Why are we not allowed to talk about individual rights in development?

I have a minor critique. Rather than lamenting “buzzwords” we should lament the manipulation of legitimate concepts. Civil society, governance, and democracy are genuine concepts whose meanings have consequences. That doesn’t mean that these meanings don’t get manipulated for various purposes. Concepts also don’t become empty because one doesn’t like how they are used. Critics are qute capable of challenging those who misuse or manipulate concepts in order to gloss over reality. Sure, people often use ten dollar words when a nickel word will do. So, call them out and challenge their meanings. This post reminds me of earlier complaints on this blog about the concept of nationbuilding. Difficulty in operationalization does not mean the concept is not real or meaningful.

“Rights-based” approaches to development are very much in vogue – so rights language is all over the place, but the focus goes on to the “easy” rights to tackle. By easy I don’t mean easy, I mean the kind you can bang on about without having to worry that someone will come shoot you in the middle of the night. Those “safe” rights are things like right to education, or right to health…which pretty much end up being the “basic needs” approach dressed up in rights-language.
So aid orgs tend to focus on the “rights violators” that are easy/safe targets: parents. Always wagging their fingers and tsking their tongues at poor parents for practices that are seen as offensive to Westerners but are seen as normal cultural traditions to others.

Meanwhile, it’s so true – in ALL our documents and country situation assessments etc – we NEVER bring up the political oppression – mafia networks (sophistacated and petty) RUN the countries we work in (or at least many aspects of them). We never talk about police corruption or the political activist tortures that Bill brought up in this post. What happened to all the things we learned about in Devt Studies 101 classes? The forced migrations, the toxic pollutants, the unfair trade, the propping up of dictatorships by the same donor countries that then go on to bang on about “rights” – it’s a downright farce at times.

All that being said, I’m still left with a conundrum bc I just don’t know what can be done. HRW and AI are independent organizations so they are able to do what they do – thank God for that. But how are government-funded and inter-govt agencies supposed to be more “radical” without getting kicked out of the country? What exactly are they supposed to do/say? I admit my cowardice – I would not risk getting sent to a third world jail (or any jail) so that I can cry out (in a real, actionable and consequential way – by naming actual people) against the Thai police, or the Bengali crime syndicates. It’s one thing to “raise awareness” on human trafficking – and quite another to be the lawyer on the trial or the eye witness. Those people get killed (Russia nice example of that). Aid workers (and majority of people interested in aid) want to “help” but they rarely want to make a heroic sacrifice – this isn’t a criticism – it’s rational behaviour. Usually, to make that kind of sacrifice you have to be close to the issue (i.e. it affects your family/community).

I do know that the UN WILL intervene/negotiate on behalf of political prisoners but all this is done behind closed doors and never in the news bc of political sensitivity. I don’t know much about it though bc it’s kept below the radar on purpose and understandably.

Also, you notice that when Westerners DO take more radical measures to cry out against human rights abuses – they get mocked for trying – “they should have known better” is the sentiment. Good example of this is the American young man that recently crossed into North Korea and was sentenced to 8 years hard labour. Website comments were not at all kind to him. Here was a guy that RISKED himself for others and is paying a heavy price – and he was mocked for it. So sad. Everyone wants to be a hero but usually only from a safe distance.

Just to say that the UN does talk about individual rights in its development work both practically as well as conceptually. As Anne put so well, it doesn’t have the role of publicly calling out the government on individual abuses, but nevertheless does a lot in terms of public advocacy and pressure, negotiation behind closed doors, giving voice to the voiceless, and working on systems that will prevent future abuses.

Take a look at the documents in the Universal Period Reviews of the human rights commission, in particular the UN’s own contributions to the country deliberations an you will see that despite legal and procedural niceties there is some real discussion of individual rights, thier abuse and what needs to be done to prevent them. A link to the most recent session: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/MeetingsHighlightsSession7.aspx

@ Easterly – ‘Why are we not allowed …..’
We are allowed – if you are with the proper group; the development world is incredibly diverse and often times contradictory.
@ Anne – states lie along a developmental to predatory continuum where the measure of good governance lies within the ratio between public goods provision and predation; so like any good consultant seeking to give remediable advice, you have to pick your clients – regardless of need.
@ my brother Dan – I agree with you; if you are not familiar with it, there was a very good discussion string on this topic when the concept of ‘failed states’ was vetted.

Donors use the term “governance” because almost all foreign assistance by its nature reinforces a country’s dysfunctional political system and the political elite who have a very strong interest in seeing it perpetuated, even though in most cases that system is more like to be the cause of the countries problems than contribute to a solution. Use of the term “governance” is a calming signal from the donors to that elite that our programs are intended only tomake marginal changes and perhaps curb the most egregious damages caused by corruption, and not to upset the existing balance of interests.

In a world of deeply flawed governments, true rights-based assistance would (1) bypass those governments and their associated NGOs go as directly as possible to the individuals who are being assisted, and (2) give those being assisted as much choice as possible in how they use it.

The points which this post is trying to make, about double standards and jargon, are certainly true. However I think Prof Easterly may have used the wrong title when he talks about “individual” rights, because I think many people in more traditional societies value community rights as well as, and sometimes even more than, individual rights. So, while they would oppose the double standards and be baffled by the World Bank’s fairly meaningless jargon, they might see the issue of rights in a slightly more sophisticated way.

The UN “Universal” Declaration of Human Rights has about 30 articles, almost all focused on individual rights. The African Union Charter has about 60 articles. The first 30 are more or less the same individual rights as the UN charter; the rest are about rights of communities and peoples. To use language more familiar in the west, maybe, it’s about both rights AND responsibilities.

It’s tied in with how one sees the person. In the west, “I think, therefore I am” – I exist primarily as an autonomous individual, and after that I can form community. To many Africans and people of other traditional cultures, “We are, therefore I am” – I exist primarily in relationship, as part of a community; within that I explore my individuality – the spirit of ubuntu. While the post-enlightenment rationalistic western focus on the individual has done a great deal for the advancement of human rights, tolerance, pluralism, etc, the pendulum has perhaps swung too far and a new awareness of the community values still found in Africa could help us all.

I’m not disagreeing with the article – just expanding on it.