[afro-nets] Food for a coercive thought

[Claudio Schuftan <claudio@hcmc.netnam.vn>]

Food for a coercive thought
---------------------------


Human Rights Reader 80

ASSERTING AND AFFIRMING HUMAN RIGHTS IS AS CONFLICT-PRONE AS IT
IS INDISPENSABLE

1. Given unequal relations of power, 'legality' and 'legitimacy'
are mere window-dressing. The claims of the more powerful are
simply enforced by overt or covert coercion and repression. Peo-
ple's tolerance of social, economic and political inequalities
and inequities (and human rights violations) never cease to
startle me. (As much as our own 'conformity-and-good-behavior' -
-that by now has become an essential feature of our-belonging-
to-and-being-integrated-in the reigning development paradigm).

2. Some kind of "wake-up-call" seems to be needed. And that is
why social mobilization is needed. Without it, the marginalized
somehow go on living with a chronic sense of insecurity caused
by a) the exploitative processes eroding away their surplus, b)
the essential resources they need to fulfill their rights not
being made available to them, and c) the failure of governments
to play a minimal human rights-protective role --all of this in
turn caused by the exclusionary nature of the global political
economy.  That is why, through mobilizing the marginalized, we
seek ways to eliminate all the exploitative and exclusionary
mechanisms of the neo-liberal global political economy in the
way that these mechanisms violate the rights of those being mo-
bilized wherever they may be. It is in that way that human
rights (HR) work 'reintegrates' the marginalized whose rights
are being violated. And I am not saying this is easy.

3. Our peers have to progressively be pulled-up to work on the
issues that, unless resolved, will leave those whose rights are
being violated with their rights still violated, say, by 2015.
It is high time for us to discriminate between what has been and
what ought to be, i.e., converting rhetoric into concrete work
projects. We are not trying to find a sort of 'a middle way',
but a full taking-in-charge of the HR problematique. For that to
happen, as said before, our work ethics must be politicized.

4. To be on the cutting edge, involves leaving comfort zones and
moving along un-treaded paths. Only choosing 'winnable', short-
term campaigns simply makes us 'look' to be successful. Longer
term, HR struggles have to be undertaken, because they are im-
portant in-and-by-themselves; they may not be immediately winna-
ble; they are often long and arduous --and there may be no one
easily identifiable opponent. Our success will ultimately come
from the sum of small steps making incremental inroads that, in
time, will have a cumulative impact; many of our successes in
the past have been so achieved. (S. Rachagan)

5. That is why a growing number of HR workers think that, in
many instances, HUMAN RIGHTS SHOULD BE TERMED "PEOPLE'S
RIGHTS"!! Such a terminology politicizes the concept in a way
that "people's rights" become a rallying point for social mobi-
lization; it becomes a process that emancipates the voiceless
directly involving them in the HR struggle, and gives them le-
gitimacy in the sense of a truly popular democracy.

In short, people's rights bring the concepts of voice, capacity
and accountability to the fore, highlighting claim-holders' and
particularly duty-bearers' roles and responsibilities.

6. In preparing for this challenge, we should not underestimate
the transformative impact of the use of the Internet. Why? Be-
cause the real challenge we face is that too many of us have not
yet given our full attention and sufficient time and effort to
HR work; .and the electronic super-highway can help us to net-
work and to rally growing numbers of us towards action. A global
organization must have in place consultation processes that en-
able broad participation from all corners of the world. BUT
global consultation -- if done in-only-one-language and merely-
through-electronic-communication (which for many groups in LDCs
is still a luxury) -- can legitimately be questioned. And I do
not (yet) have an answer for this legitimate caveat. I only know
that this new medium must be used together with the traditional
ones (newsletters, radio, newspapers, TV, face-to-face interac-
tions).

7. Acting as a coordinated network is a formidable challenge by
itself, one we cannot pretend does not exist: But rise above it
we must! Participatory and democratic processes at the center of
networking do not guarantee consensus; in fact, they often re-
veal dissent; a common position can only be arrived-at with com-
promise. [Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without
one, Confucius would have said].

8. In HR work, campaigning and capacity building are, therefore,
mutually supportive strategies. We need to renew and reinvent
the HR movement in a way that our efforts are always on behalf
of those who need our solidarity most; failing to do so will
mean that we risk becoming irrelevant. From now on, we need to
move beyond lip service (and beyond these HR Readers.) and en-
sure that HR priorities are always reflected in the manner we
allocate our time and the very limited resources we individually
or collectively control.

9. Things are happening slowly in this domain though. This
Reader, I hope, is part of it. The challenge now is that the
current flicker of hope bursts into a flame. (*)

10. I am a firm believer that wo/man is so made that whenever
something fires her/his soul, impossibilities vanish. (J. de La
Fontaine)

Claudio Schuftan
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
mailto:claudio@hcmc.netnam.vn

--
Mostly taken from F+D, the IMF magazine, 40:4, Dec. 2003; D+C,
the German development magazine 31:3, March 2004; the South Let-
ter, the South Centre's magazine, issue 39, 2003, and the Asia
Pacific Consumer magazine, Vol. 34, April 2004..

____________________________

(*): I often fear that these Readers may be coming through as
lecturing rather than informing and providing action-oriented
food for thought; I fear that the content may sometimes suffer
when the rhetoric is hot. But one thing is clear: I do not shy
away from polemics when discussing the major issues related to
the politics of HR. I am undeniably controversial, but, then,
trying to break down common beliefs, especially if inaccurate or
blinding, is always fraught with controversy. As much as I can,
I try to look beyond one-sided and narrow explanations so as to
gain a stronger understanding. The Readers present 'the other
side of the debate' to technological and sectoral approaches to
development -- always striving to expand the awareness on the
depth, complexity and resilience of combating HR violations.  In
a neo-liberal sense, I guess, I could perhaps simply be accused
of taking-controversial-ideas-to-market.