The Power of the Petition

Your signature is powerful. And it is becoming more so in this digital world.

It is clear that the concept and recognition of democracy is spreading rapidly across the world. This global spread of democracy, as well as the huge reach of the internet has transformed not only way governments operate, but as well how they stay accountable to their citizens.

And much of this has been aided by the humble petition. This was especially bought to my knowledge when just a couple of days ago a Melbourne hotel was pushed to, and ended up cancelling its hosting of one of its shows due to significant community backlash, and a 5000-strong online petition. Earlier this year, the Biennale of Sydney was forced to drop one of its founding sponsors, Transfield, because of artist and community backlash, backed by a multi-signed open letter. A few years ago, then 14 year old Julia Bluhmr gathered an army of 300 00+ signatures to stop Seventeen magazine in the US from airbrushing its models. And it worked.

Who knew a simple signature could mean so much? It is cases like this, whereby the whole world unites towards a single action, achieving a single goal, that I believe really highlights the essence of global citizenship.

AIESEC

So this semester, I joined at university this organisation called AIESEC. AIESEC is a global, youth-driven overseas exchange organisation, and has thousands of chapters across over 120 countries worldwide. AIESEC operates on the principle of leadership and personal development that comes about as a result of overseas experiences. Sound familiar?

To me, AIESEC is an organisation that really epitomises the notion of global citizenship. They call their volunteering program Global Citizen, like what's even!! Not only do they value the importance of a global perspective and outlook on individuals, but they aim to unite individuals all across the world through a single mission and desire. And it's very easy to see the effect and new global perspective that an overseas experience has on our exchange participants.

Global Citizenship in Art

How do you recognise global citizenship in art? 

The other day, I was on the Facebook page of one of Sydney's biggest annual arts festivals. The Festival has increasingly been presenting more and more international acts as part of its Festival program, however it seems that the strongest complaints have been from those who do not believe the Festival is valuing Australian artists to their full capacity.

Where do you draw the line with this (hehe)?

More and more so there is an emphasis in the arts industry, especially with music, for consumers to value local, rather than international talent. Of course its unfair to disregard local talent in favour of international acts. To me global citizenship requires a recognition of both the local and global context that one lives and operates in. At the same time, showing disregard to the international perspective presented from overseas talent, no matter whether its from America or Africa, ultimately cocoons Australia from the global world. How many of us actually listen only to Aussie music? And from a global citizenship perspective, is that necessarily a bad thing?

Objectively, you can't deny that the American art scene has a disproportionate amount of globally-infiltrating output compared to any where else in the world. A sustainable career in America is considered an epitome of success. And this is of course because America is a dominant global power, with the ability and resource capacities to enter into the homes of many people around the world, where smaller countries cannot do so. 

 Affirmative action already occurs in many countries, including Australia, to support local talent, but more importantly to facilitate a global career. The balance will always exist in supporting either the local or the global industry.

What Makes a Company Global??

Just looking through official Global Citizenship Reports, produced by big companies, such as HP, Mattel and IKEA, what is really clear to see is that all these companies span their operations across multiple borders. For them, it is almost an obligation and a necessity to formally recognise global citizenship, in order to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of their workforce and operations.These are companies have strong stakeholder engagement, and strong public scrutiny, all over the world.

Which brings forth the point that, does not having an international focus in a company's strategic direction make them a poor global citizen, or not one at all? Were we as employees less of a global citizen in the past, due to the historic inaccessibility of other nations. I think we as individuals too readily accept and associate global citizenship with an an overseas presence and knowledge. In this regard, we belive that the more you travel, the more facts you know about a country, the better global citizen you are.

Obviously this is very important, but to me global citizenship is not that. It is about recognising that you operate in your national context, but as well as part of a greater global community, and as such have relevant accountability. I believe you can live in the same small farm town for your whole life, and still be a global citizen, if you have the right mindset. It's not the physical actions that make it count :)

Climate Change

One of the key criticisms that many developing countries have had to face in the modern, globalised world is that of resulting environmental destruction and ecological damage from rapid industrialisation.

