"...
essential to successfully meeting the challenge of peace security, the
challenge of human rights and responsibilities, the challenge of
democracy and the rule of law, the challenge of social justice and
reform and the challenge of cultural renaissance and pluralism." [7]
The view that economic development is essential to peace,
human rights, democracy and cultural pluralism, and the view that a
culture of peace, democracy and human rights is essential to sustained
human development, many seem on the surface to differ only in the
matter of approach. But a closer investigation reveals that the
difference in approach itself implies differences of a more fundamental
order. When economics is regarded as "the most important key to every
lock of every door" it is only natural that the worth of man should
come to be decided largely, even wholly, by his effectiveness as an
economic tool. [8]
This is at variance with the vision of a world where economic,
political and social institutions work to serve man instead of the
other way round; where culture and development coalesce to create an
environment in which human potential can be realized to the full. The
differing views ultimately reflect differences in how the valuation of
the various components of the social and national entity are made; how
such basic concepts as poverty, progress, culture, freedom, democracy
and human rights are defined and, of crucial importance, who has the
power to determine such values and definitions.
The value systems of those with access to power and of those
far removed from such access cannot be the same. The viewpoint of the
privileged is unlike that of the underprivileged. In the matter of
power and privilege the difference between the haves and the have-nots
is not merely quantitative, for it has far-reaching psychological and
ideological implications. And many "economic" concerns are seldom just
that, since they are tied up with questions of power and privilege. The
problem of poverty provides an example of the inadequacy of a purely
economic approach to a human situation. Even those who take a
down-to-earth view of basic human needs agree that:
"... whatever doctors, nutritionists, and other scientists may
say about the objective conditions of deprivation, how the poor
themselves perceive their deprivation is also relevant." [9]
The alleviation of poverty thus entails setting in motion
processes which can change the perceptions of all those concerned. Here
power and privilege come into play:
"The poor are powerless and have no voice. Power is the
responsibility of expressing and imposing one's will in a given social
relationship, in the face of any resistance. The poor are incapable of
either imposing, coercing or, in many cases, having any influence at
all." [10]
It is not enough merely to provide the poor with material
assistance. They have to be sufficiently empowered to change their
perception of themselves as helpless and ineffectual in an uncaring
world.
The question of empowerment is central to both culture and
development. It decides who has the means of imposing on a nation or
society their view of what constitutes culture and development and who
determines what practical measures can be taken in the name of culture
and development. The more totalitarian a system the more power will be
concentrated in the hands of the ruling elite and the more culture and
development will be used to serve narrow interests. Culture has been
defined as "the most recent, the most highly developed means of
promoting the security and continuity of life". [11]
Culture thus defined is dynamic and broad, the emphasis is on
its flexible, non-compelling qualities. But when it is bent to serve
narrow interests it becomes static and rigid, its exclusive aspects
come to the fore and it assumes coercive overtones. The "national
culture" can become a bizarre graft of carefully selected historical
incidents and distorted social values intended to justify the policies
and actions of those in power.[12] At the same time development is
likely to be seen in the now outmoded sense of economic growth.
Statistics, often unverifiable, are reeled off to prove the success of
official measures.
Many authoritarian governments wish to appear in the forefront
of modern progress but are reluctant to institute genuine change. Such
governments tend to claim that they are taking a uniquely national or
indigenous path towards a political system in keeping with the times.
In the decades immediately after the Second World War socialism was the
popular option. But increasingly since the 1980s democracy has gained
ground. The focus on a national or indigenous way to socialism or
democracy has:
"... the effect of stressing cultural continuity as both
process and goals; this in turn obviates the necessity of defining
either democracy or socialism in institutionally or procedurally
specific terms; and finally, it elevates the existing political elite
to the indispensable position of final arbiter and interpreter of what
does or does not contribute to the preservation of cultural integrity".
[13]
It is often in the name of cultural integrity as well as
social stability and national security that democratic reforms based on
human rights are resisted by authoritarian governments. It is
insinuated that some of the worst ills of western society are the
result of democracy, which is seen as the progenitor of unbridled
freedom and selfish individualism. It is claimed, usually without
adequate evidence, that democratic values and human rights run counter
to the national culture, and therefore to be beneficial they need to be
modified -- perhaps to the extent that they are barely recognizable.
The people are said to be as yet unfit for democracy, therefore an
indefinite length of time has to pass before democratic reforms can be
instituted.
