DARNING A SOCIAL FABRIC RENT ASUNDER

-- Clarence J. Dias

Context

In today’s increasingly conflict-ridden world, ethnic identity (a concept not only constructed, but constantly reconstructed) is increasingly viewed as negative and undesirable both by governments, as well as by transnational corporations (who often exercise power and resources in excess of that of the governments of many nation states). Ethnic identity is increasingly being viewed by them as something to be controlled, co-opted and homogenized. Communities are themselves, uncertain about how to deal with their ethnicity.

In many societies, minority communities, continuing to be excluded from development, and facing increasingly intolerable impoverishment, are responding by asserting their ethnic identity in their struggles against discrimination, and in struggles for social and economic justice, for self-determination, and ultimately for secession. The resulting internal armed conflicts are, all too quickly, labeled ethnic conflicts.

Conflict however, does create an environment in which complicity and complexity feed upon each in a cannibalistic and glutinous manner, even while people are starving, pleading and bleeding to death in Rwanda; Burundi: the former Yugoslavia; Sierra Leone; Liberia; the Congo; and sub-Saharan Africa… the roll call of dishonor seems unending.

Today, around the world, we are witnessing a crisis of governance at all levels: local, national, regional and especially the global. This governance crisis has been the product of the convergence of patterns of several bad practices, which place ideology above values; expediency above principles; national self-interest over international co-operation and solidarity; and tact above truth. Especially in respect of post-conflict societies, donors, development agencies, and international humanitarian organizations (both inter-governmental and non-governmental) are tending to settle for “low-intensity democracy”. The rationalization is that even a little democracy (sometimes even the appearance of a little democracy) is better than no democracy. In terms of sustainable conflict resolution and long-term peace-building however, the verdict of history is unambiguous. “Low-intensity democracy” is in fact no-intensity democracy.

Yet all of the above protagonists are well aware of the tragic progression from exclusion, discrimination, exploitation and lack of accountability; to protest, social unrest, ethnic tension and violent conflict. Conflict, all too often breeds an environment, which spawns a host of unprincipled compromises. Impunity is granted to war criminals and to those who have committed heinous crimes against humanity. Victor’s justice masquerades as transitional justice. Contracts to predatory multinational corporations are touted as effective responses to the need for reconstruction. Resource plunders and destruction of sustainable livelihoods is justified as development. And all this, presided over by governments and local authorities lacking credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of their own people.

Yet, expediently, that is a matter of scant concern for the international community, as it claims to strive valiantly to cope with alarming numbers of complex humanitarian emergencies and unending threats to, and breaches of international peace and security; which have become endemic in today’s world. Restoration and recovery in post-conflict societies involves a continuum of inter-related activities: conflict-resolution and peace-building; relief and reconstruction; development; and governance that respects, protects and promotes human rights for all. Unfortunately, there is a lack of co-ordination and indeed often a near total compartmentalization of the activities of the diverse actors that make up the international community. Recognizing this fact, the UN Secretary-General has set in motion a reform of the UN system based upon working at the country-level through a unified, single UN Country Team with a common UN normative framework on:

Peace: through principled diplomacy; transparency; and participation. This involves peace agreements; mechanisms to secure truth, justice and reconciliation; constitution-making; free and fair elections; and addressing needs for transitional justice.

Relief and reconstruction: which is non-discriminatory; and free from fraud and corruption.

Development: which aims at poverty-eradication through just, non-discriminatory; participatory; environmentally and socially sustainable programming.

Governance: which is inclusive; participatory; transparent and accountable.

War-torn societies carry many scars and burdens. Trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder are endemic at individual, community and institutional levels. Special problems and obstacles frequently encountered in such countries include:

· A prevailing culture of impunity and utter lack of accountability;

· entrenched practices of abuse of power;

· systematic dismantling of checks and balances and institutions of accountability;

· widespread corruption accompanied by widespread toleration of corruption;

· a culture of subservience and distrust;

· limited human resources and acute need for accelerated capacity-building.

Desperate situations call for innovative responses and partnerships and for complementary actions between civil society, governments and the international community. A holistic, integrated approach is needed in approaching an agenda built around: participation; developmental accountability; resource monitoring and control; and inclusive governance. Below, some illustrative strategic suggestions are offered in addressing what is indeed a daunting agenda.

Participation

Participation is both an end in itself as well as a means to empowerment and inclusion. Much post-conflict attention is focused on creating institutional mechanisms for participation and on capacity-building to enable participation. Africa provides an additional strategy as well, namely one of developing and applying indicators for measuring and assessing participation.

The International Conference on Popular Participation in the Recovery and Development Process in Africa held in Arusha, Tanzania (1990), was a rare collaborative effort between African people’s organizations, the African governments, nongovernmental organizations and the United Nations agencies, in the search for a collective understanding of the role of popular participation in the development and transformation of the region. The Conference was attended by over 500 participants from a wide range of African people’s organizations including, in particular, nongovernmental, grassroots, peasant, women and youth organizations and associations, trade unions and other workers associations—as well as representatives of African Governments, agencies of the United Nations system, non-African nongovernmental organizations, regional, sub-regional and intergovernmental organizations, bilateral donors, multilateral organizations as well as specialists, both from within and outside Africa.

The Conference adopted the African Charter for Popular Participation in Development which proposes the use of the following indicators of participation (which are not intended to be exhaustive) for measuring progress in the implementation of the Charter:

· The literacy rate, which is an index of the capacity for mass participation in public debate, decision-making and general development processes

· Freedom of association, especially political association, and presence of democratic institutions, such as political parties, trade unions, people’s grassroots organizations and professional associations, and the guarantee of constitutional rights.

