The little we
have achieved was not because of, but in spite of, the various Commissions in
the Province or in the South Asia Region. It is same as not having the six-year
plans penned by the commissions, sometimes disjoined from the proposals,
directions and frame of references from the top. Before denouncing this
statement as heretical, let’s take a hard look at the facts, however hard to
digest.
The Commissions
were created by the felt need of some top brass (intellectual superiors) as
executive tools. The Commissions are not a constitutional entity, but it enjoys
certain structural authority to recommend and execute proposals and plans every
3 or 6 years. Certainly at SPCSA and Provincial levels they produce well
defined six-year plans full of fantastic, conceptual and creative ideas and lines
of action, (mostly animation, seminars, publications, productions) besides
generating reports on its area of work. It is also known to mediate between the
Provincial Council and the local communities by generating reports, data,
success stories and statistics. These are conveyed to the top for collection
than coordination.
Over the 2 decades,
the Commissions have grown into sub-committees for a greater representation,
some of which need province/regional funds annually to run its meetings,
report-producing, publications of ‘papers’/statements and travel apparatus. For
the past years, Provincial directories found spaces for them, doling them out to
the international SDB directory and archives as a ‘code of conduct’ in the form
of ill-conceived and poorly-implemented plans due to non-functional membership.
The centrally enforced Plan Schemes, through which the congregational policies
get disseminated to local community’s pastoral ministry are not fully utilized
there, for they do not speak the already existing functional ‘language’ of the
local community and its mission to the culturally different neighborhood.
There is only
one mechanism provided in the Constitution for devolution of Central proposals
and plans to the locals, that is, through the Provincial and his council. But the spirit of the Constitution was subtly
defeated by the creation of the Commissions and at time, by giving it exclusive
powers, without any constitutional backing, to decide and execute plan thus
limiting the scope of the constitutional authority.
The creation of
the Commissions necessitated the entry
of budget and expenditure into its own Annual plans, something again without
any constitutional sanction. The device used for plan execution and animation
are vulnerable to be influenced more by its departmental benefits rather than common
congregational/provincial level considerations. Often it enables the Commission
heads to arm-twist any policy and program, given the freedom to finalize them.
The centrally chalked
out Commission-structure was the innovation introduced by the centre to retain
its hold over the local provinces and regions. In the long run aberrations in the
structure itself took place that led to huge wastes of human resources. The
commissions, now become tied to the provincial council members who are supposed
to be just ‘patrons’ and informed-of-what-happens-heads, and their appointments are unconstitutional
as well. In the process, the space for growth and development at the grass root
level shrinks. The autonomy enjoyed so far will suffer (hope for the better !)
and their flexibility to launch schemes specific to their needs will be
curtailed or extra-supported. Other distortions will follow with disparity
among various commissions.
A discussion on
what the last 16 years of commissions since three General Chapters had achieved
will open our eyes. Despite a presumed “growth with stability” through such commissions,
“planning and programming from below” and adoption of central structural models
of the congregation (borrowed from studied theories and texts) to the local
situation, remains a valid truth. To
languish within the structured commissions in order to meet the demands from
the top with its structural designs (icons), is a deliberate denial of its failure.
As more
ambitious plans are introduced with ever more new and creative frontiers, the
number of commissions have to be accommodated, thus making the
commission-structure more powerful by
doing the bidding of the structural
demand itself. Its style of functioning, however, increasingly ran counter to the
existing needs. Over time, the Commissions determined what was to be executed, by
whom, where through how much resources and by what means. After surveying the course
of actions by the various commissions taken so far, its productivity has not equaled
its investment of personnel, money, space, time and human resources allocated. Naturally,
it led to a status quo mode, having them in the directory to meet the needs of
the congregational structures, characterized by extensive domination and
“commanding heights”.
The size of the
commission also grew in tandem, which forced the management to deliberately
reduce to four-member each, when it was felt ‘too much waste’. Sometime, we had 4 dimensional commissions
(education & culture, groups & movements, evangelization &
catechesis, vocation), other times amalgamation of one with another, adding
YaR, Mission and Social Communication to the added number, trying tin
infiltrate within each of the four dimensions mentioned earlier. Often such over
imposition and super importance only drained out the fuelled energy in the
wrong directions and stifled growth. Vital sectors and its internal working
(inner spirit and passion) suffered. Red-tapism set in with private investment
to personal agenda, crippling the structured commission itself. Thereafter, the Region/Province had to
acknowledge and approve such individual charism (new works) with a forged license
on humanitarian ground. This tyranny of the state of affair in the Religious
congregation only benefited certain entrenched groups but smothered the common
mission of the congregation.
In such a
collective and centralized planned structures, social democracy (equality and
justice in religious living!), growth and productivity became the ultimate
casualties. Instead of attacking the less-usefulness of such structures, the
authorities spent time, money and human energy, in consolidating the commissions. The result is forced
impoverishment of the spirit and passion-filled Salesian mission. Add to this
the growth of SEPP, EPC, PPC, EPPC, along with their local offshoots at the
community level, only heightened the complexity, and an increase in manpower to man these
commissions with new physical structures (buildings, office space,
administration) at different hierarchical levels, leading to an impending
disaster and economy drainage.