The first form of attack is often based on the premise, so
universally accepted that it is seldom challenged or even noticed, that
the United States of America is the supreme example of democratic
culture. What tends to be overlooked is that although the USA is
certainly the most important representative of democratic culture, it
also represents many other cultures, often intricately enmeshed. Among
these are the "I-want- it-all" consumer culture, megacity culture,
superpower culture, frontier culture, immigrant culture. There is also
a strong media culture which constantly exposes the myriad problems of
American society, from large ssues such as street violence and drug
abuse to the matrimonial difficulties of minor celebrities. Many of the
worst ills of American society, increasingly to be found in varying
degrees in other developed countries, can be traced not to the
democratic legacy but to the demands of modern materialism. Gross
individualism and cut- throat morality arise when political and
intellectual freedoms are curbed on the one hand, while on the other,
fierce economic competitiveness is encouraged by making material
success the measure of prestige and progress. The result is a society
where cultural and human values are set aside and money value reigns
supreme. No political or social system is perfect. But could such a
powerful and powerfully diverse nation as the United States have been
prevented from disintegrating if it had not been sustained by
democratic institutions guaranteed by a constitution based on the
assumption that man's capacity for reason and justice makes free
government possible and that his capacity for passion and injustices
makes it necessary? [14]
It is precisely because of the cultural diversity of the world
that it is necessary for different nations and peoples to agree on
those basic human values which will act as a unifying factor. When
democracy and human rights are said to run counter to non- western
culture, such culture is usually defined narrowly and presented as
monolithic. In fact the values that democracy and human rights seek to
promote can be found in many cultures. Human beings the world over need
freedom and security that they may be able to realize their full
potential. The longing for a form of governance that provides security
without destroying freedom goes back a long way.[15] Support for the
desirability of strong government and dictatorship can also be found in
all cultures, both eastern and western: the desire to dominate and the
tendency to adulate the powerful are also common human traits arising
out of a desire for security. A nation may choose a system that leaves
the protection of the freedom and security of the many dependent on the
inclinations of the empowered few; or it may choose institutions and
practices that will sufficiently empower individuals and organizations
to protect their own freedom and security. The choice will decide how
far a nation will progress along the road to peace and human
development. [16]
Many of the countries in the third world now striving for
meaningful development are multiracial societies where there is one
dominant racial group and a number -- sometimes a large number -- of
smaller groups: foreign, religious or ethnic minorities. As poverty can
no longer be defined satisfactorily in terms of basic economic needs,
"minority" can no longer be defined merely in terms of numbers. For
example, it has been noted in a study of minorities in Burmese history
that:
"In the process of nation-building ... the notion of minority
in urma changed, as one group defines itself as a nation those outside
the group become minorities ... There were, of course, minorities in
traditional Burma -- people close to the power elite who considered
themselves superior and people estranged from the power elite who were
considered inferior. These criteria for establishing majorities (who
might in fact be a small portion of the population as, say, white
people in South Africa today) were not based on race or even ethnic
group, but on access to power. Minorities, thus, are those people with
poor access to power." [17]
Once again, as in the case of poverty, it is ultimately a
question of empowerment. The provision of basic material needs is not
sufficient to make minority groups and indigenous peoples feel they are
truly part of the greater national entity. For that they have to be
confident that they too have an active role to play in shaping the
destiny of the state that demands their allegiance. Poverty degrades a
whole society and threatens its stability while ethnic conflict and
minority discontent are two of the greatest threats to both internal
and regional peace. And when the dispossessed "minority" is in fact an
overwhelming majority, as happens in countries where power is
concentrated in the hands of the few, the threat to peace and stability
is ever present even if unperceived.
The Commission for a New Asia notes that:
" ... the most rapid economic transformation is most likely to
succeed within the context of international peace and internal
political stability, in the presence of social tranquillity, public
order and an enlightened and strong government; and in the absence of
societal turbulence and disorder." [18]
This comment highlights the link between economic, political
and social concerns. But there is a danger that it could be interpreted
to imply that peace, stability and public order are desirable only as
conditions for facilitating economic transformation rather than as ends
in themselves. Such an interpretation would distort the very meaning of
peace and security. It could also be used to justify strong, even if
unenlightened, government and any authoritarian measures such as a
government may take in the name of public order. [19]
If material betterment, which is but a means to human
happiness, is sought in ways that wound the human spirit, it can in the
long run only lead to greater human suffering. The vast possibilities
that a market economy can open to developing countries can be realized
only if economic reforms are undertaken within a framework that
recognizes human needs. The Human Development Report makes the point
that markets should serve people instead of people serving markets.
