62. THE POLITICAL IMPERATIVE IN HUMAN RIGHTS WORK. (Part 8 of 16)

An emotional commitment to human rights (HR) work is loose and romantic; a political commitment is more militant. People or institutions that fall under this category strongly feel that the prevailing market economy system and the economic globalization process at its core are wrong, that they generate and maintain existing HR violations; they thus set out to fight these injustices, either by reforming the system deeply or by trying to replace it with a more human-oriented system –one more responsive to the human rights of the marginalized worldwide. (‘So foul a sky clears not without a storm’ – Shakespeare’s King John). People who take this latter position also depart from a moral imperative, but have gone several steps further. (Of course, one should also keep in mind the political imperative from the right: pro-status-quo, conservative, and in favor of an unbridled global free market economy, as well as of an unrelenting war against terrorism. But this group is rarely vocal on HR issues in development work…they rather worry about the civil and political rights of those who live in non-capitalist or, sometimes, dictatorial regimes).

Are individuals who take a militant anti-Establishment position, on a more realistic track? It is clear that they look more into the ultimate determinants of human rights violations that are to be found in poverty and in the different parameters of social injustice. Therefore, they would seem to be on the right political track, or at least asking the right questions.

HR activists are also influenced by the experiences they have had in the different political systems in which they have operated. Cultural and ideological bias is, therefore, unavoidable. Too many of our colleagues tend to think of themselves as a-political: but there simply is no such thing. Despite the fact that the spectrum of choices is a continuum, in last instance, one either condescends to the system or one objects to it –totally or partially; any of these are political stances.

It is ideology that channels our social behavior in predictable directions. On the other hand, ideology as an ‘integrated politico-social program’ is the result of a voluntary internalization of the values of a given society, be it real or utopian.

Radicals or ‘leftists’ are probably more affected than liberals by the use of this pejorative labeling. They are thought of broadly as revolutionaries or temperamental activists ready to destroy the free enterprise system. Ninety nine percent of the time. This simplistic view is not accurate. Radicals are generally characterized by a more idealistic commitment to pursue the solutions to the final and most important determinants of poverty and HR violations. It is not infrequent that some have adopted a socialist ideology, at least as an analytical tool. They definitely question the principles of social justice of the capitalist system and its ideology: they strive for a better, more rational politico-social program; they aim at generating social commitment in science. Because they use an ideological approach in these efforts, there tends to be more internal consistency and more comprehensiveness in their approach to resolving the problems of HR.

Radicals tend to be action-oriented, verbal and constantly try to point-out contradictions in the system leading to HR violations. They spend quality time denouncing the inequalities and injustices they see and, within their ideological framework, they make an effort to propose possible solutions to solve the major contradictions; they use every opportunity they have to share these concerns with their peers, sometimes with decision-makers and, as often as possible, with members of the community that are suffering the problems themselves. They often work for the same bureaucracies as liberals do and academe is also one of their preferred refuges. They tend to be skeptical about traditional top-down intervention programs although, as do liberals, they often participate in some of them (but more often as a vehicle for organizing the beneficiaries at the base to let them start solving their own problems, and to help them gain some additional power to do so). They feel an urge to contribute to the liberation of the socially oppressed groups.

Radicals prefer to by-pass traditional government bureaucracies and work as much as possible at the grassroots, organizing the people around their problems. An important intervention for radicals, at that level, has to do with the task of making the people aware of their problems in an ideological context through organization and political consciousness raising.

Of course, some of our colleagues fall in in-between categories, between liberals and radicals. After all, each of us arranges her/his universe and her/his role in it as well as s/he can. People in such a position are either in a slow transition to either category, or are permanently in-between. The latter, for sure, have a heavier burden to carry, since one can presume they have to confront more everyday contradictions within themselves.

In the long run, there will have to be more radical moral changes in the attitude of many of our colleagues. The question is, will these lead to ideological changes in some? We have already passed the era when we asked scientists to become more applied researchers; now we are asking all development workers to become more socially conscious and more committed to become real change-agents, leaving behind a lot of epidemiological finery. De-politicized science is not science in the real service of man. (Franz Fannon)