Agree to Differ

[

] 164

rather be the pivotal point of solidarity. Many religious tradi-

tions insist on the need for solidarity, even further to make

an essential dimension of our human condition. Yet, this first

question leads us subsequently to another question: what

about the recipients and addressees of this solidarity? This

second question is crucial for organizations and institutions.

And it is probably there that we have been in contact with an

important element through our dialogues: religious traditions.

Yet, religious traditions are not mere voices without a body.

They are rather embodied in social groups. Conversations

and dialogues are structured within the social space where

we move and which determines social relations. In several

cases, the dialogue exists and is structured. In other cases, it

is partially structured or not structured at all. The conversa-

tions are part of what already exists: a climate of dialogue

in Senegal, or a dialogue initiated in Ethiopia after the war

in Eritrea, or the struggle against dictatorships between

Pinochet’s adversaries in Chili.

Peace through social justice

The next step was to go beyond conversations and ask reli-

gious traditions and groups whether they could commit

together to develop common solidarity projects, in support

of decent work. We have initiated this in Egypt and

Ethiopia, in both instances engaging the main denomina-

tion, with the support of the World Council of Churches,

an organization that has a long tradition of dialogue among

churches and beyond. The focus was on youth employ-

ment, an issue where Egyptian religious organizations had

already engaged meaningfully.

The process was conceived as gradual: first a common

commitment based on shared values; second, a common

diagnosis; third, pilot projects supported by capacity-building

activities and, lastly, full-fledged projects. The process has not

reached this final phase yet.

The diagnosis phase is essential. It is inherited from a

classical approach derived from social dialogue, involv-

ing governments, workers and employers’ organizations.

A common solution can only be developed based on a

minimal common understanding of the situation. It was

made here through surveys and focus groups. Pilot projects

are also a means to get an assessment of the needs and

capacities of the partners.

As the experience is still ongoing, it is probably too early to

assess the results. Trust is an essential element. It imposes a

necessity for the international organization to review and reas-

sess its positioning. It cannot be a lesson giver, or merely an

expert provider. It has to accompany its partners in the search

for meaningful solutions. It needs also to find the proper level

of mitigation, between its own working methods and the one

that can be adapted to the methods of its partners.

At the end, I believe the experience is essentially meaning-

ful. It brings back the ILO to the intuition of its founders.

Work has become pivotal in many industrialized societies

to operationalize solidarity. It enabled us to enlarge soli-

darities across communities, across affiliations. This is also

what can be done when religious organizations start working

together and contributing to a common good. This is prob-

ably a meaningful way to bring peace through social justice,

at a modest yet tangible level.

Image: ILO

The word ‘dignity’ resounded constantly in our conversations on labour

gree

iffer