Perhaps the
diehard optimist would find its utility. Reforms in the form of ‘Youth Ministry
- a frame of reference’ are already a
sign that God should drive the cart and not any commission. It is only
indicative in nature that the commissions can at best be a facilitator for local
communities to function better. But despite the declining effect, the role and
importance of the Commission did not diminish. The command and control mindset cannot
continue. Command and ‘dictated’ commissions invariably tend to fail because by
concentrating power and authority on itself, the normal decision-making process
is given a go-by. Plans drawn on the basis of insufficient information and
factual knowledge of the situations, if approved and implemented, will only have disastrous results. Often it is one
or two persons’ opinion is approved as collegial decision at the local
community. In such a case, inequality increases, growth became sluggish, the centre
and the grassroots divide widens, resource allocation to different sectors
remains lopsided and ad-hocism reigns supreme. The critical issues that affect
the day to day Youth Ministry and Salesian mission – education, evangelization,
faith formation, vocation, YaR, etc remain uncontrolled. There is nothing ‘more
irrational than allowing one to proceed unchecked’ with one’s own ideals.
Salesian World
certainly deserves better than be led by a set of intellectual technocrats who are
obsessed with systemic strategies and corporate structures, far removed from the
faith-based Church realities, after all, Salesian Charism is a Church property
and not the Salesian society’s own. It is indeed time to realize that in a
diversities as ours, where localized intuition, good will, united efforts, sacred
sentiments, cumulative skills and talents are abundantly available, where immediate feelings and ‘moves’ work
better, centralized planning does not work much. Collective spurring initiative
works better.
Responsibility
for planning should be delegated to the appointed Provincial/Regional councilors
representing various sectors of the Province/Region.
What we need
is expertise with productive ideas
A non-expert
who goes to a talk on science is unlikely to claim any knowledge about the
subject. But non-experts often come with well-formed ideas. They will firmly
believe that the Congregational Commissions were orchestrated by the European
and Western set of minds, or that the four dimensional Salesian Youth Ministry
was a personal invention of Juan Vecchi (?). The preconceptions generally are closer
to conspiracy theories. They are so strongly held that they would seem to be a
part of their holders’ religion or psychosis.
Strong
convictions of some persons in the society overrun the society itself and they become
more equal among equals, while others believe just the opposite. The dialogue
of the deaf continues. Socio-religious
experiments always will be tentative and imperfect. It does not claim to
transform the youth totally. But by patiently searching for facts and patterns
and calmly analyzing the social and ‘inner-political’ mechanisms, it can focus
attention on the greater needs of the youth. It can unmask certain preconceived
or fraudulent notions, and subject all positions to constant critical scrutiny.
What we need today is to be trained to judge the solidity of systems of the
past, and eliminate wrong or poorly grounded positions.
Why I suggest
to disband the Commissions, is because they seem to me useless. The reason is
obvious: whatever its original conception, the Commissions hardly play an
intellectual role. It was the product of a systemic and structural religious
role. Later it was used to implement some congregational policies.
Anyway, the
question remains: what to replace it with?
Whom to plant in the Commissions, and how to bring their wisdom to bear
on the ministries. I suggest that there be two meetings of the Rectors and
In-Charges annually, divide them according to various sectors and propose
policy, plans and programs. The local communities should be free to take their
advice.
In brief, the
Commissions, as usually it is, should be converted into a market for ideas and
studied proposals; the communities should be the buyers without having to pay.
The product should be good ones, which should go into policy. The output of the
‘thought commission’ should be exposed to the critical view of the confreres of
the province.
What in
place of Commissions?
Planned
development and structured “frame of reference” is a must, we know (e.g. “Youth
Minstry –a frame of reference”). But it has to be ‘open ended’ and balanced
leaving room for urgency and immediate need of the situation and occasion,
where ‘six-year plan’ may not fit in, according to the time and need.
Though
rigorous planning with foresight has been a ‘forte’ for the Salesians, the fractural
‘credo’ had been: jack of all trade, master of none. An analytical and systemic mind was not the
‘cup’ for its members. Many carried out this structural commissions without believing
in it, especially with the Indian minds. We are more of ‘spurring’ lot, filled
with inspired and insightful moments. Often the momentary ‘luck’ has favored
us. We do not feel the need to the stick
to the ‘guided staff’, instead to feel at ease to stick out our neck for ease
and that is comfortable to us. They become our ‘non-performing assets.’ This
style of functioning, that is, looking after our own, leads to a mess of
everything. The commission-based planning might be massive stimuli for the
European Structural minds. This advancement requires also the social, cultural
and administrative empowerment to enable to combine the ‘global’ with the local
realities. This will bring enrichment within the commissions themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment