The draft Policy paper about meaning full involvement seems the “old wine in a new bottle ” i.e. the “Tokenestic Approach” again. Such as if we think of the top most decision making body i.e. technical advisory group, only Two people living with HIV are there from INP+ and PWN+ in a body of 15 to 20 persons in total. The voices of PLWH could be UNHEARD as usual by a large group of professionals.
The aspect most attractif of WOHA is the secondary effect of advancing of accountability. If the member state delegation be come aware that the grand public is following them at World Health Assembly, and maybe hold them true to the eloquent words, the WOHA can have a good impact on health matters. It is clair that politiciens are sensitive of what is said on them, and tweeting and blogging on what is said make echos in the home country. Make the Ministers more responsible for the failures of the programmes would strengthen WHO. In simple termes, the more of peoples coming to WOHA, the more accountable the WHO and the high level delegates will be. This is not confrontation approach. It is juste natural bi-product of opening the WHA to WOHA.
Jean-Claude Bimmu, Cameroun