Further:
"... both state and market should be guided by the people. The
two should work in tandem, and people should be sufficiently empowered
to exert effective control over both." [20]
Again we come back to empowerment. It decides how widespread
will be the benefit of actions taken in the name of culture and
development. And this in turn will decide the extent of the
contribution such actions can make to genuine peace and stability.
Democracy as a political system which aims at empowering the people is
essential if sustained human development, which is "development of the
people for the people by the people", is to be achieved. Thus it has
been rightly said that:
"National governments must find new ways of enabling their
people to participate more in government and to allow them much greater
influence on the decisions that affect their lives. Unless this is
done, and done in time, the irresistible tide of peoples rising
aspirations will inevitably clash with inflexible systems, leading to
anarchy and chaos. A rapid democratic transition and a strengthening of
the institutions of civil society are the only appropriate responses".
[21]
The argument that it took long years for the first democratic
governments to develop in the west is not a valid excuse for African
and Asian countries to drag their feet over democratic reform. The
history of the world shows that peoples and societies do not have to
pass through a fixed series of stages in the course of development.
Moreover, latecomers should be able to capitalize on the experiences of
the pioneers and avoid the mistakes and obstacles that impeded early
progress. The idea of "making haste slowly" is sometimes used to give
backwardness the appearance of measured progress. But in a fast
developing world too much emphasis on "slowly" can be a recipe for
disaster.
There will be as many kinds of democracies as there are
nations which accept it as a form of government. No single type of
"western democracy" exists; nor is democracy limited to a mere handful
of forms such as the American, British, French or Swiss. Each
democratic country will have its own individual character- istics. With
the spread of democracy to Eastern Europe the variety in the democratic
style of government will increase. Similarly there cannot be one form
of Asian democracy; in each country the democracy system will develop a
character that accords with its social, cultural and economic needs.
But the basic requirement of a genuine democracy is that the people
should be sufficiently empowered to be able to participate
significantly in the governance of their country. The thirty articles
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are aimed at such
empowerment. Without these rights democratic institutions will be but
empty shells incapable of reflecting the aspirations of the people and
unable to withstand the encroachment of authoritarianism.
The democracy process provides for political and social change
without violence. The democracy tradition of free discussion and debate
allows for the settlement of differences without resort to armed
conflict. The culture of democracy and human rights promotes diversity
and dynamism without disintegration; it is indivisible from the culture
of development and the culture of peace. It is only by giving firm
support to movements that seek to empower the people through democratic
means that the United Nations and its agencies will truly be able to
promote the culture of peace and the culture of development.
Let me in conclusion summarize my argument. The true
development of human beings involves much more than mere economic
growth. At its heart there must be a sense of empowerment and inner
fulfillment. This alone will ensure that human and cultural values
remain paramount in a world where political leadership is often
synonymous with tyranny and the rule of a narrow elite. People's
participation in social and political transformation is the central
issue of our time. This can only be achieved through the establishment
of societies which place human worth above power, and liberation above
control. In this paradigm, development requires democracy, the genuine
empowerment of the people. When this is achieved, culture and
development will naturally coalesce to create an environment in which
all are valued, and every kind of human potential can be realised. The
alleviation of poverty involves processes which change the way in which
the poor perceive themselves and the world. Mere material assistance is
not enough; the poor must have the sense that they themselves can shape
their own future. Most totalitarian regimes fear change, but the longer
they put off genuine democratic reform the more likely it is that even
their positive contributions will be vitiated: the success of national
policies depends on the willing participation of the people. Democratic
values and human rights, it is sometimes claimed, run counter to
"national" culture, and all too often the people at large are seen as
"unfit" for government. Nothing can be further from the truth. The
challenge we now face is for the different nations and peoples of the
world to agree on a basic set of human values, which will serve as a
unifying force in the development of a genuine global community. True
economic transformation can then take place in the context of
international peace and internal political stability. A rapid
democratic transition and strengthening of the institutions of civil
society are the sine qua non for this development. Only then will we be
able to look to a future where human beings are valued for what they
are rather than for what they produce. If the UN and its agencies wish
to assist this development they must support these movements which seek
to empower the people, movements which are founded on democracy, and
which will one day ensure a culture of peace and of development.
