[TLDR (too long didn’t read): This Reader explores the role of myths on why human rights are so absent in global governance of development discussions. For a quick overview, just read the bolded text].
[In a previous Reader (#585), I had talked about myths. As myths are key in the global governance of the development and the human rights (HR) processes, here is more on the subject].
1. Myths should be understood and analyzed as narratives that make something seem to be true(Charlotte Dany, Katja Freistein)
- Myths shoot at desirable ends; continuous repetitions in a process, over time, establish a myth (e.g., “HR do occupy a central role in global governance”).
- Myths veil their origins and the dependence on particular social and political contexts often oblivious to HR.
- Mythical narratives in both global and local politics include or exclude certain groups and create hierarchies between them, i.e., who is invited to the table.
- Myths are always characterized by, and/or are part of power relations.
- Myths convey a false sense of political realities/consensus that eludes further critical questioning and have a particularly compelling impact on actual political practices and thus on HR.
- Myths make things ‘innocent’ and make them look as a statement of fact; they thus structure reality –wither HR.
- There is a depoliticizing function of myths in politics. This function makes them seem factual instead of political and/or politically motivated when myths, in reality, ultimately interpret information.
- Myths legitimize political systems by depoliticizing their central claims.
- The representation of individual citizens by public interest civil society groups has been made to seem as the solution to the problem of finding the right protagonists. But these citizens are far from being the protagonists with the power needed to debunk the myth.
- Myths bolster all those qualities lacking in official political leaders. (But measured by realistic standards, in this, they are doomed to fail).
- Myths of civil participation claim that CSOs act in the name of the interests of the marginalized, e.g., groups from the Global South, and that they represent those who would otherwise not be represented. But do they (for instance, groups fighting for HR)? These myths are kept alive by Northern actors within civil society –yet the myths effectively silence this. (This highlights the fact that many in civil society are contaminated by powers in the North).
2. Given the above, keep in mind that countries rendered poor (and public interest civil society organizations!) who have less prior experience (and much less clout) in UN and other global governance fora are excluded. They are more likely to be co-opted and tamed so as to uphold the apparent legitimacy of the process.
3. Global governance and the myth of public interest civil society participation
- Yes, it is nothing but mythical narratives that sustain our global governance. The political myth of public interest civil society participation in global governance serves to render this governance-at-the-highest-level pervasive –and appealing to some, but certainly not to HR defenders.
- Today, global governance encompasses a broad concept relating to the functioning of international institutions generally. It always refers to transnational policy-making and, so, a host of state and non-state actors influence world politics/policies in different sectors and fora –wither HR.
- Systematically trying to include ‘non-state actors’ without distinguishing between private and public interest actors is the new and main distinctive feature of global governance (the UN agencies included!).
- The narrative behind it is established, formulated and repeated by policy-makers and academics in a way that legitimizes and naturalizes the political practices of global governance. This myth function is uncritically accepted so that global governance leaves out the majority of those it affects including their HR demands.
- As a result, CSOs are overestimated when considered constructive political actors in world governance and politics, thereby legitimizing the idea of civil society participation in this governance; that, in reality, is a key mythical narrative.
- As said, even many CSOs reproduce the myth making them, incorrectly, look as protagonists on the world scene.
- Participation in global governance does thus unleash conflicts (no surprise) since power hierarchies within CSOs themselves are not addressed (think international NGOs vs global social movements). [Do not forget that international NGOs do not routinely serve as opposition or corrective forces to ‘official’ politics; they are too often eager and willing to compromise for the sake of being able to participate in any governance processes at all].*
- It is, therefore, remarkable that the mythical narrative of the role of non-public interest CSOs in global governance remains unchallenged. The myth de-facto helps keeping the idea of global governance as a fair and balanced process alive. (all the above from C. Dany, K. Freistein)
*: I have been working for, observing and writing about NGOs in the international arena for more than 30 years, yet I would be hard-pressed to forecast the next stage of these CSOs’ journey with any certainty. Someone once said that the only predictions that come true are those that are not predictions –a reference to the difficulty of knowing what is going to happen in the future by extrapolating from the present. (Michel Edwards) Leaving behind a rotten situation is one thing; knowing where you are going is another. (Louis Casado) Never is there a good wind for a sailor who does not know where he is going. (Seneca)
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
Your comments are welcome at schuftan@gmail.com
All Readers are available at www.claudioschuftan.com
Postscript/Marginalia
–Most of us are optimists, which may make us better company at the dinner table, but it means we are lousy at predicting the future. We underestimate the amount of time a project will require. If it is a project that has a budget, we underestimate the expenses as well. This is known as the planning fallacy. The planning fallacy is the tendency to seize upon the most optimistic timetable for completing a project and ignoring inconvenient information that might make you revise that prediction. The problem with our predictions is that we treat each task like it is a novel problem. We construct a story about how we will complete our work but ignore evidence from similar projects we or other people have done in the past. The solution? Look to your past performance when you are creating your schedule or budget. Use the past to build your schedule. Keep your eye on the calendar –and then watch the plan fall into place. (TIME)