PHA-Exchange> Food for an ethical and a politico-legal thought

[Claudio]

Human Rights Reader 147

 

BECAUSE OF THEIR UNIVERSALITY, SOVEREIGNTY MUST SOMETIMES COME SECOND TO HUMAN RIGHTS. 

                

                Are we here to make a point 

                or are we here to make 

                a difference? (Kul Gautam)

 

1. NGOs purporting to promote the human rights-based framework (HRBF) are actually often using an incremental-change-approach too slow to really lead to the paradigm shift needed to put human rights (people's rights) center stage in development work. In practice, this ends up being more a rhetorical incorporation of the HRBF. Such NGOs must be made to look critically at themselves. Very few of them have actually changed at all as a result of this 'gradual' or partial adoption of a HRBF.

 

2. Even if they promote a new development ethics, they seldom use human rights principles as its underpinning. Do they still regard human rights (HR) as too 'political'.? The true problem, I contend, is that such NGOs lack the familiarity or are reluctant to analyze the politics of what they do. 

 

3. But it is ethics, as well as politics that underlie the HR discourse. HR are all human constructs; true; they have all been made up by society, they have not been discovered. (This is the essential difference between science and ethics). I wonder, may this be the barrier these NGOs have a problem overcoming? Or do they find it difficult to accept the universality of HR as overarching human and social values? [But the HR discourse demands (not only appreciates) diversity with regard to the values of others.]. 

 

4. [To set the record straight, HR are yet more: they are an ethical, political and legal matter! This is another difference between the human rights-based framework and development ethics. In fact, access to the legal system for people who are poor, to demand justice and fairness, is as important as the laws themselves]. 

 

5. Let's face it: Many NGOs are not truly democratic and will not be able to contribute to democratization and the realization of HR if they continue to do business as usual. We have to identify and confront those NGOs, because the aid they manage influences governance and human rights positively or negatively; it all depends on their attitude (their vision and their mission) and, of course, on the context. Moreover, trade-offs, we had said in earlier Readers are, in general, not accepted in a HRBF  For example, saying that 'some-sacrifice-is-necessary-in-order-to-make-it-better-for-future-generations' ís not a valid HR argument. 

 

6. NGOs cannot forget that there is a difference between 'having a right' and 'having a right realized'. All human beings have all rights all the time! However, in order to have a right realized, there must be a mechanism the claim holders can (and do) use to enforce the realization of their rights. If such a mechanism is missing --even if a desirable outcome has been achieved (e.g., access to primary health care)-- it is no longer about a realized right, but about having received a privilege. The role of committed NGOs is to help set up such mechanisms so as to develop the capacity of duty bearers and claim-holders bringing up their responsibility and the attributes of their power (i.e., their authority, influence and control over needed resources).

 

7. [Caveat No.1: Be clear that not all 'social struggles' are progressive and contribute to the realization of human rights. HR have to be made explicit to pave the way for people's claims to be enforced]. 

 

8. We have often said that HR work of NGOs and of others has to focus both on process and outcomes. But little progress has been made in monitoring the quality of such processes --largely because 'good process' has seldom been defined. In the HR discourse, process criteria include all human rights principles (i.e., non-discrimination, participation, gender equality, etc.).

 

9. The training of NGO staff comes out as perhaps the single most important action in a more in-depth introduction of the HR-based framework. In almost all past cases, the training has been too short, pedagogically sub-standard and sometimes simplistic. Two to three 5-days workshops per year for 3-4 years are probably needed to be capable of understand, internalize and apply the HRBF to development work. (UNICEF has produced a CD with proposed training contents).

 

10. In this training, there is now a growing consensus that capacity development for the 'progressive realization of human rights' is a better approach than an approach primarily centered around denunciating the different HR violations --at least as far as economic, social and cultural rights are concerned. In reality, perhaps a mix of or a harmonization between both approaches is needed.

 

11. [Caveat No.2: The fact that introducing a HRBF needs 'more than money', does not mean that it will need less money. Money is as crucial in HR work as in any other development approach].

 

Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City

claudio at hcmc.netnam,vn

­­­

Adapted from U. Jonsson, Comments on the book "Human Rights and Development" by Peter Uvin, mimeo, September 2006.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20061120/87e3cd03/attachment-0001.html>