Civil society activists are not always in a position to prepare adequately to respond. So it is difficult to connect and sustain civil society struggles, and instead it is so easy for the government to co-opt civil society actors. We believe that arts, pop culture and media remain a viable tool to engage with the youth and are keen to continue investing in them.
Te defines como pensadora y activista de los derechos de las personas migrantes. He tratado de poner el pensamiento al servicio del activismo en derechos humanos. En Argentina rige actualmente la Ley Esta norma, aprobada en , vino a reemplazar una ley de la dictadura y a saldar una larga deuda de la democracia. Finalmente, en , mediante un Decreto de Necesidad y Urgencia del Ejecutivo, se modificaron aspectos fundamentales de la ley de Migraciones. Es importante subrayar que estas organizaciones no son tan solo reactivas, sino que han tomado repetidamente la iniciativa para presentar propuestas innovadoras.
Esto contradice el principio de igualdad, y por lo tanto degrada a la democracia. As part of our report on the theme of reimagining democracy , we are interviewing civil society activists and leaders and their allies about their work to promote democratic practices and principles, the challenges they encounter and the victories they score. How do you see democracy - is it simply a system to elect governments, a means to solve other problems, or an end in itself? What are its essential components? The most successful examples of a functioning democracy are holistic: those encompassing the procedural and the substantive; the rule of law, formal institutions and informal processes; majorities and minorities; government, civil society and independent media; all genders; the political, the economic and the cultural; and at the national and local levels.
Democracy works best when people associate it with the advancement of the quality of life for all human beings; this means democracy is key to reaching the Sustainable Development Goals. We know that development is more likely to take hold if people are given a genuine say in their own governance, and a chance to share in the fruits of progress.
Conversely, democracy has a far better chance to thrive if people associate the democratic process with improvements in their daily lives; faced with bleak prospects and unresponsive governments, people are more likely to act on their own to reclaim their future. What are the main challenges for democracy around the world today?
Democracy is showing greater strain than at any time in decades.
- Five Fairy Tales for the Stage?
- Lesson Plan #2: Of Mice and Men.
- Manual positron cyber fx ?
- Married To Ben Frank 2 (When A Womans Fed Up).
- Rocío Rodríguez (roxxieta19) on Pinterest;
There is a crisis of faith. Globalisation and technological progress have lifted many out of poverty but have also contributed to inequality and instability. Fear is driving too many decisions. This is a danger to democracy. Democracy dies when no one works at keeping it alive.
This means tackling inequality, both economic and political. The interests of the very wealthy are often seen as taking precedence over the well-being of the middle class and working families. The poor and minorities feel excluded from decision-making. Governments - working together - need to spread more fairly the benefits of globalisation and ensure more equitable access to the levers of power. This means making our democracies more inclusive, by bringing the young, the poor and minorities into the political system. This means making our democracies more innovative and more responsive to new challenges, including through new technologies, while addressing the democratic challenges brought by new technologies themselves.
The answers do not lie in technology alone. But some answers do lie in better interaction and understanding between thinkers of technology and thinkers of democracy. We need to bridge this. We need futurists to think about a future that leaves no one behind. What impact will migration, climate change, or cybersecurity issues have on democracy in the next generation? How can a reinvigorated democracy help mitigate the challenges these issues create?
How are democratic processes impacted on by a transition from an internet to a brain-net, by an on-demand world of biological software upgrades, personalised medicine, and artificial intelligence? A better grasp of how we humans function - how we trust, learn and cooperate, but also how we hate, fight and manipulate - can help public policy-makers and citizens build better governance and better lives. What is the role of civil society in supporting democratisation and the consolidation of democracy, and how does UNDEF help civil society to play this role?
Ultimately, civil society is the oxygen of democracy. Speaking the truth takes two: one to talk, the other to hear. My work with UNDEF has brought home to me that a lively, open and candid discussion among men and women sitting under a tree can sometimes do more for participatory democracy than all the government summits and cabinet meetings in the world. When grassroots activists, community organisers, labour mobilisers, young people and women leaders come together at their own initiative, all with a stake in the outcome, they will persevere until all sides have a say.
This is why it is so important that someone in the capital is listening. A confident nation gives citizens a role in the development of their country; the most effective, stable and successful democracies are in fact those where a strong civil society works in partnership with the state, while holding it accountable at the same time. This is what creates a virtuous circle of rights and opportunity under the rule of law, underpinned by a vibrant civil society and an enterprising private sector, backed by efficient and accountable state institutions. For democracy to thrive, this inclusive discourse must never end.
