Realizing that the digital breach was hurting Uruguay’s economy and was expanding social inequalities, since a considerable percentage of Uruguayans did no have access to Internet or computer resources, the government of Tabaré Vazquez (Frente Amplio – left wing) launched the Plan Ceibal in 2007. The idea is quite simple but complicated to put in practice. The Uruguayan government gave a simple laptop to every single elementary school student and every teacher of the country. Between 2007 and 2009, they procured laptops to all 350 000 students and installed Wi-fi connections in every elementary school.

The objectives behind the Plan Ceibal are obviously educational: limit the digital breach, facilitate access to Internet and computer tools. This way, Uruguay hopes the new generation will not fall behind in terms of computer knowledge, now an essential part of education and a crucial prerogative to access quality jobs. The Plan Ceibal is even more ambitious. It proposes a partial solution to social exclusion, to the depreciation of public school and community isolation.

Since children can bring their laptops home, the intent is to facilitate access for parents as well. So far it is working; it is now very common to see adults using laptops on the porch of their houses (to get better signals) to get recipes, read the newspaper or whatever one wants to do with a computer.

Traditionally, Uruguay has enjoyed the best public education system in Latin America, until recently it was very common for middle class and even high income families to send their kids to public school.  Thanks to economic problems and some neo-liberal reforms in the 90s, the public system has lost some of its appeal and we have seen a growing gap between private and public schools. In this context, the Plan Ceibal contributes to making public schools more attractive and better adapted to the 21^st century.

Even though this initiative has clearly a top-down approach, the idea is to capacitate the teachers and offer new tools for impoverished communities. The biggest impacts of the Plan Ceibal are seen in rural communities and low incomes neighborhood. Obviously, a better access to Internet and computer tools does not solve complex social problems, however, it does facilitate daily lives (looking for a job, stay informed). More importantly, it contributes to reintegrate many communities that were excluded from a crucial part of society. Like it or not, Internet has become a dominant force in our lives, and those individuals and communities who do not have access, become second-class citizens and irrelevant communities to the rest of the world.

In general, I am very skeptical of the overemphasis our education system (in Canada) puts on ICT (Information and Communication Technology), since the vast majority of Canadian children/teenagers manage very well computer tools while many have clear weaknesses in terms of reading and writing (I would also say thinking…). However, in the Uruguayan case, the Plan Ceibal seems to be a very positive initiative and will contribute to a better integration of many communities that have been left behind. It has engendered numerous reactions in other South American countries. For example, Argentina has decided to develop a similar plan of its own. Hopefully, this initiative from this small country will contribute in battling the digital breach in the whole region.

Google Images says that this picture is representative of a "Tarado" - what do you think?

In my opinion, a few factors make Argentina a low social capital country:  a history of dictatorships, bad governments (check out Carlos Menem in Google for a hint), some degree of corruption (though not as pronounced as other Latin American countries), strong social inequalities,  a better past (Argentina used to be a model of social equality, dominated by a strong middle class). This context makes most Argentinians think that nothing works as it should and everybody will try to take something from them. In recent years, the sensationalistic media has amplified this trend with an overemphasis on crime, fear and corruption. If nobody acts for the common good, why do it? This very cynical, often nostalgic, view of society justifies letting our little “tarado” express himself freely.

Do you think that everybody has a little douchebag inside them? I know that Pedro would want me to say something like, “would you like some?” Oh, Pedro…

Building communities is often perceived as a very local matter involving a small group of people. In reality, the global economic and social context does as much with community-building as individual involvement and micro level mobilization. With this idea in mind, 148 organizations of peasants and small farmers participate in La Via Campesina (meaning the peasant´s way), a transnational movement promoting and defending rural communities.

The movement, founded in 1993, has become one of the main opponents of the corporate model of agriculture. By favouring corporate control of the land, subsidies to mega-producers, dumping of agricultural products by northern countries, and making wide use of chemicals, its members consider that the actual international system destroys agrarian communities, peasant lives and their most precious resource, land.

The movement in general and every ones of the 148 organisations are trying to build a common sense of identity as peasants. Even if the term might be pejorative in English (the Spanish equivalent “campesino” is not), it refers to people living and working on the land. To protect their livelihood and develop an agriculture serving the population, La Via Campesina proposes an alternative model based on three principles.

Food sovereignty

The idea of food sovereignty goes further than national auto sufficiency as it is often understood. La Via Campesina sees food sovereignty as a right to produce food locally, thus ensuring the well-being and the protection of farmer communities.

Farm based production

The local model promoted by La Via Campesina is the family farm. They argue that this type of organisation is the best to insure both the preservation of land and culture. A family farm favours production for local and domestic markets, this way inserting agriculture in the local economy and avoiding enormous monoculture productions aiming at exportation (meaning exportation of resources and capital as well). It is important to note that La Via Campesina´s understanding of family farm is flexible, since it can differ from one culture to another.

