A guest post by Sophia Boutillier, member of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO’s Youth Advisory Group.
Canada is often lauded for its diversity – social, cultural, geographical, the list goes on. Indeed, this is a great strength of a great country. And yet, the near embarrassment of riches can translate to an overflow of perspectives and considerations. Attempts to gauge what Canadians think or feel are inundated by the outpouring of positions.
The paragon of democratic virtue, the Canadian Commission for UNESCO’s position for the international youth forum is the fruit of significant efforts to garner the inputs of young Canadians with a diversity of experiences befitting such a large and heterogenous country. The result is an articulate set of recommendations and context statements. The paper is clearly driven by eagerness for change, anticipation and planning for the future, and common passion for a more just world.
And yet, these shoots of ingenuity, inspiration and change are overshadowed by the Great Canadian Compromise. Unable to account for the myriad facets of each contributor’s ideas and constituents, the drafters had little choice but to fall back on catchall phrases expected (if not required) of broad-based consultations. Shining nuggets of innovation and insights fade into the background when added to the national mosaic.
Indeed, terms like “capacity building” – providing inputs for achievements (human, physical, technical, capital, etc resources) describe part of a thousand good ideas generated during consultation. Not surprisingly, the common colour features prominently in the completed mosaic.
For the sake of time and practicality, the finished product, the big picture, is the only one to take to Paris. Arguably, other member countries took a similar approach. If they didn’t, if recommendations were too pointed or specific, would this constitute a failure of the consultative process, to narrow a sample of the population?
In pursuit of inclusion and representation, recommendations become broad, vague and theoretical. To be too concrete or rigid would assume and impose the rightness of a certain model. Such a situation would surely be against the principles of UNESCO, the Canadian Commission and Canadian youth. Nevertheless, if recommendations are too broad, every delegate at this year’s Youth Forum could discuss capacity building until they turn blue in the face without gaining any new knowledge from their international counterparts.
The international conference vocabulary consists of terms broad enough to transcend cultural and geographic boundaries, embodying locally-appropriate meaning to the speaker but existing within a generally comprehensive genre for the listener. Such words have greatly simplified and unified communication, but at a cost.
If we, as young Canadians, are to represent ourselves and learn from others, we must avoid such jargon to figure out who we are and what we stand for. The push for youth-friendly documents, highlighted as a priority to increase youth access in Canada’s recommendations, could be a place to start. Defining terms for Canadian contexts and asking for more than buzz words when interacting with local and international partners is essential for meaningful change and exchange.
As youth we see ourselves as providing important contributions to national and international debates. Known for energy, insight and innovation youth seek practical applications of high-level theories. Adding value does not mean impersonating the generation ahead of us, adopting their policies or vocabulary, but introducing mediums of communication and action that speak to youth and let them speak for themselves. Sure, we may build capacity, but what does it mean to us and those we seek to serve?
General themes may be necessary in our position report, but Canadian delegates at the Youth Forum must speak precisely and without ambiguity on behalf of our country. Not every voice will be heard in these words, as not every tile is noticed in the mosaic, but the picture will be much clearer as a result.
