A few days ago I received the questionnaires from the three IJR candidates Juanma (COL), Rou (EGY) and Alex (CAN). I was quite impressed by the inspiration, reflection and creativity that could be found in those questionaires.
Many years ago, Chris (GER) and Gian (BRA), two IJRs in 1995, had a bet, which of their countries would be first to have three more IJRs. With Peer-Ole and Marcos it's 1:1 in 2009, and none of these two big CISV countries even has a candidate. Setting Canada aside, with Colombia and Egypt it's two "emerging NAs" that are more prominent in IJB these days.
Being a statistics nerd, I was interested which NA sent the most IJR candidates in the past. Unfortunately I could only rely on the shaky JBpedia data (I hope some old-time JBer will amend it someday), but here you go:
A few things are interesting:
- Mexico, Costa Rica and Argentina are all Latin American countries with small-to-medium sized NAs, but a history of 3 IJR candidates.
- Sweden has a record of 4 IJR candidates, but there has never been a Swedish IJR. They obviously need an Obama campaign management!
- Germany apparently fullfills the stereotype of being efficient: Three candidates, three IJRs.
So, if you want to be an IJR better run against a Swede than a German...
Update: Digging into old IJR-letters, I found three more IJR-candidates from 1994 and 1995 from Iceland, Australia and Canada. Unfortunately I deleted the spreadsheet already, so I can't update the graph. But this doesn't really change too many things, except for Canada being the no1 IJR candidate country.
Update 2: Here's a more accurate graphic that also represents the ratio between elected and non-elected:
Many years ago, Chris (GER) and Gian (BRA), two IJRs in 1995, had a bet, which of their countries would be first to have three more IJRs. With Peer-Ole and Marcos it's 1:1 in 2009, and none of these two big CISV countries even has a candidate. Setting Canada aside, with Colombia and Egypt it's two "emerging NAs" that are more prominent in IJB these days.
Being a statistics nerd, I was interested which NA sent the most IJR candidates in the past. Unfortunately I could only rely on the shaky JBpedia data (I hope some old-time JBer will amend it someday), but here you go:
A few things are interesting:
- Mexico, Costa Rica and Argentina are all Latin American countries with small-to-medium sized NAs, but a history of 3 IJR candidates.
- Sweden has a record of 4 IJR candidates, but there has never been a Swedish IJR. They obviously need an Obama campaign management!
- Germany apparently fullfills the stereotype of being efficient: Three candidates, three IJRs.
So, if you want to be an IJR better run against a Swede than a German...
Update: Digging into old IJR-letters, I found three more IJR-candidates from 1994 and 1995 from Iceland, Australia and Canada. Unfortunately I deleted the spreadsheet already, so I can't update the graph. But this doesn't really change too many things, except for Canada being the no1 IJR candidate country.
Update 2: Here's a more accurate graphic that also represents the ratio between elected and non-elected:
I can recall at least 3 italians: me, nico and Luigi Marotti...
Not a big change... :)
Shoot. Don't know where that mistake came from. All three Italians are listed on the JBpedia page.
Somehow, the IJR election politics and campaigning will never be the same after this!
Things that also interest me:
- Percentage of elected IJRs who continue to "serve" in the organisation after their term is over (ie. IJR burnout)
- Percentage of candidates who have lost an election and have continued to have a bright career elsewhere in the organisation and outside of it
- Percentage of countries "represented" in elected IJRs and IJR Candidates
Stastistics are f-u-n.
(Maybe not as fun and perhaps more difficult, is to see similar statistics for IEC elections, and Chair and Alternate Chair appointments...and women/men percentages?)
IJR burnout is an interesting question. Some IJRs moved on to the IEC, others become trustees of their countries or committee chairs.
I've already started doing some research on EEC representation, and since all EEC are usually listed in the Annual Report, it shouldn't be difficult to get the numbers pinned down and graphed.
Keep tuned to the Balcony!
I know that this is not relevant to the above statistics (which are really nice and interesting) I want to point out something that has been happening for many years and that the balcony should be looking at.
It is ridiculous that IJR candidate nominees refuse their nomination and don't run for the position of IJR because they have no money to attend that year's AIM/IJBC, even though they could make great amazing IJRs!