Over the recent years, an alarming number of governments around the world are increasingly addressing civil society as a threat, not a partner. We need to make it better understood that to have a strong state and strong civil society at the same time is not only possible, but it is also desirable and necessary. What do the stable and prosperous states of the world have in common?
A combination of both. UNDEF works directly and resolutely with civil society, often in delicate collaboration with state and private-sector actors, but always independently of them. We use quiet diplomacy where needed to work in challenging environments. We support projects designed at the grassroots to address democratic deficits and denied freedoms. Our grant process begins and ends at the project site: we are demand-driven, not supply-oriented. Lessons learned from each project become a resource for all - participants, future applicants and other funders - as well as the larger community working to build more responsive and inclusive societies.
A self-sufficient and largely autonomous part of the UN system, funded entirely by voluntary contributions, UNDEF is uniquely positioned to build mutual understanding and cooperation between states and civil society at the local, national and global levels. Our strategy is to support local civil society and community leaders in addressing locally identified needs and priorities.
This allows us to target scarce resources where they are needed most. It is also an investment in the ability of local people to assert their rights and improve their well-being long after our involvement has ended. We keep our staff and operational budget very small by leveraging the expertise, services and extensive field presence of partners from the broader UN system who provide expert advice and monitoring.
We aim to advance transparency and accountability, promote the rule of law and encourage responsive and inclusive government, while always supporting local ownership and domestic engagement, and explicitly promoting gender equality. As independent third-party evaluators have found, UNDEF is not beholden to the vision, doctrine, or geostrategic interests of any member state, commercial entity, or philanthropic institution.
Our evaluation process and lessons learned database advance accountability not only to donors, but also to partners and participants. We answer to project participants and to a governance structure unlike any in the field of democracy support. Our Advisory Board, which provides policy guidance and reviews project proposals, brings together a range of stakeholders, not only from governments - of countries that have made the largest financial contributions to the fund and countries reflecting geographical diversity - but also from individuals and CSOs - including CIVICUS, during the UNDEF Board's term.
As part of our report on the theme of reimagining democracy , we are interviewing civil society activists and leaders about their work to promote democratic practices and principles, the challenges they encounter and the victories they score. Since the start of , an unprecedented one in five US citizens have marched in the streets.
Given the unprecedented numbers of US citizens taking to the streets, including in the March for Our Lives movement, do you think that there is a new moment in political activism in the United States? When Trump won in November and took office in January , we witnessed an entire movement and energy on the left, but also on the right.
On the right, the energy has been rising as well, not only with Donald Trump beating 16 other candidates for the Republican nomination, but also, for example, his rallies as well as the Charlottesville marches, a display last August of white nationalism and threatened white patriarchy. Being an activist is normal, socially-acceptable behaviour. To me, this moment that we are in right now, with students forming mass protests for gun reform, is naturally aligned with a trend line that can be traced back over the last 10 years at least.
In my view, this trend started in the early years of the Obama administration when many on the left realised that Barack Obama was not as far to the left as they had hoped. I believe this realisation partly led to the rise of Occupy Wall Street. As much as the left liked Obama, he was far more centrist and establishment than they had hoped. Fast-forward a few years and we saw the Dreamers, we saw Black Lives Matter and, of course, we saw Bernie Sanders, among others on the left. A clear thread of anti-establishment energy can be seen across each of these movements. Similarly, at the same time, on the right the conservative Tea Party movement was forming with rallies and marches across the country in response to the loss of the election.
The Tea Party would go on to win several seats in Congress in , leading not only to control of Congress and a number of government shutdowns, but also, indisputably, to the remarkable rise of Donald Trump a few years later. Throughout this same period, we have gone through several mass shootings. So, I definitely think that there was a feeling of hopelessness after the years of Sandy Hook Elementary School and the failure of our government to do something meaningful about it. That hopelessness seems to have given way, at least partially, with the Marjory Stoneman Douglas students.
Also, now that we have the Trump administration, all issues are back on the table, both open and closed. What do you think that the March for our Lives Movement has learned from these other movements that have emerged over the past 10 years, including Black Lives Matter? One important thing that Black Lives Matter shows is that translocal movements work. Comparatively speaking, liberals over-extend and over-invest their trust in government as the solution and fail to get involved at the personal and local level.
