Discussions at the United Nations on the post-2015 development agenda reflect a new and momentous undertaking for humanity. To a degree never seen before in such negotiations, input from individuals, communities and social institutions are being channeled into a global process of collective stock-taking and planning. But what are we moving toward? What do we hope to create?

The issue of vision will be vital over the coming months. The way aspirations are framed goes hand in hand with the way policies are formulated – and actions implemented. The medical analogy is well-worn but illustrative: healthcare interventions organized around the aim of alleviating disease can differ significantly from those designed to actively promote health and wellness. Their methods are related, of course, and their objectives linked; but the one cannot be said to be identical to the other.  

This is particularly true for the development agenda. There is a difference between a vision of what is to be built, constructed, and proactively brought about, and a vision of what is to be reduced, eradicated, and alleviated. Countless development organizations define their work in terms that, while lofty sounding and indeed genuinely commendable, are fundamentally negative in operation. The world they envision for the future is essentially the world of the present with less poverty, less war, less hunger, less disease.

Goals such as these are worthwhile in their own right, of course. But the paradigm in which they are situated is inherently limited. Just as the “pill for every ill” approach to medicine goes only so far, the diagnosis and remediation of social maladies has only so much utility as a tool for mobilizing human capacity and volition.

Distinctions between vision in the positive and vision in the negative can seem somewhat abstract. Their practical consequences, however, can be serious indeed.

The so-called Arab spring provides a great illustration. In country after country, the people came forward to promote change, united behind the elimination of a perceived ill. In some cases, governments changed and new freedoms emerged. Yet the lack of an underlying unity of vision for what should come after has in many cases led to numerous reversals or even outright civil war.

Put another way: it is far easier to find common cause against the status quo, than it is to agree on what should replace it.

What implications does this concept have for the global development agenda? The World We Want 2015; A Million Voices: The World We Want and similar initiatives represent sincere attempts to gather grassroots hopes for the future. The impact such efforts have on the tone, direction, and outcome of multilateral deliberations, however, is less clear.

The proposal of the Open Working Group for Sustainable Development Goals, for example, paints an aspirational picture of a world “that is just, equitable and inclusive, and committed to work together to promote sustained and inclusive economic growth, social development and environmental protection...to benefit all.” But its targets and indicators remain heavily focused on the many and varied drivers of human misery and distress.

Suffering of course needs to be alleviated. But the vision of eradication that underlies much of the post-2015 development discourse could benefit from a more fully developed vision of construction and creation.

Discussions of poverty and deprivation could explore elements of true prosperity and wealth. Analysis of gender discrimination could investigate how men and women come to work shoulder to shoulder as equal partners in a common enterprise. Examinations of prejudice could consider solidarity. Focus on corruption could be expanded to encompass honesty and trustworthiness – not just at the level of concept, but as practical, actionable aspects of behavior.

A creative vision of what is to come is central to achieving truly transformative change. Clearly articulating the highest conditions of the world we aspire to bring about therefore stands as one practical means of ensuring that all of us are building the future that we want, as opposed to merely avoiding the future that we don’t.

By Daniel Perell

Representative of the Baha’i International Community to the United Nations