[Imc-finance] RE: Proposals A & B -- the final lap

[hoity toity]

To the Members of the IMC Global Finance List--

It is with a great deal of reservation that I am writing this, as I have
managed to swallow my opinions and remain for so long outside of the
discussion and debate.  However, I feel that before the final proposals
are passed, I must at least voice my opinion concerning this venture.
These are opinions I have held since the beginning of this process, but
have refrained from committing them to the list firstly because when the
discussion was first getting started I was embroiled in personal issues
locally and could not extend myself into the ‘global’ realm at that time,
and secondly because St. Louis IMC did not come to consensus around my
proposal and I did not want to enter the discussion as an individual
rather than as a representative of our group.
Since that time I have logged in occasionally and viewed the progression
of the discussion and the decision-making process.  I have been very
impressed by that process and how well it has worked and how able we, as a
network of individuals and groups around the globe, have been at working
through a process in this very tricky medium.
However, from the beginning I have been very concerned by the aim and
intention of this particular discussion as I feel that it cuts to the core
of what our global network is and should be.  There are several aspects of
what is being decided here that I find counter to the ideals I have for
the global network of autonomous INDEPENDENT media Centers.
First, it is one of several moves to CENTRALISE our network.    One of the
most prevalent responsibilities of most governing structures is to
determine how to spend and allocate the group’s money.  In more democratic
governing structures, this is determined by a group of representatives for
the sake of the whole.  Unlike most governing structures, we as an IMC
network have no safeguards written in for how a representative is chosen
by their local IMC, nor for how long they may serve, etc.  It is assumed
that they are chosen by consensus and that each group will make their
decisions via consensus, as will this working group.  However, there is at
present no way of verifying this, or really knowing how well a local
representative is serving or representing hir local IMC.  Also, within the
IMC network some degree of hierarchy is created by a few factors, among
them: knowledge of the system, connection to other individuals and groups
in the system, tenure of involvement, and language of the majority.    My
point is not that we should make a detailed plan to counter-act these
trends but to point out that they exist and are inherent in the system we
are dealing with (i.e. a high-tech medium in which keeping up with global
issues generally requires more free time, technical access and
proficiency, and familiarity with the system and language of exchange than
keeping up with local issues).  In fact, we as a network have put in place
some very good measures to counter-act some of these.  But, how well have
we examined the ways in which a centralization of this magnitude will
effect our network in regards to these inherent inequities?
I believe the IMC’s with the greatest amount of existing wealth in terms
of technical hardware, proficiency, and local stability will naturally be
more able to partake in online decision making and will therefor have more
of an ability to influence the decision making process.  Also, most
nations have only one IMC, whereas the United States has many.  Does this
not cause an imbalance in the decision making process as well?
It is my belief that the global network serves the local IMCs the most as
a hub of information and resource exchange among and between individual
IMCs, rather than as anything resembling a unified, governing body.  I
believe the more decentralized we are the more we empower our local
communities toward making change where it matters most--locally. This is
not to say that global awareness is not important, but that the focus for
most people is on the locality of our daily lives, which will set the
precedent for what we can and cannot exert our energies toward.
Had we decided to disburse global funds equally among existing, local
IMC’s after a certain quantity had accrued, I feel that we would have been
making a truly radical step away from a mere shadow imitation of
centralized, hierarchical power structures and towards greater autonomy
and decentralization.  The more decentralized we keep our resources, the
less able any one IMC or individual can hold sway over how we allocate
those resources or how our local IMCs operate.  IMC proposals for
financial aid could still have been made to a central list, but it would
be up to individual IMCs--their priorities and their decision-making
groups--to individually decide whether to answer the call, while ensuring
the resources in question were safely in the hands of the local groups
making those decisions.  It is my belief that disbursing funds as
equitably as possible among active IMCs would help counter-balance the
inherent hierarchies and inequities in our global-decision making process.
So anyway, I apologize for putting this ‘out there’ so late in the
process.  I hope that people on this list have seriously examined for
themselves the purpose they want the global network to serve, whether they
feel comfortable with systems that mirror centralized governing bodies,
etc.  Most governments tend to keep the resources from the people, and
then decide how to use those resources with some input from the people. 
Wouldn’t it be a radical step in the right direction to distribute the
resources directly to the people BEFORE asking the people how they want
their resources used?
Sincerely,

Matthew B. (writing as an individual only)
St. Louis IMC