Dare to Disagree

"A fantastic model of collaboration: thinking partners who aren't echo chambers.”

(Margaret Heffernan)

Like most people I don't like conflict, but I acknowledge that it is often as a result of conflict or disagreement that I have learnt the most. And it is often from people who have been willing to disagree with me, as leader, that the community has benefited the most.

I suspect that there are a lot of leaders (I know some) that prefer, and in fact demand, that their team be 'echo chambers' or 'yes men'. But Margaret Heffernan presents a very clear call for disagreement and shows how intentionally cultivating this dynamic in a team is a benefit to any organisation.

It's about 13 minutes, but its worth watching: Margaret Heffernan: Dare to Disagree.

We need leaders like this!

Acts of Terror

'The nightmare scenario is that biological weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists',

White House press secretary.

[Comment in relation to Syrian government announcement that they have biological weapons: my paraphrase]

It would seem to me that we have come to define a terrorist as any one that uses methods that invoke terror to enforce an agenda that does not agree with mine.

Any group that disagrees with the USA, and uses techniques of terror, is labeled a terrorist and perhaps a member of the axis of evil. Any person that articulates a position different to a Western 'elected power broker' and uses force to protect themselves, or their own, is a terrorist!

(I do not support techniques of terror), but it would seem to me that we have come too easily to accept that the 'use of fear to intimidate people', (the definition of terror) is a technique only used by 'others'. Surely the Australian, USA, British (etc) government would never use 'fear' to control people!

After all that has occured in Syria, isn't it a bit rich to be concerned that the weapons might fall into hands of terrorists. I suggest that, given that they are already in the hands of a government that has proved its willingness to use acts of fear to intimidate, that the weapons are already in the hands of terrorists.

Please, let's not pretend that this theory applies only to Middle eastern (Islamic) governments. Haven't we all seen evidence of 'western governments' using words and threats to frighten their own people. Not all terrorism is overtly military action, some people and governments are very good at invoking fear and terror through scenario painting.

Terrorism has become a very one sided description of what our enemies do. But let's not be naive in believing that governments do not engage in acts of terror against their own citizens, let alone against other nations. Even the most 'altruistic' military/police support efforts could, by definition, be called terror actions. (Could 'peace keeping' - well meaning heavily armed militia patrolling streets - actually be an act of terror?)

It seems to me that either we need to be more even handed with the word and label all acts that invoke fear, including those by governments, as terrorism, or we need to drop it. But the word terrorist has taken on a 'convenient' emotive connotation that words such as insurgent, guerrilla or militant have not. The word terrorist has been hijacked by governments to scapegoat those who challenge their legitimacy.

A Marathon for Peace in Rwanda

A stadium once filled with those fearing for their lives in the Rwandan genocide, now symbolises a place of hope for 13-year-old Virginie Uwijuru.

Eighteen years ago, Tutsis sought refuge in the Amahoro stadium, protected by the United Nations. Now, at the same stadium, there is no Hutu. There is no Tutsi. Citizens – irrespective of their tribes or historical differences – are coming together to run in the Kigali International Peace Marathon.

Thirteen-year-old Virginie walks into Rwanda’s national stadium having never competed in a race this big. It brings together 5,000 runners from East Africa. She is one of 46 registered children from WV Rwanda running a five kilometre youth course.

“This is a way to train children to be peace-makers. It’s also a way of motivating children to work harder since those who were chosen had good behaviour and performance in school,” says George Gitau, national director – WV Rwanda.

Virginie lines up at the starting line with other children ages 11 to 15. And then she starts moving.

At two kilometres, all are doing well. Virginie next struggles to catch up with kids a few metres ahead at three kilometres. She’s still in the front group and leads as the only runner from a rural area.

Now she has left hundreds of children at kilometre four, running along with a group of older boys. “This is amazing! The girl in a World Vision t-shirt is promising to be number one among the girls,” reports Amazing Grace Radio. At this point, no one knows Virginie’s name.

Her photo appears on a large screen, the crowd cheers and Virginie rounds the last corner closing in on the finish.

The crowd’s cheers and staff running beside her help her run faster. Five boys cross the finish line first. Virginie: the girl who has never been in Kigali and the girl who has never ran in a professional race is the first girl to cross the finish line!

“I did not know how long was five kilometres. I started at a high speed. Later, I realised we were getting far from the stadium and I felt discouraged. Other children a few metres ahead of me encouraged me to move on,” she explains.

Virginie receives awards from officials and WV Rwanda prizes. “I will give the money to my mother as soon as I get home. She will be happy and proud of me.”

[Martin Tindiwensi, – WV Rwanda]