With recent headlines in the Middle East and North Africa focused on violent events—Libya's civil war, violence against government protestors, the killing of Osama bin Laden—back stories have gotten lost in the 24-hour news cycle, which also glosses over much of the political and civil architecture of change. That architecture could inform new governmental structures, democratic or autocratic, that likely will be the foundation on which new generations build their future. Leadership will be crucial.
With that in the mind, we though it apt to start a conversation with Michael Donahue, director and co-founder of BoldLeaders, a Denver-based not-for-profit that teaches leadership skills to young people from around the world. He spoke with Ten10 Group's Dan Luzadder about the transformative power of conflict and how that power can affect youth leadership and the upheaval in Middle East and Africa. For more information about BoldLeaders visit BoldLeaders.org.
Time magazine and many others covering the Middle East, from scholars to journalists, talk about the youth-bulge there and the impact on millions of university-educated individuals whose studies have led not to better opportunities, but to continued barricades of poverty and disenfranchisement. Highly skilled people who have had to resort to selling fruit on the street and settling for menial jobs have turned to the streets to demand justice and liberty. From your unique perspective on conflict, resolution and emerging leadership, what do you draw from what is happening there?
I take North Africa as symptomatic of what is likely to happen over the entire region, the Middle East, even the whole of the African continent. If you look at it like that, in Africa, we have over a billion people, and 55 percent are under 18. You have this incredible youth bubble that is coming of age, in both fledgling democracies and autocratic government systems, even monarchies, throughout the region, and there is not much for them. The young don't see much of a future. The continent of Africa for the past three decades has taken on, very heavily in the last decade, educating their population. So you have these very well educated populations, many educated in the United States, and no place for them to use their expertise.
The unemployment rate in Egypt and other parts of the Middle East is actually highest among university graduates.
I think that's true. Take South Africa, a major economic engine in Africa. They have over 40 percent unemployment, I think, for the young people. … The question (becomes), "Where do we get to express our voice?"
The Internet, telecommunications devices, Facebook, Twitter, all have played a significant role in young people finding a voice—at least an alternative voice—have they not? It's reportedly been a significant development in erasing social and political barriers, but is it enough for force change?
In Africa, they have bypassed the desktop and mobile computer and gone right to the mobile phone. The use of the mobile phone, at least where I go, is amazing. Kenya is an example. It used to be, in 2007, that if you had an expensive mobile phone you kept it in your pocket, at risk of having it stolen. Now, just three years later, everyone has a mobile phone and nobody cares what you're carrying. It's an amazing thing.
Do you see better communications encouraging people to speak out and take bold action, to challenge existing political structures? How do you see that contributing to the idea, as you've talked about many times, of the transformative nature of conflict?
In any part of the world my question is always, "Is it possible for us to have conversations that are creative? Can we have diverging perspectives and converge on issues?" And I think Egypt is an example. The Muslim Brotherhood—are they Islamists? Are they radical? Are they going to radicalize Egypt? That is a concern. But the question is how we include their diverging perspectives with the diverging perspectives of the young, who are more secular, are less in line with Muslim Brotherhood—which remains dominated by middle age men—who support the voice of women. The woman's voice has had a huge impact in Egypt. That is what we are working on in the Bold Leaders Project: the inclusion of diverging perspectives, more voices and the convergence of those perspectives. We would call that the essence of creative conversations.
Conflict seems to be born out of resistance to other ideas, other points of view. How do you approach the problem of getting people to open up? How do you get from here to there?
It's exactly what we work on at BoldLeaders, whether we are with a group of adults who live in the United States or those who live in other parts of the world. With adults or young people, we look for the transformative nature of conflict. Diverging perspectives are oftentimes seen, and sometimes people don't want to include those ideas because they create conflict. People are battling. People are arguing. But we think there is great value in the chaos of diverging perspectives.
But how do you gather energy to that idea in a way that convinces participants that this is a good thing?
We've built all our programs on a series of platforms that we designed, and the first and most critical platform is what we call the platform of availability. In most programs, most organizations, even in our education systems, there is this assumption that people are naturally available and open. Some people call that being open minded. Our experience is that that's not so. So the first thing that we do is try to have a conversation with them about what it is they are available to consider. What are they willing to deal with? Are they willing to deal with challenges around their belief systems? Are they willing to be challenged around their societal makeup? Are they willing to have their personal experiences actually challenged? So what we do, via conversation, is to challenge perspectives that people hold, and we then work with them to consider what it means to be able to accept multiple perspectives on the same issue. In a group, we are looking for language that allows people to collaborate and cooperate versus language that encourages them to separate.
An environment in which people are coming together to explore ideas, with a view to accepting other ideas. There's a clear parallel to large gatherings of people in these Middle Eastern countries expressing their ideas about freedom. It's a very chaotic environment there, lots of confusion, anger, challenges, disagreement. Given what you've seen in a more controlled environment, how do you see all that playing out?
To be fair, I would say that what we do with people would not have worked in Cairo Square while it was happening. Where it would have worked would have been prior to these events, among the leadership, among people who were really leading it. That would have worked for sure, because they would have been very prepared for including all perspectives. And what we do works very well (after) the violence. I would never say, in watching these events, that this would have worked in Cairo or Tripoli. It would not have worked in Tunisia, and it is certainly too late for the Ivory Coast. Yet what we do is very powerful, before and afterward.
For example?
During 2007, we had a group of Kenyan teenagers and their educators for our programs, and they returned home, many of them, to vote for the very first time just four or five days later. A week after they returned, they were in the middle of post-political violence. One of the principals of one of the most successful schools in Nairobi, an all-girls school that has girls from all faiths and all tribes from all over the country, had four students from her school that were BoldLeaders. They represented three different tribes and different faiths, including Christianity and Islam. And between the five of them, they were able to have a discussion with the girls at the school, 600 girls, in the middle of the violence, where all perspectives were honored and considered. They acknowledged that training and work they received helped the girls maintain their standards and their sense of community during all that was unfolding and still see other points of view.
That must be an exciting feeling.
It is. Both in conflict with one's self, and in conflict with others, there is that possibility that perspectives can be transformed and that they can be transformative.
As you've watched from a distance as these events in Egypt and elsewhere have unfolded what do you see in terms of opportunities for inspired leadership?
I saw on CNN, a couple of days after President Mubarak stepped down, an interview with a young man in his early 30s, clearly well-educated. He had taken over one of the ministry jobs. He was very relaxed, in casual clothes, no suit and shined shoes. He didn't have four or five people around him with cell phones and pens poised. The interviewer asked him what it was like, and he described trying to get one of the essential services back in place. He said that a week earlier he was in the streets, yelling and protesting against the people whose job he now had. "And now people are in the streets yelling and screaming at me and complaining." This he said with a smile on his face—a recognition of the challenges of leadership. There is so much involved right now, the political situation is so fluid and wide open. That is the exciting part for me. In the case of Egypt, I have no doubt that the young people there have the education and the wherewithal and the energy and capacity to alter the course of their country. And I've been moved by the meaning and purpose that they brought to this movement. What they were willing to give up—food and shelter and safety— for meaning and purpose. And my desire would be for the world to see the value of that meaning and purpose now. Do they have to include the elders and some of the old guard? Absolutely. And do they have to take into account a military that essentially ran the economy? Absolutely. And do I think they can? Absolutely. My guess is that the people who needed to be touched and moved by what the Egyptians did were touched. And those who were not will go by the wayside. As long as they just keep participating. To me, that will be the key. And I think a BoldLeader would say that—that the key will be the level at which people will engage and participate in the process.
A good way to end the conversation. Thank you.
|