This is something that Black Lives Matter really helped bring out of the shadows and into the mainstream for those on the left. Civil society organisations CSOs need to think about this too - movements are too centralised in CSO offices in too many parts of traditional civil society. Of course, the elephant in the room for the difference between Black Lives Matter and March for Our Lives is that the students are a diverse group of citizens. So to many bystanders, there appears less of a direct challenge to the existing power structure and the white patriarchy with the March for Our Lives Movement versus the Black Lives Matter movement.wowow-campaign.com/wp-content
I look at Black Lives Matter and I see a story of fundamental oppression that has literally been both part of the DNA of this country and the driver of an enormous movement. It tells me a number of things, but number one is that democracy is a struggle that never ends. Democracy is something that you need to keep on fighting for.
I think what Black Lives Matter teaches us is that, in general, this fight is a fight that never ends. Movements like March for Our Lives both rise and fall on social media. Does this make it difficult for them to be sustained? Social media networks were never designed for democracy. The design of the platforms has led to echo chambers and ideological bubbles.
The situation is currently evolving as we work through the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica revelations, so it is against that context that I make the claim that we are between states on this as people awake to this flawed system. The problem is that eventually there becomes a sustained engagement problem because, at their cores, these platforms were not designed to support real mass engagement over time. The students have had the benefit of physical co-location in their schools to anchor their local organising even as they use Twitter to connect translocally, and this has been helpful for sustaining for the last few months.
Personal hopes aside, it remains to be seen how much the students stay active, energised and focused as the school year ends and summer break begins.
Are you hopeful about the trajectory of activism in the United States? Activism is less nerdy than it used to be. This is fundamental for a democracy. We must learn to organise, channel and sustain pressure between elections translocally and at scale on the government we do have, not the one we wish we had. You have kids that were marching in the streets of their own towns, in some cases much to the chagrin of their own school administrations and city councils, and they were out there standing up for themselves. Good for them. Youth are the future in human form. They deserve to have their voices heard just like the rest of our citizens.
If we look at the larger trend line, this gives all of us an opportunity to reconnect with the grassroots and to reconnect on issues that even some of us, despite best intentions, may have given up on in the past. So yes, I am hopeful at where this larger trend will eventually lead. Get in touch with Powerline through their Facebook and Twitter pages. The march was organised in reaction to the February shooting that left 17 people dead at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
Is democracy failing the American people, and young Americans in particular? MD: There are parties that are actively trying to obstruct democracy; there are people trying to suppress voters, whether by voter ID laws, or through registration procedures. The change towards automatic registration in several states is a big step in the right direction, allowing anyone to vote who is eligible. Mass incarceration is also a form of voter suppression, so there are things happening in the US that do suppress democracy. And nobody is free until we are all free, so we need to step up and fight for those who have their power taken away by this unfair system.
What was different about the Parkland shooting? Why do you think it was this particular event that sparked a movement like NeverAgain, in a context in which mass shootings, and school shootings in particular, have become almost routine? Because I grew up seeing mass shootings, they were all over the place on television. So it was just a matter of us being tired of seeing that happening all the time. It was really important for young people to stand up, because with every mass shooting before this one, either nobody stood up, or they were too quiet and nobody listened to them.
We were yelling at them, and people were just intrigued by our fierceness. So we immediately knew that what we needed to do is just speak with the truth on the matter. They have of course been trying to discredit this truth, but they have been unable to. When it came to Parkland, I was personally terrified for my brother and sister, and when they came home, my sister — it was her birthday — was pretending like everything was fine, but my brother was visibly angry.
He was saying this 20 minutes after getting home, and we felt then that we could do anything. In a way, we were prepared for this to happen. MD: The media was outside almost every funeral, if not at all of them. Every funeral I attended, I walked out and there was a camera on my face. So they give you a choice: you can either mourn and internalise that anger about the need for change, or you can voice it. We then took advantage of the eyes on us and voiced a very powerful message. What we are doing may become news, but we are not news anymore. We are not telling people what happened — everyone knows what happened.
They may be twisting their own version of it, but everyone knows what occurred. They proposed a programme to arm teachers, which was exactly the opposite of what we wanted, because that pours even more money into gun corporations. JC: Exactly. Especially when it comes to universal background checks. MD: For instance, Chicago has strict gun laws, but they still have high gun violence, because they are next door to Indiana, which has no gun laws, and there is nobody at the border checking the guns that come through.