Community control over distribution and transformation

Another element hurting badly peasants all over the world is the heavy concentration ownership of food distribution and transformation. La Via Campesina advocates a wider diversity in the distribution and transformation of food to ensure fair prices for local farmers and a better control over the quality of aliments.

By organizing themselves at different levels of action, they facilitate the implantation of concrete initiatives allowing a better access to credit and market or the creation of cooperatives to enter the distribution and transformation aspects of food production. More importantly, La Via Campesina pressures governments and international agencies to make policy changes, such as agrarian reform, anti-dumping rules, end of subsidies to mega-producers etc. La Via Campesina has become an important actor on the international stage. Even with limited economic resources, it has made its voice heard, so much so that the World Bank is considering agrarian reforms as potentially useful tool to reinforce developing economies. Not that there is much to hope from the World Bank, however, as this neoliberal institution has condemned vehemently agrarian reforms in the past. This shift illustrates the influence of La Via Campesina (amongst other movements) on the world stage.

In my opinion, La Via Campesina represents a great example of community-building on two fronts. It bases its power and support on local or regional organizations trying to push for changes in both international and national contexts. In the last decade, numerous positive initiatives trying to make a difference have failed because they were limited to local actions with local support. The economic context is often the greatest determinant over the well-being of a community. Therefore, citizen initiatives aiming at building better communities must take it into account, and even better, try to influence the economic system they live in. Through La Via Campesina, thousands of peasants/farmers all over the world have understood this and act in accordance.

For more information, visit La Via Campesina web site: www.viacampesina.org
In Canada, both the Union Paysanne and the National Farmers Union are members of La Via Campesina.

Will the Nordiques come back to Quebec City?

With a Canadian dollar around 70 cents, increasing player salaries, no salary cap and a very old arena (the Colisée holds only 15 000 seats and its corporate boxes are few in number and poor in quality), the owners took the decision to sell the team. The Nordiques moved to Denver in 1995, became the Avalanche and won two Stanley Cups since then (yes, it still hurts…). At the time, both the Federal and the Provincial governments had refused to pay for a new building. In the last 15 years, the economic situation has dramatically changed, the city suffers very little from the actual crisis and the Canadian dollar is very strong. In this context, the actual mayor has decided to make the construction of a new arena a priority. Talks in town are now centered on finding a new owner that would bring the NHL back to la Vieille Capitale. However, one might ask, are rich individuals or powerful corporations the only mean to re-establish professional hockey in Quebec City? I think not.

We should reconsider our obsession with privately owned enterprises. Our collective lack of imagination has let us to accept the precept that everything having the potential of generating a profit must be owned and controlled by private companies. We can and should reconsider this conception, and as everything in life, it starts with hockey…

Like almost 6 million people in Canada, I am a member of Les Caisses Populaires Desjardins, a financial cooperative. That way I keep my money within a collective entity that is acting in accordance to my values and social preoccupations. Why can’t I do the same as a hockey fan?

The NHL recently bought the Coyotes for only 140 million dollars. Let say that price is underestimated (after all Balsillie did offer 242 million), a more accurate price for an NHL franchise would turn around 225 millions dollars. If you divide this amount by 100 000 shares, it means you could become a member of the Nordiques Coop for 2500 dollars (or the Winnipeg Jets Coop if you live in Manitoba). Within this framework, many management models are possible, but South American soccer clubs offer some interesting parameters. Most of them are non-profit organizations and members vote every few years to choose the President. This structure makes it more difficult to compete with rich European Clubs but tickets are maintained at a reasonable price and teams dedicate a lot of energy forming young players through their amateur teams. Far from being perfect, these soccer clubs nonetheless show that alternatives models are available.

Hockey is by far the most important sport in Canada and a central part of our collective identity. If we cherish that sport so much, why do we leave its control to profit driven companies? All the financial resources actually spent on tickets, team products and indirectly on TV shares do not have to go to rich owners; they could actually be kept in the community and contribute to our local economies. Moreover, a coop is essentially a democratic organization. Having a large number of people actively participating in a democratic process linked to our national sport could contribute to better appreciation of democratic life. Finally, members could influence the values defended and the actions taken by their hockey club. This way, it would be easier to make the people in charge more accountable to their fan base, not only in hockey terms but also in terms of social responsibility.

Realistically, Winnipeg or Quebec will not see the return of the NHL in a near future, even less with a business model based on collective ownership. The very conservative NHL would probably oppose the integration of a cooperative. We should nonetheless consider our potential as communities to control a better part of our collective lives; as citizens, consumers, and even as hockey fans.