I find it really frustrating that just because someone can't pay his trip to IJBC/AIM, he can't run for IJR. Something should be done about it... it's such a shame to lose such good candidates for such a reason.
Brazil, as far as I know, had 4 IJR Candidates (though Fernando Cesario did withdraw at some point before IJBC). 3 of those were elected.
And I think Canada has even more, no?
I'm remembering now Chris B, Chris P, Aynsley, Kelly, Alex and Jeff. So that's 6. With your extra from 1994/5 it makes it 7. Impressive!
Statistics are fun!
And Hani - you are right. We tried last year to get some funding for the candidates to help them out, but we heard (from the IO or the IFC or both, don't rememebr) that we cannot fund anything for candidates. Basically because you can't fund a no-position. Unfortunate, but it makes sense.
(In that case, there were 4 IJR Candidates from Costa Rica, too -I withdrew before IJBC-)
:)
Thanks for all the Comments everybody!
- I added a new graphic that also represents the ratio between elected/non-elected, that will get updated if more data comes in.
- Candidates that withdraw before elections aren't included here. There's tons more of that kind and I have no clue how to track them down, and it wouldn't make too much sense.
- Hani, I agree that there's a problem with good candidates withdrawing - however, I see a responsibility for the national JB/NA here to support its own candidates.
- Marcos: Which year did Jeff run for IJR?
In that case, Brazil is also like germany. All candidates won.
About Jeff, I have the impression it was 1984. Not completely sure; maybe someone knows or should ask him (and many others) to do his job at JBPedia.
We usually do an informal head count at AIM, and according to my memory there have been more non-elected candidates present at AIM than those who served as IJR, at least for the last several years. I think burnout is a very real thing, and I also think that those who don't become IJR are forced (or choose) to re-invent CISV for themselves in a way that maintains involvement (which is not simply a matter of level of motivation, but also of perspective)
Ok I'm going to go back to the point of IJR nominees who don't become candidate because of money issues. Until when is this going to happen? you ask the IO/IFC - or whatever acronym you want - they say they can't fund a no-position. you say it's the NA's responsibility to support the candidates and the NAs say that "I-dunno-what-acronym" should fund candidates and basically this continues on and on and we keep loosing great candidates over the years over the fact that everyone wants to get rid of their responsibility to fund the candidate.
It's shameful that we as an organization are ready to let candidates go because they simply don't have the money and not provide them with the proper funding -IO/IFC/NA/etc...- rather than looking at how good they are and how beneficial they can be to this organization. This shows how much we appreciate intellect and potential in CISV and support it and not make something as stupid as funding be a problem in front of what the person can give to CISV...
I must say it's hard for me to agree with IJR candidates being funded by CISV international.. How would we control if people were really running for IJR's or just wanting a free trip to Guatemala or wherever AIM is being hosted?
But maybe if NAs had some kind of bonus (fee reduction or whatever) if they had IJR candidates, maybe they (NAs) would be interested in funding someone to run for the position.
Or maybe it's the IJR election that needs to be reviewed, as someone needs to pay a ton of money to go to AIM and therefore be elected, which, let's face it, isn't cheap...
Still, it's a complicated issue.. CISV is expensive...!
I think that ofcourse someone having to pay an average of 2000 dollars for a meeting to run for a position that they may or may not get is really shitty ofcourse. I agree that NAs should give some support to the candidates, but lets me realistic, most average NAs cannot afford to do that. I got lucky because I'm in my last year as NJR so I still get funding from my NA, but if I wasn't I don't think I would be able to go to Guatemala.
I think the problem is also in the way the election is done as well, that people have to be there to be elected. This ofcourse is important as people need to meet who they are voting for but still is so difficult to expect everyone wanting to run for ijr to find a way of funding themselves to such an expensive meeting.
So I would say rather than looking at the problem from the angle of funding IJR Candidates to go to IJBC, we look at it from another angle of looking at the whole process and how it is done and the expectations that can be put on people considering running!
My two cents,
Rou
In reply to Ze's question about controlling who is really running and who just wants to go to IJBC:
1) IJRs get nominated and don't run. So someone running just to go to IJBC doesn't hold a lot.
2) I don't think anyone would really do that in CISV because the quality of IJR nominees that we get each year is above doing something like this.
