Greetings of love and peace from Kuala Lumpur.
Today, Wednesday, the last full day of the consultation, was a roller coaster moving at top speed., The high points included deepening relationships with some remarkable people from different parts of this region of the world, particularly in the context of the Environment working group. Continuing our work from the draft we produced yesterday, we had about three hours of deepening discussion of the importance of a strong spiritual dimension in environmental work and in creating a new dominant paradigm for development that moves beyond the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) to a new standard that considers social, environmental and spiritual, as well as purely economic factors as the primary measure of successful development., In conversations that reminded me of the years creating URI’s Charter, we struggled to find language that was both specific and inclusive. For instance, could we speak about “the creation” and also include people for whom the concept of creation either has no meaning or runs counter to their understanding of the natural world? In the process of these struggles, we learned a great deal about each other that drew us closer together even as we understood more clearly how we see certain things differently.
We also heard from two highly place Malaysia politicians, both of whom spoke about the current emphasis on seeing this multi-cultural nation as “One Malaysia” as an effort to find and promote harmony in diversity. Acknowledging that Islam is the state religion, both stressed that all Malaysians are free to practice their religion, Muslim or not. I know from Amir that this focus is supported by many, but also faces resistance from conservatives. This is a key focus of governmental concern and interfaith work.
The day also had its tumultuous aspects as many good intentions were frustrated by an overly ambitious agenda, a too complex consultation design and, in the end, too little time for working groups to complete their assignments and provide the synthesizing group adequate input for the final consultation document. As a result, the final document was being developed before the key content of the working groups was finalized, leaving at least the Environment working group feeling that the draft of the final document didn’t come close to reflecting the work of the working group.
This experience has prompted some interesting questions for me, including these: Given the high level of technical knowledge of complex systems and operations that is needed to operate effectively at the high levels of international policy makers and given how divorced that knowledge often is from the wisdom and experience gained from living and working at the grassroots level, how do you forge effective, mutually respectful relationships between the grassroots and these high level decision makers? Given the ease with which highly technical policy makers dismiss as too soft considerations of the spiritual development of humanity, how do those of use who believe this is critical to humanity’s capacity to deal effectively with the multiple crises that face us make an effective case for our beliefs? I will carry these and other questions with me long after I leave Kuala Lumpur.
We have one last hour-and-a-half session in the morning and it seems unlikely that will be adequate to address the issues that are likely to arise at the first real opportunity to discuss the proposed final document. So, it will be interesting to see what sort of process the conveners have in mind to move forward beyond that session, based on the sense of the consultation.
I find the conveners and most of the people I have met here to be admirable, committed, inspiring and open. I pray we won’t get caught in the rush for closure and risk undoing much of the relationship building and deep reflection that has happened over these three days., I also pray this finds all of you well.
Love,
Charles
