1. Public sector interventions impinge on a vast array of human rights issues. Quite predictably, these interventions reflect the distribution of power in our societies. Therefore, changes have systematically benefited some groups to the detriment of the wellbeing and the rights of others. As a matter of fact, these interventions have benefited some classes at the expense of other classes; some ethnic groups at the expense of other; one gender at the expense of the other; and some nations at the expense of other nations.
2. As a matter of yet another fact –and due to the overwhelming power of the dominant class– class analysis has been replaced by more superficial categories of analysis that are less threatening to the prevailing social order.
3. Let it be said: It is not the North-South wealth divide per-se, it is not globalization per-se, it is not scarcity of resources –it is the power-differentials-between-and-among-classes in these countries (and their influence over the state) that are at the base of the perpetuation of disparities that underlie human rights (HR) violations.
4. The question this raises is: Do the main bearers of obligations regard or take note of this truism? My view is that the problem with development agencies or with government institutions is that they too often get hyped-up with or by ‘promising innovative policies’ (often imported) without giving the underlying power politics, of where the same policies are to be implemented, due consideration. This may, of course, be deliberate.* But, not infrequently, these duty bearers do recognize the underlying need to redistribute resources more fairly… the problem is they are silent on the topic of whose resources and how to do it, i.e., through what mechanisms. So, in the end, all remains as mere lip service.
*: Those at the top have an especially large number of interests to protect.
5. [Conversely, as HR practitioners, we think real innovations start small and they seldom, if ever, start at the center].
A few additional words on empowerment as the catalyst for our growing counter-power in HR work: (complementing what was said in HRR 224)
6. The World Bank’s definition of empowerment totally ignores considering power relations and true social change. (Conversely, the definition by Wallerstein does see empowerment as a process to change the social and political environment so as to improve equity).
7. Therefore, becoming agents of social change is a key objective of the process-of-empowerment (and of HR work). This requires us to reject using the said process in any way to reconcile community participation with the prevailing, top-down-controlled social order!
8. Three insights are called for then, at this point:
i) Empowerment is about power (excuse the redundancy) and thus is a political issue that recognizes HR work as an avenue to challenge the established power relations. Therefore, in HR work, power conflicts have to be dealt with resolutely and have to be resolved in a manner that paves the way for HR-principles-and-standards to prevail.
ii) The platform or stage for empowerment work is much broader than local communities; it encompasses the larger social and political context so that action at state level is also needed. This means we have to broaden the horizon of the empowerment discourse. (The local struggle is thus inseparable from the national and the global struggle). [But, beware, the state can, and often does, hijack the empowerment approach under bogie pretenses].
iii) Ultimately, it is the class struggle that is intimately related to empowerment work. Therefore, class analyses need to be performed together with ‘the under-powered group’ so as to help them transform themselves into genuine agents of social change, i.e., into claim holders actively demanding their rights.
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
cschuftan@phmovement.org