FOOTNOTES
[1] "Draft Preliminary Outline of the World Report on Culture and
Development". UNESCO, CCD-III/94/Doc. 2, Paris, 7 Feb. 1994, p.16.
[2] It has been pointed out that the idea of growth not as an
end in itself but as a performance test of development was put forward
by economists as early as the 1950s; Paul Streeten et al., "First
Things First: Meeting Basic Human Needs in the Developing Countries",
Oxford, 1982 edn.
[3] Francois Perroux, "A New Concept of Development", UNESCO, Paris, 1983, p. 2.
[4] Ibid., p. 180.
[5] "Growth normally means quantifiable measure of a society's
overall level of production or incomes such as GNP or GDP per capita,
while development involves qualitative aspects of a society's
advancement such as under- and un-employment, income distribution
pattern, housing situation, nutritional level, sanitary condition,
etc." UNDP Selected Sectoral Reviews: [Burma] December 1988, p. 333.
[6] Human Development Report 1993, UNDP, Oxford, 1993, p. 1.
[7] "Towards A New Asia", A Report of the Commission for A New Asia,
1994, p. 39.
[8] "The logic of an economy governed by solvency and by
profit, subject to the increasing value attached to capital and to the
power of those who command it is to reject as 'non-economic' everything
which cannot be immediately translated into quantities and prices in
market terms": Paul-Marc Henry (ed.), "Poverty, Progress and
Development", London, 1991, p. 30.
[9] Streeten et al., "First Things First", p.19.
[10] Henry (ed.), "Poverty, Progress and Development". p. 34.
[11] The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, 1993 edn., vol. 16, p. 874.
[12] Edward Said comments that governments in general use
culture as a means of promoting nationalism: "To launder the cultural
past and repaint it in garish nationalist colors that irradiate the
whole society is now so much a fact of contemporary life as to be
considered natural". See Edward Said, "Nationalism, Human Rights, and
Interpretation", in Barbara Johnson (ed.), "Freedom and
Interpretation": The Oxford Amnesty Lectures, 1992, New York, 1993, p.
191.
[13] Harry M. Scoble and Laurie S. Wiseberg (eds.), "Access to
Justice: Human Rights Struggles in South East Asia", London, 1985, p.
57.
[14] See Clinton Rossiter's introduction to Hamilton, Madison
and Jay, "The Federalist Papers", Chicago, 1961. I owe thanks to Lady
Patricia Gore-Booth for the original quotation on which Rossiter
presumably based his words: "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy
possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy
necessary", from Reinhold Niebuhr's foreword to his "Children of Light
and Children of Darkness: A Vindication of Democracy and a Critique of
its Traditional Defence", London, 1945.
[15] "The best government is that which governs least" are the
words of a westerner, John L. O'Sullivan, but more than a thousand
years before O'Sullivan was born it was already written in the Lao Tzu,
A Chinese classic, that "the best of all rulers is but a shadowy
presence to his subjects". The notion that "In a nation the people are
the most important, the State is next and the rulers the least
important" is to be found not in the works of a modern western
political theorist but in that of Mencius.
[16] Ehran Naraghi has shown in his memoirs, "From Palace to
Prison: Inside the Iranian Revolution", London, 1994, that a critical
attitude towards the monarch, decentralization of power and divisions
of responsibilities were part of oriental tadition. His fascinating
conversations with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi throw into relief the
dangers of cultural and development policies divorced from the
aspirations of the people.
[17] Ronald D. Renard, "Minorities in Burmese History", in
K.M. de Silva et al. (eds.), "Ethnic Conflict in Buddhist Societies:
Sri Lanka, Thailand and Burma", London, 1988, p. 79.
[18] "Towards New Asia", p. 40.
[19] "Practically any human behaviour can be, and historically
has been, rationalized as threatening to damage the security of the
nation": Scoble and Wiseberg (eds.), "Access to Justice", p. 58.
[20] Human Development Report 1993, p. 53.
[21] Ibid., p. 5. Scoble and Wiseberg (eds.), "Access to
Justice", p. 5, point out the difference between fundamental reform
that "involves a redistribution of power, a broadening of participation
and influence in the making of authoritative decisions" and contingent
reform that "involves a sharing of the benefits of power holding, or
the uses of power, in order to avoid the sharing of power itself".