AFRO-NETS> Food for thought for the politically blind

[Claudio Schuftan <aviva@netnam.vn>]

Food for thought for the politically blind
------------------------------------------
 
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) holisti-
cally 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 inter-
nal 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 account-
ability'. 
 
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, na-
tional and local), each NGO should ask itself:
 
a) What problems are we dealing with now? To what extent are they re-
lated 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 nation-
ally? 
 
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 fo-
cus by covering all macro issues...and do share your success sto-
ries...).
 
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 pre-
cisely 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 organiza-
tion, 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 het-
erogeneous otherwise, but united on Human Rights goals) in which the 
relationship is based on a shared vision and political outlook on Hu-
man 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, Vietnam
mailto:aviva@netnam.vn
--
To send a message to AFRO-NETS, write to: afro-nets@healthnet.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe, write to: majordomo@healthnet.org
in the body of the message type: subscribe afro-nets OR unsubscribe afro-nets
To contact a person, send a message to: afro-nets-help@healthnet.org
Information and archives: http://www.afronets.org