And we have no federal registry, no way of tracking where guns come from, who owns them or what they are being used for. We need this to enforce individual responsibility for gun ownership. What do you think your chances of success are, and why?
The easy stuff is going to come first: for instance, the Centers for Disease Control CDC now will be able to research gun violence on a funded level; a digitised register may be created - all that is going to come first. The selfish older generation, including the NRA leadership, is going to crumble. JC: There are very few people on the other side compared to ours because young people have a more open mind now, in the 21st century, compared to ever before, and that makes us optimistic. Our open minds stem from the education we have received and the fact that we are aware that we have so much more to learn.
MD: This generation is better educated than most generations before. We were born in the internet age. We can use that ability to communicate with loads of people to continue this education and produce policy that makes sense. A true democracy can only work in an educated society, so being an educated voting force is key to tackling the corruption that seems to have taken over the US, especially in recent years.
How did you personally become involved in this movement, and what was your source of inspiration? We are getting the same sort of message out. In fact, America has only been a democracy for around 50 years! And we talk about being a free country, but even now, with the trend of mass incarceration, voter ID laws, registration requirements — all tactics of voter suppression — we are not actually a true democracy. We are using the same methods that worked in the past to expand our democracy.
JC: The movements that were most successful in the US had defined goals. Movements that are scattered about and lack one major thing they are striving for end up dwindling away. The fact that we have five main goals makes for a very clear finish line that is achievable. The first one is funded research on gun violence by the CDC — because until recently, as a result of the Dickey amendment , the CDC was not allowed to receive money to research the effects of gun violence in our country.
This legislative provision was changed recently, but the CDC was still given no money — so what we need is categorised grants to fund this research. Currently there is no single place where you can find who owns a particular gun, and sometimes it is impossible to find out, because so many guns are bought on the black market or in private sales. But the truth is, even if all our demands were made into federal law, people would still be able to go through a screening process and buy a firearm intended for protection, which is what the Second Amendment is for.
MD: The third goal is universal background checks. For instance, in no state should a domestic abuser be allowed to purchase a gun legally. Domestic abuse is the number one indicator for a mass shooter; it has a higher correlation with mass shootings than mental health issues. In some places there are no checks at all.
In 12 states a concealed carry permit only requires you to sign a piece of paper. If you are on the terrorist watch list you cannot get on a plane, but you could still purchase an assault weapon. There are places where you need to go through background checks if you want to adopt a cat, but not if you want to buy an assault weapon! This makes no sense. Background checks should be required for every single gun purchase. JC: It is important to emphasise that background checks should be mandated by federal law, so that every jurisdiction has the same requirements and procedures, and there are not places where regulations are less strict, creating loopholes that can be taken advantage of.
Lastly, our fourth and fifth goals are longer term, as they are the hardest to swallow for conservatives. According to polls, they are still supported by a majority of public opinion, but less than the previous three, for which approval rates are around 80 to 90 per cent. Goals four and five are a high-capacity magazine ban and a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles.
The shooter in our school fired rounds in less than six minutes, while walking around and taking the time to go to classroom after classroom. When he was firing, it was like rainfall. No person should have the ability to shoot that many bullets in such short amount of time. Most hunting ranges have banned this type of weapon — which in fact are not really meant for hunting animals; they are meant for hunting people.
This kind of firing power can only be in the hands of highly trained individuals, and has no place in our homes and streets. In which ways could international civil society and like-minded movements elsewhere help you achieve your goals? JC: A lot of other countries, like Australia and most European ones, have laws like the ones we advocate for, and their levels of gun crime are incredibly lower than ours. This proves there is a way to fix this, and we should stop ignoring the fact that we have a gun problem and blaming it all on mental health. If the international community could add their voices in support of the idea that these laws do work, it would be of a lot of help.
MD: The international community could help a lot in promoting an educated democracy, saying how important it is for young people to not only vote, but also become educated in the voting process, given that our political system has clearly failed us when it comes to protecting us. This is important not only for the US but also for the world, because others emulate the US, as we can see with the current administration and how it has played out in the rest of the world in terms of the increase in intolerance and hate crimes.