I totally agree with what Rou said. Something MAJOR is wrong with the way we run our IJR elections and where it's done and how it's draining talent, and seriously need to reconsider it and not just edit a few things - that didn't really change anything primary in the elections - like what the IJRs did at the beginning of the year. To know what I'm talking about, check JB Community and read the threads on the IJR election process for 2008-2009.
Just to give you a taste of how nearly impossible it is to change the way we do our elections, I asked Kelly, the IJR, why the election has to happen at AIM and not IJBC, and she said (aquoting the secretary) in order to do so we need to submit a motion at AIM 2010 (not 2009 cause it's too late) for the TRUSTEES who have nothing DIRECT to do with the election of the representative of the juniors to vote if they allow us to have elections at IJBC and not at AIM. That's ridiculous :)
Hani
Is not that ridiculous to elect IJR at AIM. IJRs are board members and committee chair. This means that every NAs, even if juniors won't be at IJBC has the right to vote for the position with their trustee. It's also a recognition of the importance IJB has in CISV International. I agree that it may feel depriving juniors of their own informal way of doing things, but guys formalism is not always bad.
Moreover even if I agree of the limit on IJR candidates imposed by the fact they are paying their attendance at IJBC/AIM (even if several are paid by their NAs), the solution of having paying them the trip is not the right one to have as candidate only people interested in the position. On the other side is not easy to elect people you don't meet personally...
I invite everybody not to look for easy and popular solution, while addressing complex problems.
IJRs are committee chairs...IJRs are board members... IJRs get recognized etc...
who cares about all those if half of the NJRs and JBers at the meeting won't be there to elect their representatives? Why do we keep forgetting that IJRs are from the juniors and for the juniors before being committee chairs and etc... and that it is the RIGHT of juniors to elect their representatives and be there to discuss the election process. Last year a big controversy happened in the election and a lot of us weren't there to be part of that and put our input and kind of felt as a whole (people who were still at AIM and people who had left home) that it is a must to have the elections at IJBC, the meeting that is for the juniors and at which their representatives should be elected when there is full attendance. That would allow a more open forum and space to discuss the elections and the process and make the proper changes that the juniors and NJRs want when electing their representatives. This was a common feeling at last IJBC among many more revolutionary points regarding the way this subject is tackled (many that weren't included in the new IJR election process posted on JB Community).
So let's start thinking of who we are electing the IJRs for and whose voice matters the most when electing them rather than giving in to formalism that IS bad :)
cheers
Hani
Hi everyone.
IJBC is not International JB. It is sad indeed that not all of IJBC are at the elections at AIM, but to move it to days before makes not very much difference in the perspective of inclusion in decision making.
I agree there is a lot to move in that direction, and that there is an implicit tension between representation and leadership - that is not very easy to balance. (specially when you try to please so many people).
But IJB is not an island. "from juniors and for juniors before..." does not take us very far. Where would the many contributions IJB gave to CISV (almost all programmes, basically) go? Junior Branch is a complex body, with many nuances. We are not electing the IJRs for the juniors, only. We are electing them for the whole organisation.
It is true, though - the expectations put in people to run for IJR is quite surreal. I think in a way (as we can see by this forum, too) also because the expectations put in IJRs themselves are quite surreal. And Hani - IJRs are much less "recognised" than what you would think. It's no easy life, really. Why do you think everyone (besides teo) quits after being IJR?
In any case, it has to be fixed - and hopefully with the strengthening of the IJB Committee we are moving in this direction.
[but then again, I think nobody is really well recognised in CISV. Pretty much everyone that dedicates way-above-average time (some NJRs included) end up with a bitter-sweet feeling in the end.]
It is in the JB Essentials that JBs and the IJB is an independent AND integral part of the organization. The way I see it, we are disagreeing on which is more important: to be independent or integral? For me, we can't be integral unless we become independent, unless we fix they way we are working in, unless we have a strong structure and are working just fine. Yes I know you might say that those two concepts need to go together, you need to be independent and integral at the same time, yet I don't see them as co-ideas but rather as a pre-idea and a post-idea(at least this is my opinion). I am not belittling the idea of being integral, not at all. but I, and a lot of the people present at last IJBC and people who read about what came out from the discussions about the election and the whole "how we work" processes, have this belief that junior branch is the ultimate CISV program and want to dedicate their efforts in this organisation towards the JB.