Climate change is arguably on of the most globally contentious issues facing our world right now. It is clear that climate change is directly affecting and hindering the traditional lifestyles of many developing nations, and that in itself this requires a significant global effort to combat. Coastal living areas  all over the world are being forced further and further inland because of rising water levels. However, at the same time, it is potential to see a continuous push for neo-loberal trade liberalisation and rapid industrialisation, in order to maintain economic strength in the global economy.


I find it interesting to see how quickly and readily countries are willing to absolve their national responsibility towards this. Many developing countries, despite being major pollutants, have attempted to argue an unfair pressure placed on developing countries to adopt more sustainable development initiatives, especially when the West have been able to industrialise largely free of any environmnetal or other constraints.

Although the argument is potentially valid, it is clear that the effect of climate change and environmental destruction affect everyone all over the world. Just earlier this year, Taukelau, a tiny little island off New Zealand wrote an open letter to Dean Dalla Valle, CEO of BHP Billiton, about the effects of their coal mining operations in Australia on the livelihoods of their people. It is very clear to see from this that environmental damage transcends borders, and as such requires a global

Human Rights

The United Nations defines human rights as those entitlements endowed upon an individual simply for the reason of them being a human being. Human rights are recognised as universal, alienable and indivisible, meaning they apply to all humans, they cannot be taken away, and they cannot be partially recognised. It could easily be assumed that it is these rights which in essence tie us together as humans.

However the concept of human rights, especially its principles of universality, have increasing global and national implications. Human rights are recognised differently across borders, depending on the cultural and socio-political institutions present in each nation, and there have been many claims that the perceivable 'forced recognition' of a determined doctrine of rights has the ability to undermine a nation's sovereignty and cultural independence.

I came across a chapter in a book written by Makau Matua, titled 'The Complexity of Universalism in Human Rights'. In this chapter, Matua argues that while the development of human rights cannot be traced back to one cultural power, the recognition of human rights aligns with the adoption of a liberal democracy, and that in itself is a cultural imposition upon many countries who are perceived as not having an agreeable governing system

Please don't get me wrong (please!), human rights are essential to our livelihoods and should be recognised at their maximum standard. However, I think it is increasingly important that we recognsie the complexity that many nations face when recognising and enforcing these doctrines in a modern and globalised context.

Democracy

'this nation should have a new birth of freedom...a government of the people, for the people and by the people'

It can safely be assumed that overall, there is a global consensus that democracy is the superior form of governance practised in our world today. However despite its perceived benefits, it is very clear that democracy is still unequally recognised throughout the world, and many countries are still reluctant to pursue a democratic government. Increasingly, it is being suggested that democracy in i

Democracy in itself is objectively a Western concept. It is believed that the first form of widespread democracy was practiced in Ancient Greece in around the 6^th Century BC, and since then spread across the world. Which perhaps gives traction to the notion of why there is an overwhelmingly unequal recognition of democratic rule between Western and Eastern countries.

It is increasingly being recognised by many developing countries that democracy is largely a push for the imposition of Western ideologies around the world. It is critical in this regard to note the huge inequality in widespread democratic governance that exists between the East and the West. This is still despite two of the three biggest democracies in the world, both India and Indonesia, both being Eastern countries.

Furthermore, it's interesting to note the global push for democracy has been framed by its fundamental recognition of justice and the rights of man (and woman!) The UN recognises democracy as a fundamental element of its Development Programme and embodies its values within its DHR. Despite this, the path that many countries now take toward recognising democracy can hardly be considered lawful, and in essence can be a contradiction of human rights even more so than not recognising democracy. In the same theme mentioned as before, two of the world's largest democracies still fae significant hindrances in developmental, ranking respectively 108^th and 135^th in the UN's Human Development Index.

The push for democracy is something very evident in the current protests of democracy occurring in Hong Kong. There is clearly a recognised cultural distinction in the demand for democracy, in that the push is largely fuelled by the younger population, who have arguably lived in a more globalised, and Western-influenced world. In the light of this, it is important to recognise the significant cultural and historical influences that play into the recognition of democracy within a nation.