By promoting education and democracy, the international community would be helping us. The report will explore how citizens and civil society organisations are working to build more participatory forms of democracy, and how civil society is responding to the citizen anger and sense of disconnection that is driving more extremist and polarised politics in many countries.
Kompass seeks to make human rights accessible to all and strives for ordinary people to exercise as much influence on laws and policies as large companies. It brings people together around projects on racism, refugees and ethnic profiling, among other issues. The Netherlands scores very high on the international Democracy Index. Still, I am concerned about specific developments affecting democracy in the Netherlands.
Many Dutch people do not feel represented in Dutch politics. Citizens feel a major disconnect from politics, especially towards the European Union as well as at the national level. Political parties are losing members and are increasingly unable to recruit new ones, and many people who are still involved are actively seeking a political job rather than trying to challenge their parties, and change their country or the world.
As local newspapers are disappearing, there is hardly any awareness about local politics either. Many unhappy voters have turned to the right and the extreme right. And at least one such extreme right-wing party, the Freedom Party, is highly undemocratic. This is a true anomaly among Dutch political parties. The political landscape is polarising.
After years of consensus politics, the left and right in the Netherlands are increasingly apart. People are locked up in echo chambers, so they resist any information that does not conform to their beliefs and show very little interest in finding common ground. Parties at the centre of the political spectrum are struggling, and are increasingly accommodating language from the extremes, and especially from the extreme right.
The landscape is highly fragmented. A record number of 81 contenders, many of them single-issue parties, registered to compete in the national elections that took place in March Thirteen of those parties made it to Parliament, making it very hard to reach consensus. A major issue of current democratic tension in the Netherlands is focused on referendums. Over the past few years, referendums were introduced at the local and national levels.
Almost all votes so far have resulted in wins for anti-establishment forces. In the first national referendum that took place the Netherlands, in April , two-thirds of voters rejected the European Union accession treaty with Ukraine. As a result, the ruling coalition decided to put an end to referendum opportunities at the national level. More than with democracy, I think that the problem in the Netherlands is with human rights. When talking about human rights in our country, you always have to start by saying that the Netherlands is not China, and that we are doing better than Rwanda and Uganda.
There is a general feeling that human rights are something for other countries to be concerned with and it all comes down to issues of such as the death penalty and torture. But that is not what Eleanor Roosevelt and her colleagues meant when they drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Human rights are about many other things as well, including housing, schooling, education - a minimum standard for basic rights, in every country. The Dutch mind-set towards human rights is actually very contradictory, as Dutch people also tend to be pioneers and innovators. I think it is very un-Dutch to consider the human rights status quo as good enough, and to settle for an increasing mediocrity.
While the Netherlands is actively involved in bringing human rights to other countries , Dutch school kids score very low in terms of their knowledge of human rights. At the same time, human rights have increasingly become an issue of political contestation. Political parties right and centre have openly criticised human rights and human rights treaties.
They have even fought the Dutch constitution on this. The new government , established after the latest elections, is now investigating how to get rid of refugee treaties. A coalition of Dutch civil society organisations CSOs has recently concluded that in the past five years the human rights situation in the Netherlands has deteriorated. The victims of this deterioration have been not only refugees and Muslims living in the Netherlands, but also ordinary Dutch citizens.
Human rights are about rights for all; the power of human rights is that they are all important. There are no left-wing human rights and right-wing human rights. Let us stick to that. There is a major international misconception that the extreme right lost the Dutch elections.
This is wishful thinking. Moreover, a new extreme right-wing party, the Eurosceptic and nationalistic Forum for Democracy, also won two seats in the Dutch Parliament. Leftist parties have become very small in comparison to their past selves. At the same time, parties at the centre have increasingly accommodated language from the extreme right, so the public conversation has definitely changed for the worse.
The Christian-Democratic Party is obsessed with winning back political power, and references to exclusion have therefore become vital to their political strategy. It is going to be hard — not to say impossible — for these parties to return to their traditional positions and, in fact, to their core ideologies.
Services on Demand
But of course that there are still some good people with a heart for human rights within those parties, and we should work with them to make things better. The major current challenge for Dutch civil society is to bridge differences and to start working together. In the past, many CSOs have focused on competition rather than cooperation, and on their own cause rather than the general cause. I have a feeling that this is changing, and that is for the best.
