How spiritual, progressive, neo-humanistic, ethical and compassionate is your organization or movement?
BROAD CIVILIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND CRITERIA
Is leadership moral, do leaders lead by example?
Does the leadership have "sadvipra" qualities; service, protective, entrepreneur and knowledge oriented?
Or is leadership moving toward these qualities? Is it a goal?
What level is the organization/movement neo-humanistic in terms of ideology, practice and overall culture?
Principle of Social Equality.
Movement beyond geo-sentiment and socio-sentiment and toward humanism.
Movement beyond humanism and toward neo-humanism (respect for all: humans, plants and animals).
3. Use and Distribution of Resources
Are economic strategies distribution and incentive based?
Is there a progressive use of physical, intellectual and spiritual resources?
Does the economic ideology and practice ensure that basic needs are met (housing, education, health, clothing and food)? Or is this true only at the level of ideology?
Does economic ideology and practice allow for challenge - struggle - or is the economy concerned mainly with floors? Or is this true only at the level of economic ideology?
Does money leak out of local areas?
4. Inner and External Balance
Does the economic ideology and practice follow the principle of prama (dynamic balance at all levels)?
Are the ideas and practices gender balanced?
Is partnership a process and goal? In ideas only? In practice? In ideas and practice?
6. Spiritual Transformation
Do ideas go beyond consciousness-raising to consciousness transformation? That is, is there a spiritual dimension to social change?
Are local languages respected?
Is there cultural diversity?
Clearly, no movement and revolution fits all the above criteria. But we can assess organizations based on movement toward these goals, or, if they clearly violate these principles. For example, the Taliban clearly violated the principle of gender partnership, even if their leadership practiced simplicity.
These points can also help distinguish between finer points of ideology and practice. For example, Malaysia claims to be engaged in capital controls in terms of helping local people. However, this has generally only been to ensure elite status of local billionaires (so they are not affected by currency speculation) and not poorer groups.
The Malaysian government also practices torture of dissidents. The recent Fiji coup claimed to be for local people, however, even if one accepts that, it was predicated on racism. Instead of challenging global capital, the Fiji revolutionaries chose the far more visible and problematic effort of attacking other local people. Similarly, the One Nation Party in Australia claims to represent ordinary Australians against Globalization. However, it too fails the tests of neo-humanism.
--Sohail Inayatullah, Ph.D., is a futurists and the author of many books and articles on the works of
P. R. Sarkar. His most recent book is Understanding Sarkar, published by Brill, 2002.