PHA-Exchange> Food for thought for the politically blind

[claudio]

Human Rights Reader 50

NGOs SHOULD NOT BE HUMAN RIGHTS BLIND AND SHOULD BE JUDGED BY THEIR
POLITICS.

1. Too many NGOs are fragmented and trapped in project work; they are often
human-rights-blind and mainly service oriented; many are caught up in
sustaining themselves financially.

2. Service-oriented NGOs will find it more difficult to alter or change
power relations --a must for a Human Rights-based approach.

3. too many NGOs are not looking  (or have ceased to look) holistically
despite the fact that they have much knowledge of what is going on; but they
are not acting on that knowledge to really serve the people they work with.
(L. Haddad) They need to speak up on how they interpret what they see.

4. So, here are some 'take-home-messages' for NGOs who are ready to assume
their due role in the struggle for Human Rights:

a) In a participatory process, NGOs need to refocus their respective visions
     and restructure their plans in the light of Globalization and the
specific
     historical context of each country.
b) This entails retraining their staff in the new vision and sharing the
vision
     with their respective constituencies for feedback.
c) They need to network with other like-minded NGOs to join forces to
     courageously advocate and denounce donor agencies and governments
     not upholding Human Rights.
d) They also need to change their organizational structure and internal
     systems as needed to adopt a Human Rights-based approach, as well as to
     set up an ad-hoc internal task force that focuses on macro and Human
Rights
     issues.
e) On the other hand, communities need greater control over NGO staff's
     activities; this is what has been called 'localized accountability'.
f) So, to get out of a state of lethargy in this domain, NGOs need to amass
a
     fair dose of creative anger.

5. Involving their respective constituencies (global, regional, national and
local), each NGO should ask itself:

a) What problems are we dealing with now?  To what extent are they related
to Human Rights?
b) What information about rights violations do we already have? What
information do we still need to research more on?  How are we using this
knowledge?
c) What actions are we now involved in?  Are we addressing/minimizing/
     preventing Human Rights problems? Are we altogether "off-track" as
     relates to the Human Rights problems?
d) If we are currently not addressing the Human Rights problems, what
     structures would we need to address them?
e) What organizational restructuring will we need? within our own NGO?
     and in our work to expand the Human Rights actors' network nationally?
f) Who is responsible to make these changes: we, as an individual NGO, or
     a national network of NGOs?

6. There is 'big-league' and 'small-league' advocacy NGOs have to get
involved in. In advocacy work, in order to avoid spreading themselves too
thin, NGOs ought to concentrate on a few major (core) issues and on issues
specifically pertaining to each of them. (Do not loose focus by covering all
macro issues...and do share your success stories...).

7. Given the challenges ahead, the Human Rights agenda of NGOs cannot be
apolitical; the name of the game is actually being politically smart in
furthering Human Rights goals.

8. Knowing about injustice does not move many; becoming-conscious about it
generates a creative anger that calls for  involvement in corrective
measures. That is why being socially-responsible is but a euphemism for what
should really be called political-responsibility. Political commitment is
important, precisely because governments function as political entities.
Political forces are thus fought with political actions, not with morals or
technical fixes. It is precisely a misunderstanding of reality (or a partial
understanding of it) that often reinforces an apolitical position of some
NGOs.

9. One national NGO should act as an umbrella Human Rights organization,
i.e., to be a broker of information to its members, helping them interpret
it and challenging them to use the information to their advantage; this by
itself fosters activism --giving other NGOs some novel ideas on how to do
new things in their Human Rights work. The umbrella organization thus
becomes a catalyst and an alter-ego (the consciousness) of its members and
brings all members to a common ground by setting up either lose or militant
networks (even if heterogeneous otherwise, but united on Human Rights goals)
in which the relationship is based on a shared vision and political outlook
on Human Rights issues.

10. Bottom line: NGOs ought to put their right hand over their hearts and
face the sometimes painful truth: You DO know where you stand and DO know on
whose side you are acting.

Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
aviva at netnam.vn