CSOs can all contribute to a cause from their own experience and skills, as long as we share an agenda. An interesting trend in Dutch civil society, as well as at the international level, is that new CSOs tend not to focus exclusively on themes anymore, but rather on specific skills and assets. As a civil rights organisation, for instance, Kompass focuses on using lobbying experience and techniques to advance human rights. There is another new organisation in our country that focuses on litigation.
We need to cut internal discussions short, and start working on outreach. It is important to note that CSOs are setting the agenda again: that civil society is being able to frame issues rather than just respond to issues put forward by other actors. We have some things to learn from the extreme right, who have managed to communicate a clear message through their own media, as well as through the mainstream media.
It is important for us to take a position, and not appear as indifferent. At the same time, it is important to avoid taking a high moral ground. Actively seeking polarisation will bring us nowhere. The election result was clear, and the fact that so many people abandoned progressive and left-wing parties needs serious consideration. Parties that criticise human rights treaties like the Geneva Conventions and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights now have a majority in Parliament; it is important to take stock of this.
Polarisation might be useful to bring together very leftist or progressive groups, but it will alienate many others, even those in the centre. It is important to find a common ground: to persuade rather than accommodate or win discussions. What we can learn from commercial lobbying is how to build political support among parties that do not necessarily agree.
That approach just does not work in the current political setting and climate. We do not need to create moral upheavals, but to propose concrete solutions and actions. The reason why companies are spending such enormous amounts of money on lobbying is that it works.
We need to learn from what they are doing. Founded in , FOND includes some of the most important civil society organisations in the country, and currently has 33 member organisations. Since its inception, it has organised capacity-building training for its members to become more active in the field of international development cooperation, volunteering and humanitarian assistance as well as landmark events for the Romanian development community, such as the Romanian Development School and for the broader region, including the Black Sea NGO Forum.
How would you describe the state of democracy in Romania? Mucha gente no ha trabajado y se quedaron tristes. Hubo una falta de compromiso. El problema del sol, del calor, de la falta de cabinas se resuelven. Otra cosa, es acortar nuestros objectivos. No podemos hacerlo todo.
"Hoy hagamos la excepción de romper las reglas.." | Turn on Latino Music | Rock, roll, Rolls, Rock
Tenemos alternativas: organizarnos por continentes. Usamos empresas privadas para las agencias de viaje, el transporte, etc. Si soy voluntario y me dicen cual es mi responsabilidad, si no cumplo, se pueden tomar medidas. Muchas cosas se hicieron mal. Hubo gente que fue puesta en las malas cabinas, otras que quedaron sin trabajo, y otras que quedaron con demasiado trabajo.
No hemos cumplido nuestro deber de ayudar a movimientos sociales. Las cabinas no funcionaron, la gente no estaba presente. Babels es nacional y local, no internacional. Esto es un experimento humano. Es un experimento humano que tenemos que construir juntos. Horizontalidad no significa irresponsabilidad. Es importante delegar. Hay gente que sabe organizar, que ayude. Cada tema no fue auto-organizado, el evento era demasiado grande.
Babels debe cumplir con su compromiso: promover idiomas minoritarios. Tenemos que mejorar nuestra forma de trabajar con el foro, desde el inicio del proceso, y hacer un plan de trabajo concreto. Il ne faut pas perdre de vue que le forum est un lieu d'apprentissage collectif: on doit construire notre intelligence collective. Pido tres cosas: -no hubo suficientes coordinadores. The concrete thing that we can do is use our listservs and talk about our experience and sent people to the website. Podemos pedir a amigos artistas de crear camisetas, etc.
Babels needs a hybrid: volunteers and professionals who are proud of their work. I'd like to make a comment on the room coordinators: before each day of the forum: each tent should be checked to know what works, and what doesn't. Most of us here have been contacted by email or by phone. How do we want to be informed during the forum, so as not to have to walk all day to get the information we need? I'm not here to say why things didn't work out. It's easy to say that it's Nomad's fault.
It's easy for us to criticize the infrastructure, the organization, but someone, in the end has to answer. From May we had several meetings in Porto Alegre. And there was always a Babels representative with us who was always informed of everything. From the beginning of the process, it was very clear for us: this was a common project. Babels and Nomad formed a group. We're in a situation where we cannot work without you.
