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
- We live in a world in which 1.2 billion people (or 24% of total 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.
- This makes one wonder whether those who prepare these globally-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).
- 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 sustainability (essential characteristics of a high-quality, bottom-centred process) are mostly ignored. Level of outcome and quality of process are inseparable for positive social action. Period.
- Actually, the gap between goal-oriented rhetoric and practical 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 proponents. Therefore, being a political-ideological-development-model with its own (uncaring) ethics, it is absolutely legitimate for us to challenge the free-market-economics model’s validity. 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 reminded 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].
- As Denis Goulet says , “Development needs to be redefined, demystified 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 development 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 embark in changing them].
The development/human rights interface
- The ethics of current free-market-economics promotes aggregate economic growth, profit maximization, individualism plus non-intervention/minimal-intervention and minimal public expenditure 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.
- The issue is not to spend precious time criticizing free-market-economics because it is un-ethical, but rather to struggle for it to accept and adopt a ‘better’ ethical base: the ethics of rights and the ethics of justice.
- 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.
- 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)
- In September 2001, the UN Secretary-General presented a report to the General Assembly entitled “Road Map Towards the Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration” outlining 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 activities 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 currently are– we are no longer pursuing a human rights-based approach…Disappointing, isn’t it?
Human rights
- To start with, a caveat here: Human rights are not only those entitlements codified in human rights covenants and conventions. Human rights are human constructs, which means that new rights will be constructed and gradually codified; the codification is the end of the process, not the beginning. Human rights represent one of the most positive manifestations of human endeavour in the last 50 years. There is no reason why today’s globalized world cannot provide for the advancement and active promotion of the human rights-based approach to development.
- Further, a human right is both a right to something (for example 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).
- “Human rights standards” define the minimum acceptable level of an outcome, while “human rights principles” specify the criteria 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.
- 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.
- 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 realize that right).
- In sum, the human rights approach thus provides a transparent 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 ‘pattern of accountabilities’.
- 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 decisions.
- 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 implemented.
Democracy/human rights interface
- 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 pillars of the UN Charter –yet democracy is never mentioned.
- For some time now, the World Bank has openly strived for accountability, 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.
- 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 purportedly met without democracy, although this is less likely. Be it as it may, talk about and/or steps towards democracy are threatening to many non-democratic governments.
- Recognition of human rights –including ratification of UN conventions– does not require democracy either. Many non-democratic governments have ratified them. Many governments ratify these conventions primarily for reasons of international legitimacy.
- 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
- Development, democracy and human rights –all three must progress simultaneously.
So, our task is to create a ‘global embarrassment’ for governments that fail to use their utmost resources for the realization of development, human rights and democracy of their citizens.
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City