· Representation of the people and their organizations in national bodies.

· The rule of law and social and economic justice, including equitable distribution of income and the creation of full employment opportunities.

· Protection of the ecological, human and legal environment.

· Press and media freedom to facilitate public debate on major issues.

· Number and scope of grassroots organizations with effective participation in development activities, producers and consumers cooperatives and community projects.

· Extent of implementation of the Abuja Declaration on Women (1989) in each country.

· Political accountability of leadership at all levels measured by the use of checks and balances.

· Decentralization of decision-making processes and institutions.

Developmental Accountability

It has become quite customary with regard to post-conflict countries (Cambodia, East Timor, Afghanistan for example) that from time to time, international donors gather in a consortium and pledge development assistance to bolster the peace process. In June 2003, international donors pledged some $ 4.5 million, over a four-year period for Sri Lanka. On the occasion, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said, “Sri Lanka has a duty to repay the donor’s generosity by ensuring that it actually achieved peace, improved its human rights record, and disbursed the funds in a transparent way”. But the Sri Lanka government alone cannot make this happen, even if it were so inclined. It requires a partnership involving all stakeholders in Sri Lanka, as well as the international community. Given the sums of money involved, the relatively short time span of four years and the fact that it will ultimately be the Sri Lanka tax payer who will bear the burden of these “low-cost loans”, it seems imperative that governmental, non-governmental and international organizations work together to develop:

· Normative Guidelines (with operational checklists) applicable to all development projects to be undertaken in Sri Lanka for the next four years. The Guidelines would be drawn from the UN Declaration on the Right to Development; and UN human rights treaties that Sri Lanka has ratified notably: the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and on Civil and Political Rights; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the Convention on Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women; and the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

· Participatory Human Rights Impact Assessment methodologies (drawing on Sri Lankan and other developing country experiences with environmental impact assessment) that would be applied to all such development projects.

· Effective Dispute Settlement mechanisms (adapting experiences of the World Bank Inspection Panel) for those aggrieved by actions taken regarding such projects.

Resource Monitoring and Control

Given the scale of the resources involved, the need to make the most effective use of such resources, and to minimize opportunities for corrupt practices and the abuse of authority, it would also seem imperative for concerned professionals, organizations and governments to form flexible associations and work to develop:

· Improved Parliamentary oversight of budgetary appropriations and disbursement processes (through capacity-building, enhanced citizen watchdog roles, and the preparation of “shadow budgets” ).

· Methodologies for participatory critiques of macro-economic policies and for the design of pro-poor macro-economic policy alternatives ( adapting experiences such as South Africa’s “Poverty Speakouts).

· Methodologies for participatory budget-making at the local level (adapting experiences from Porto Allegre, Brazil and Gujarat, India), which would use citizen-driven processes to focus on knowledge and skills-generation, participation, and advocacy at the local/district council level.

Inclusive Governance

There can be no long-term peace-building as long as poverty, exploitation, discrimination and social or economic exclusion persist. Inclusive governance, at all levels, is vital for long-term peace-building. Key priority tasks that need to be addressed include:

· Securing the Policy Framework for inclusion

Each country context is unique. But there does exist a menu of state policies regarding inclusion, culture, ethnicity and minorities to choose from, including:

· preferential treatment along ethnic lines (either of the minority group or the majority group);

· language policies (such as in the redrawing of state boundaries in India)

· electoral policies: separate electorate for certain groups, systems of proportional representation;

· federalism/devolution: accommodation of ethnic diversity within a provincial or local government context;

· regulation of religion: secular State versus theocratic State; freedom of religion in the Constitution, laws, and practices relating to religion;

· legal pluralism: allowing separate personal laws for different ethnic groups (laws on marriage, property, etc);

· regulations regarding land: policies that prevent alienation of land indigenous people to protect them from being exploited by the more powerful, more modern sections of the society.

· Securing national normative, institutional and policy frameworks for inclusion

· The challenge here is to design institutions of governance both national and local, which are truly participatory, strengthen inclusive governance practices at all levels, and monitor actual participation in inclusive governance practices through use of indicators such as are suggested above.

· Post Script

In post-conflict societies, the legacies of the past, sketched above, need to be confronted by conscious measures to: enhance empowerment and participation; counter exclusion and discrimination, ensure transparency and accountability; and strike an equitable balance between meeting competing needs for truth, reconciliation and justice.

Both government and civil society need to appreciate, promote, and celebrate cultural diversity and pluralism; reacting swiftly to those who seek to spread distrust and fear based upon differences. Practices of accommodation should be favored over those of domination and control. Both governments and civil society should unite to reject equally, the ethnicisation of politics, and the politicisation of ethnic identities.

Civil society must exercise the primary responsibility of holding accountable their own members. Prejudice should be identified, exposed, addressed and redressed at the earliest possible opportunity. Information and education should be utilized as instruments of prophylaxis, rather than as tools for manipulation and indoctrination.

The prospects for peace anywhere, have become more daunting in the post-Iraq world we live in today. In a recent article entitled, “A Moment of Truth for the Humanitarian Enterprise”, Larry Minear asks the pertinent question, “Why should the global humanitarian imperative follow the American flag, even in the age of the hyperpower?’ We live today, in a world in which Uncle Sam has undergone a Jekyll and Hyde transformation into Emperor Sam. As one undistinguished Texan, only one among a horde of indistinguishable Texans, would fume, “ Darn those pesky foreigners. Can’t they see that we are a free people? Free, as and when we please to rent their lands, their resources, their communities, their livelihoods, their lives?’

It takes a Prince, not just of Texans but also of all humanity to feel the pain “ When doves cry”.

Clarence J. Dias, President, International center for Law in Development, New York