Food for a rhetoric thought to be put into action
-------------------------------------------------
Good news! (for some at least). The HR Readers 1-100 are now
posted under No. 69 in http://www.humaninfo.org/aviva
Human Rights Reader 110
If I accept the responsibility that I should act, and I have the
authority that I may act, and I have the resources so I can act,
I can indeed be held accountable for my actions (or non-
actions).
Development, Human Rights and Democracy have one thing in common
--they all represent un-achievable human aspirations. There will
never be a society in which all human rights are realized for
everybody; but strive towards these un-achievable goals we still
simply must.
Development:
1. We live in a world in which 1.2 billion people (or 24% of to-
tal world population) live in extreme poverty (below $1 a day)
and extrapolations tell us that, despite MDGs, 1.44 billion will
still be extremely poor by 2015.
2. This makes one wonder whether those who prepare these glob-
ally-binding documents and who adopt them so easily are really
"ignorant of the nature of the subject and of the matters with
which they deal". To focus on the MDGs totally out of context of
the overall Millennium Declaration context --as most development
agencies are doing-- is a politically motivated step that we
must be aware-of and react-to. (see below).
3. Over the years, human development has become 'goal-oriented'
and 'outcome-focused' with limited attention being given to the
quality and legitimacy of the process(es) of development being
fostered (or imposed). A proof of this is that most of the MDGs
represent specific, and at that only desirable outcomes. One
cannot but be sensitive to how these outcomes came about, i.e.,
issues of participation, local ownership, empowerment, and sus-
tainability (essential characteristics of a high-quality, bot-
tom-centred process) are mostly ignored. Level of outcome and
quality of process are inseparable for positive social action.
Period.
4. Actually, the gap between goal-oriented rhetoric and practi-
cal action is a gap between theory and practice and ethics. This
is why this Reader keeps repeating that the current type of
globalized-free-market-economy is 'un-ethical'. These days,
free-market-economics is promoted as an ideology, with a very
uncaring ethical base. --the latter often denied by its propo-
nents. Therefore, being a political-ideological-development-
model with its own (uncaring) ethics, it is absolutely legiti-
mate for us to challenge the free-market-economics model's va-
lidity. This because Globalization --the flagship of free-
market-economics-- creates winners and losers, the latter having
many of their rights violated. [On the other hand, we are re-
minded that globalization, in its positive aspects, provides us
with new opportunities for the promotion of a 'global ethics' --
as embedded in the human rights approach to development].
5. As Denis Goulet says, "Development needs to be redefined, de-
mystified and thrust into the area of moral debate." Amartya Sen
adds that development has to be built on "cross-cultural moral
minima". On the other hand, Emmanuel Kant tells us that "Ought
(ethics) must be preceded by can (science) --otherwise it is
Utopia," Yet other have added the concept of "do-ability of de-
velopment changes" meaning that trying to realise ethically-
desirable, defined development goals, we can only proceed as
fast as circumstances allow. [The fallacy here is that we do not
have to take the 'circumstances' as given! We can and should em-
bark in changing them].
The development/human rights interface:
6. The ethics of current free-market-economics promotes aggre-
gate economic growth, profit maximization, individualism plus
non-intervention/minimal-intervention and minimal public expen-
diture by the State. This ethic includes the realization of
civil and political rights through procedural democracy (i.e.,
elections), good governance and the rule of law, but it rejects
the legitimacy of economic, social and cultural rights. So,
since the ethical base of free-market-economic-theory excludes
human rights, it is not surprising that its proponents hardly
look for any human rights violations.
7. The issue is not to spend precious time criticizing free-
market-economics because it is un-ethical, but rather to strug-
gle for it to accept and adopt a 'better' ethical base: the eth-
ics of rights and the ethics of justice.
8. The equality-trade-off (compromising equity in order to allow
rapid capital accumulation and economic growth) (1), and the
liberty-trade-off (denial of some civil and political rights in
order first to address underdevelopment) (2) at the core of
free-market-economics are, of course, unacceptable trade-offs
from a human rights-based perspective.
9. Coming back to the implications of all this on the MDGs, most
UN and bi-lateral agencies have actually reduced the Millennium
Declaration (September 2000) to the 11 development goals (MDGs)
defined in only two of the 32 paragraphs-long document. Six of
these goals define targeted desirable outcomes; out of the other
five goals, four are related to desirable processes. But the
Declaration contains 39 additional goals, most of them necessary
for a sustainable and acceptable process of development --many
of them explicitly referring to human rights principles. (see
below)
10. In September 2001, the UN Secretary-General presented a re-
port to the General Assembly entitled "Road Map Towards the Im-
plementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration" out-
lining strategies for action to meet the goals of the Millennium
Declaration. The Road Map report does bring human rights up, but
does not emphasise "the centrality of human rights in all ac-
tivities pertaining to development." The focus thus remained on
the MDGs, not on the Millennium Declaration as a whole! So, when
the MDGs are taken out of their intended context --as they cur-
rently are-- we are no longer pursuing a human rights-based ap-
proach. Disappointing, isn't it?