Bringing the elections two days before to IJBC: will that take make much difference in inclusion and decision making?
It might not make THAT big of a difference, but at least it's a start, at least it's what everyone who was at IJBC and who was representing his JB back home wants. It's a way of being recognized as independent, it's one way, even if a small way that doesn't really make much of a difference for you maybe, but for me and them, it makes a whole lot of a difference that could lead to a bigger much more effective difference in the future. It's about the first step towards really starting to feel recognised as independent.
I am not trying to overrun any of your ideas about IJB and CISV International. At all! I am one who supports highly the contribution JBs give to the rest of the organization, but does not support doing it on the expense of strengthening the JB itself.
Anyways, one last thing on the recognition part: I totally agree with you Marcos. I know that IJRs aren't really recognized and are expected to do a whole lot more than they can do - super hero style - (even if what they are doing is great and overburdening). They are not recognised for their hard work from the IJB because everyone keeps expecting more, and not much recognised from the rest of the organisation too: that could bring anyone in any position down, so how about the IJRs? I totally get that and think that we are getting closer and closer towards this recognition since the creation of the IJB committee but still have a lot to go through.
The way I see it, Junior Branch was created to be an integral part of CISV, not an independent-revolutionary bunch of juniors. IJR's are the face/voice of juniors in CISV, but why would juniors need a voice anyway?
Juniors are NA members, they could speak for their trustee... However, this platform of development has been created and it's called junior branch.
Juniors have more time to work in CISV things than seniors do (because most of us still study), juniors have fresher ideas that can help CISV a lot, and by giving them (us) the space to do that, to elect our representatives shows that juniotr's importance is recognized in a way.
I agree that IJR's being elected at AIM may not be seen as "a junior thing", but after all CISV is the whole reason why we're here.. I would suggest IJR's be elected right in the beginning of AIM. This would allow juniors to feel there is a continuation of their work in IJBC and it's still their space, but on the other hand, we would still have the important official election of a CISV officer.
What I would like to focus on is the price of AIM. It was somehow talked about in CISV Devil's proposal #59 (http://www.ijb.cisv.org/devils/2008/12/proposal-59-same-aim.html) and I agree it's a big issue we must address. AIM this year costs over 110 Dollars a day. In italy, the one AIM i've been to, it cost 60 euros a day (for comparison it would be 72 USD - at 1.2 exchange rate and 90 at 1.5). Added to the travelling costs of AIM, this makes it very hard for juniors who are not funded by their NA's to attend and therefore generate among IJBers the feeling that "it's not their space". So, I'd suggest we think of a way to make AIM cost-effective for everyone, to make it accessible.
PS: I wonder if we could see some statistics of the costs of AIMs for the past few years...
Cheers
Wow. It's curious how these statistics on IJR nominations have stimulated quite an intense debate on the role of IJRs, IJB and IJBC.
From my perspective - leaving "juniorhood" about 5 years ago - a lot of things have happened in the last 10 years, most of which blurred the once clear destinction between Juniors and Seniors, or IJBC and AIM, or trustees and IJRs. Insofar it's only logical to question every aspect of it.
Over at Devils people have suggested:
- Shutting down IJBC
- Getting rid of Junior Branch altogether
Here's my 5 cents on the three main questions discussed in this thread:
- Should IJRs be elected during IJBC or AIM?
As mentioned both solutions have their pros and cons, and maybe a compromise like elections during the first day of AIM is possible. A few years ago I suggested running AIM parallel with IJBC, that would solve this issue as well as potentially reduce costs for AIM/IJBC participation.
- How can IJR candidates be supported?
I would like to see a more creative approach here: How about regions fundraising for their candidates? How about an IJRs candidate fund? Also this question is probably closely tied to the next one, becuase it all comes down to the cost of IJBC/AIM.
- How can AIMs be cheaper?
This question has been adressed many times in the past, and quoting Teo, there is no easy solution for a complex problem. I'm indeed working on some numbers to compare AIM costs in the past years, so let's spare this discussion for another post, ok?