For the forums, even Babels has no alternative but to work with Nomad to make an alternative world. But we need a better coordination between Babels and Nomad, and the local organizing committee. The system which was used during the forum was invented in one day and installed overnight. Let's try to understand each other better. If you have a question on equipment, let's talk. Cuando hicimos entender cuales eran los problemas, ellos siguieron pidiendonos este servicio, a pesar de nuestras explicaciones. The WSF was a success due to the superhuman effort of volunteers who made it work.
The frustration was due also because this required a superhuman effort. The basic technical point is this: the frequencies used should not interfere with local FM stations. Radios, instead of being analog, should have preset frequencies corresponding to each booth. We should also make sure that no equipment is left unused. I heard the WSF was a success. We pulled it off. But at what cost? I work in the FR booth, but many people were not able to listen to the debates because sometimes FR was not scheduled. I remember one African woman who was in tears because it was the third conference she wanted to attend, and there was no interpretation it had been difficult to pay her ticket to come to Porto Alegre, etc.
Sorprendan a sus hijos siendo buenos. Demos a nuestros hijos buenas consecuencias, recompensas positivas y reconocimiento. Esto es tanto bueno como malo. Esto crea una verdadera trampa para los padres. Lo segundo, por supuesto. Si se enoja, su hijo gana. Si nos enojamos cuando ocurren cosas que no nos gustan, estamos entrenando a nuestros hijos para que hagan lo mismo.
Si alzamos la voz, estamos entrenando a nuestro hijo para que grite. Sorprenda a sus hijos siendo buenos. Ser buenos padres requiere de buenas habilidades de paternidad. Bueno, no funciona. De hecho, le proporciona obediencia a muy corto plazo, pero los comportamientos inapropiados se repiten una y otra vez, y normalmente empeoran progresivamente. Utilizar refuerzos — El refuerzo positivo es la mejor manera de construir un comportamiento positivo. Todas estas cosas no se pueden tolerar. Las expectativas inmediatas son una mejor alternativa. Tiempo fuera del refuerzo positivo — Esta es una habilidad que se puede utilizar de muchas formas.
Susan W. No renuncien a ellos. No los echen fuera. Solo se han extraviado en la ignorancia del camino de la rectitud, y Dios es misericordioso con la ignorancia. Orad por vuestros hijos descuidados y desobedientes; manteneos cerca de ellos mediante vuestra fe. Estos son los pasos:. Cuando nos entreguen nuestra comida, iremos a una mesa. Espero que comas tu comida, o por lo menos 8 bocados.
Quedarte a mi lado en silencio. Las probabilidades de hacer esto en lugar de meterse debajo de la mesa o tratar de sentarse en el regazo de la madre son muy altas. En segundo lugar, la madre introdujo una recompensa positiva que se iba a ganar por cumplir con la expectativa. Todos nos comportamos mejor cuando ganamos algo por comportarnos bien, en lugar de perder algo por comportarnos mal.
Dele una oportunidad. Esto puede ser un tema delicado cuando se trata de actividades de la iglesia, y cada padre necesita decidir que tan lejos quieren ir. Recuerde que cada comportamiento que se repite, es un comportamiento que tiene una recompensa. Vea Principios de Comportamiento. Pero el incentivo no era muy inmediato y tampoco era seguro. Nosotros sabremos que cumpliste al ver tu agenda firmada por cada profesor los viernes. Otra manera de usar incentivos es la Ley de la Abuela.
Haga el intento. Testimonio de un padre: Hola Tom. Sobretodo le costaba mucho levantarse temprano para Seminario. Va a Seminario con una actitud negativa y se siente presionado. Nuestro hogar ha tenido mucha paz toda la semana. Se han estado divirtiendo con esto y yo aprecio la mejora en su comportamiento. Estos incentivos pueden parecer costosos para algunos padres, pero tienen que ser lo suficientemente grandes para hacer que mis hijos trabajen en su comportamiento.
A ellos realmente les gusta el factor sorpresa. Emilia ha obtenido un sobre diario. Los invito a ir conmigo y eso nos da un tiempo para nosotros, lo cual es un bono adicional. Por ejemplo, la hija dice que ella no es lo suficientemente bonita y que ninguno de los chicos se fija en ella. Se tiran las puertas. Tal vez usted trata de mejorar las cosas y va hacia ella.
Trata de escucharla, consolarla, razonar con ella.
Related Diez cosas que hicimos (y que probablemente no deberíamos haber hecho) (Spanish Edition)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved