- Moralists, too often insist on quixotic actions against the injustices of the prevalent social system –which they also clearly condemn. But they do not seem to realize that, in the end, they are being instrumental to its maintenance. Colleagues cannot use social theory implicitly rather than explicitly. This is where the challenge lies: searching for the political interpretation of harsh social realities.
- Does all this mean that the more radical among us have a higher level of social consciousness than our moralist peers? It would seem that the answer is yes, and it has certainly cost the more radical an additional effort. Once a certain level of consciousness is attained (is there a threshold?…) an often markedly more action-oriented attitude follows. At that point we say there is a convergence of ideology and action which makes the difference between taking an observer’s or a protagonist’s role. Knowing about injustices and blatant human rights (HR) violations does not move us. Becoming conscious about such injustices generates a creative anger that calls for involvement in corrective actions. The latter can only happen within the framework of an ideology consciously acquired.
- Political forces are fought with political actions, not with morals…or with technological fixes.
- Many development professionals feel that their positions in academe, government, international or private organizations may be jeopardized if they ‘come out of the closet’ with more (radical) political positions. Is that a ‘survivor’s’ attitude?
- If we could, at least, begin giving priority to some key structural interventions (e.g., employment generation and income redistribution measures), we would be contributing more to solving assorted HR problems of deprived populations than by devising sophisticated, for instance, micronutrient interventions.
- We have to stop thinking that we cannot contribute much to the selection and implementation of non-technical interventions, because they are outside our immediate field of expertise. Otherwise, we will continue to be champions in denouncing transgressions to the rights of women and children, for example, but will not be half so active –and much less effective– in doing something about the same transgressions.
Do not a good number of the development programs many of us are involved in only scratch the surface of the local problems and, therefore, contribute to the status quo in these countries? (I am aware, though. that most Third World countries’ governments would not accept foreign aid programs, at all if otherwise).
- You and I know every donor brings with him his own ideas of development and his development programs will reflect that ideology. The influx of foreign experts tends to mystify the planning process and reinforces of people’s feelings of inadequacy about their own capabilities.
- Doesn’t this make it evident that we need to take up a new role? Te role of denouncers of non-realistic goals of current development programs and the methods of achieving them?
- For those accustomed to solve problems (‘wang-bang’) and putting them aside, grasping a problem as intractable as HR violations in many areas of development guarantees frustration. The solution to these problems is not in nature, but in ourselves, in our approach to the fundamental social relationships among human beings.
- We need to think about ourselves as political human beings working as technicians, remembering that the chance of doing something meaningful about seemingly intractable global problems does not begin at the global level, but starts with individuals. Many of us have initially been motivated to simply transfer knowledge to the people; the need is now to start focusing more on the political dimensions of the problems of mass poverty, ill-health, preventable hunger and the many other HR violations.
- Human rights seems to be as good (or bad) an entry point as any other (employment, education, energy, natural resources, ecology, health, nutrition, etc) to get involved in questions of equity in our societies, if it is used as a tool. HR can and does lead to global considerations –if not falling in the trap of making it a ‘single-issue’ campaign.
- There are too many substitutes for in-depth political action, e.g., in single-issue politics: in the long-run, this approach leads nowhere. The worst is that many people do not see this difference and a lot of political motivation and sometimes talent in scientists or lay people is lost, because of a pseudo-ideological approach to global issues. Single-issue politics (pro-choice, anti-nuclear, environmental movements, etc) often suffer from a lack of an all-embracing political vision of society and, in particular, a lack of will to demand desperately needed (and all-embracing) structural changes.
- Finally, to whom should HR activists be accountable to for their work, besides themselves? Traditionally, we have been accountable to our peers and to funding agencies. We too often neglect our accountability to the public at large and, more specifically, to those whose rights are being violated.
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
cschuftan@phmovement.org