As human rights workers, our loyalty is recognized when we can feel ashamed about the behavior of our own government. (F. Stern)
We need to tell our leaders the truth, because they too often exert their power without acknowledging the objective facts on the ground –and nobody (less so their cronies) shows them wrong.
1. To promote a dialogue with government (…or a confrontation if unwilling to engage), an option to be considered is to send to the government an open letter on the topic of human rights violations. This is a good idea, precisely because human rights work has the unique power to exact and wring political will out of decision makers. The letter is thus one more tool to enhance our power to demand and negotiate people’s human rights be fulfilled. [Remember that otherwise, human rights work is a mix of promoting human rights learning, public discussion, social monitoring, investigative reporting and social mobilization].
2. The letter should demand a response about what the government has-done, should-be-doing, cannot-do and why, so that civil society can offer what it can do to help to make sure human rights (HR) are progressively realized in realistic terms and realistic time frames.
3. The letter should point out ‘what-should-not-be, but-actually-is’, i.e., pointing out specific HR violations in the different domains especially those of economic, social and cultural rights. Since here is where the investigative reporting comes in, an as thorough as possible review of the non-fulfilled key HR obligations by the state should be systematically carried out prior to preparing the letter*. Ultimately, the letter should not only describe the HR-violating reality, but at the same time, suggest and promote actions that move in the direction of greater social justice and equality of opportunities and of results.
*: The People’s Health Movement Global Right to Health Care Campaign is an example of such an assessment for the violations to the right to health, see www.phmovement.org and follow the link to ‘campaigns’.
4. The letter must remind the government that what it so often engages-in is socially irresponsible and does not stand-up to the justification of being ‘economically effective’.
5. The government should be asked to enact the needed mix of negative obligations (prohibit) and of positive obligations (enforce, respect, protect, provide, facilitate, regulate and promote) –the major ones of these to be listed in the letter in specific and concrete terms.
6. The letter should not leave out questioning the way wealth and power are distributed in society giving concrete examples and adding a list of topics for discussion on this during the dialogue being called for.
7. The government must be asked to change the existing information system so it collects data disaggregated in a way suitable for a HR-based analysis and use.
8. As much as possible, the letter should present situations face-on and should not present them in a totally depersonalized form by using only statistics (a couple personal testimonies presented in boxes in the text will be helpful). Ergo, the letter should emphasize singularities –which is what touches people, what ultimately generates compromise and a feeling that results are attainable.
9. The letter should highlight the HR-based activities that communities — betting on the collective– are already implementing; it will propose ways to strengthen these.
10. The letter will challenge the government to leave passivity aside on HR matters. It will invite for a compromise where the same is in tune with the HR-based framework, especially in what regards progressive realization.**
**: Your bargaining strategy should be the following: “We want A-Z, but in recognition of the political/institutional constraints, we are here to talk about X”. (i.e., you propose an immediate agenda, but you still put it in the context of the overall HR-based framework). What this means is that you do not accept a compromise that goes against A-Z. So you present your demands and, as needed, accept concessions, not as solutions, but as steps in the right direction. Ultimately, you want to shift the political center of gravity the government defends by delegitimizing it through referring to its having ratified the respective UN covenants. From there, your bargaining should be based-on and seek ‘do-not-loose-positions’, as well as HR-progressive-realization-compatible and binding compromise positions.
11. The letter will further invite the government to engage in a joint venture that sets-up new HR-based approaches, recognizing that the same also have risks. It will accept integrating these new approaches progressively and with flexibility in a continuous process that can take years.
12. The letter will also tell the government that he dialogue will include a negotiation about HR remedies, i.e., issues of restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guaranteed non-repetition.
13. These are by no means all the elements of a letter to the government, but it gives a taste of how it can be structured. If the information is too much for a letter, the publication of a ‘white paper’ addressed to the government can be considered.
14. Of course, this being an open letter, copies are to be sent to the printed, audio and audiovisual press –nationally and internationally. If a HR Commission (and/or government ombudsman) exists in the country, they should be involved early-on.
15. Remember though that you are inviting the government to a dialogue. You have thus to close with a concrete invitation for such a face-to-face dialogue –with a date set for the government to respond. (The chance for the government to respond to the letter in writing is also an option…with a reasonable deadline). It needs not to be said that you have to prepare yourselves well for such a dialogue since it is bound to have press coverage. Bring along people whose rights have been violated to give their testimonies.
16. Finally, chances are the government will not respond or indefinitely delay a response. This Reader cannot prescribe what you should do in those cases since the respect of the right to free speech is very different in different countries. The decision is yours.
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
cschuftan@phmovement.org