Human rights:
11. To start with, a caveat here: Human rights are not only
those entitlements codified in human rights covenants and con-
ventions. Human rights are human constructs, which means that
new rights will be constructed and gradually codified; the codi-
fication is the end of the process, not the beginning. Human
rights represent one of the most positive manifestations of hu-
man endeavour in the last 50 years. There is no reason why to-
day's globalized world cannot provide for the advancement and
active promotion of the human rights-based approach to develop-
ment.
12. Further, a human right is both a right to something (for ex-
ample basic education) and a right against somebody (for example
teachers and/or ministries of education). This is different from
an "entitlement", which has no correlative duty-bearer(s).
13. "Human rights standards" define the minimum acceptable level
of an outcome, while "human rights principles" specify the cri-
teria for an acceptable process to achieve an outcome. The HR
principles now universally accepted are those of:
Universality and Indivisibility--Equality and Non-Discrimination
--Participation and Inclusion -- Accountability and Rule of Law.
14. There is a fundamental difference between the achievement of
a standard and the realization of a right (= standards plus
principles). A non-democratic or authoritarian government can
well achieve human rights standards but, in the absence of HR
principles, these are at best privileges that can be withdrawn
at any time by the government; they are like a form of charity.
15. The realization of human rights requires that the individual
is in a position to make demands on others (i.e., duty-bearers)
-- that is, to claim their rights against somebody. This does
not mean that, just because an individual cannot claim his or
her right, the individual does not have that right. (Slaves did
have the right to freedom before they were in a position to re-
alize that right).
16. In sum, the human rights approach thus provides a transpar-
ent pattern of claim(holder)-duty(bearer) relationships which
define accountabilities at all levels of society. The 'pattern
of rights' in society can, therefore, be translated into a 'pat-
tern of accountabilities'.
17. This makes it clear that the immediate, underlying and basic
causes of the non-realization of specific rights need to be
identified. These can either be (1) a lack of capacity of claim-
holders to claim their rights, (2) a lack of capacity of duty-
bearers to meet their duties, or (3) both. Capacity here broadly
means (a) responsibility, (b) authority, (c) access and control
of the resources needed (human, economic and organizational)
plus the capability to communicate and to make rational deci-
sions.
18. These capacities and the commensurate capacity-development-
efforts can be monitored. Activities to assess the capacity-of
right-holders-to-claim-their-rights and of duty-bearers-to-
fulfil-their-obligations thus need to be planned-for and imple-
mented.
Democracy/human rights interface:
19. Democracy has not had the same ideological standing in the
UN as Human Rights. "Compared to democracy, human rights hold a
very powerful institutional position in the international
arena." Peace, justice, freedom, and human rights are the pil-
lars of the UN Charter --yet democracy is never mentioned.
20. For some time now, the World Bank has openly strived for ac-
countability, rule of law, good governance and transparency of
their borrowers --all elements of democracy. But it uses these
HR principles more with the intention to create a stable and
safe business climate than to look after the rights of the
'rightless' --no matter how much they try to convince us about
their 'new' poverty-reduction focus.
21. With or without WB loans, some non-democratic countries have
experienced very rapid development, and some poor countries with
insignificant development during the last two decades are, in
fact, democracies. Human rights standards can be met in a non-
democratic country; for example, the human rights standards of
universal primary education may be provided, but, remember, they
are then enjoyed as a privilege. Even the MDGs can be purport-
edly met without democracy, although this is less likely. Be it
as it may, talk about and/or steps towards democracy are threat-
ening to many non-democratic governments.
22. Recognition of human rights --including ratification of UN
conventions-- does not require democracy either. Many non-
democratic governments have ratified them. Many governments rat-
ify these conventions primarily for reasons of international le-
gitimacy.
23. The above provides a good background to understand what a
number of international organizations are saying these days:
'Democracy will take time; many human rights can be realised in
non-democratic countries'. The rationale behind this thinking
is: 'Human rights can be realised without democracy, so why
wait?'. [The fallacy here is that, for us, meeting human rights
standards and principles can only be achieved in a democracy.
Democracy and human rights are dialectically related. One lacks
the full meaning without the other].
Summing up:
24. Development, democracy and human rights --all three must
progress simultaneously.
So, our task is to create a 'global embarrassment' for govern-
ments that fail to use their utmost resources for the realiza-
tion of development, human rights and democracy of their citi-
zens.
Claudio Schuftan
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
mailto:claudio@hcmc.netnam.vn