unifying power of Baha’u’llah’s principles enables the Bahá’í community to exhibit perhaps a greater diversity than any other group in the world.43 It demonstrates a new paradigm of unity that connects inner spiritual reality with outer social relations and

43. Bahá’ís live in more than 127,000 localities worldwide, and include members of over 2,000 tribes, races, and ethnic groups. See pp. 317—20 of this volume for complete statistical information.

226

[Page 227]DIMENSIONS O_F UNITY

harmonizes the purposes of the individual with those of the community. Stretching from the grassroots t0 the global level, the Bahá’í order provides a powerful model of the kind of social structure and action required to build a new global order upon a comprehensive ethical foundation.

It is due largely to this tight link between the local and the global that individual Bahá’ís put such priority on attending Local Spiritual Assembly meetings and the Nineteen Day F east, that they study the Bahá’í writings together, that they are committed to applying Bahá’í consultation in all community endeavors, and that they reach out to the community at large to collaborate in efforts to promote gender equality and to overcome racism. They know that their efforts to build and strengthen the Bahá’í administrative institutions and to live according to their ethical principles are directly related to writing humanity’s future.

The work of Bahá’í individuals and communities is still a quiet drama, operating at the level of essentials, but it is so indispensable that the Universal House of J ustice has stated: “A Bahá’í community which is consistent in its fundamental life-giving, life-sustaining activities will. . .exert irresistible influence, will set a new course in human evolution.”44 Bahá’ís seek opportunities both to learn from and to teach others in this great endeavor.

44. The Universal House of Justice, 1984 Riḍván Message to the Bahá’ís of North America.

227