|
|||||
|
BOOK FACTS
Reflections on the Right To Development edited by Arjun Sengupta, Archana Negi and Moushumi Basu, Sage Publications, New Delhi, 2005; pages 366, Rs.650.
A heuristic biography of "Development", if one were to attempt it, would be somewhat as follows:
Parents, theorists of economic growth in Western advanced countries and political leaders of a section of the Allied powers who emerged victorious in the Second World War. Date of birth not quite clear, but some time in the second half of the 1940s. During early childhood the concern of both the parents was growth, though for different reasons. The former was eager to demonstrate that growth was a universal objective in all parts of the globe. As against this "theoretical" endorsement of growth, the second parent was more pragmatic in espousing growth. The war-torn economies of the West had to recover and grow; some crumbs had to be thrown also to a large number of poor countries, especially in Asia first and in Africa next, that had been released from colonial rule, had become "free", and had been admitted as members of the newly set up international body, the United Nations Organisation. Their growth was what soon came to be christened "Development". More specifically, "Development" became synonymous with growth in the gross domestic product (GDP) of poor (euphemistically called "underdeveloped") countries, soon to be modified as growth in per capita GDP, to be a constant reminder, if not admonition, to the poor to keep the growth in their numbers under control.
But despite the ad nauseam invocation of growth, "Development" was becoming emaciated. And seeing how pale and ugly the offspring was turning out to be, the parents began to lose interest. For a while some foster parents stepped in to take care and to suggest remedies. But soon they too gave up. By the early 1980s there were rumours that "Development" was dead. And in no time and with no embarrassment there were celebrations of the Death of Development.
There were attempts to revive "Development" by reinterpreting it. What killed "Development", it was argued, was the excessive preoccupation with growth, which was only an aspect, not even the most important aspect, of development. Development is much larger, larger than economics and politics, much more concerned with human capabilities and the freedom to pursue these capabilities, to develop them and to live creative lives befitting the dignity and worth of the human person and promoting social progress. Indians can be proud of the fact that one among us, Amartya Sen, was one of the pioneers of this attempt to revive, resurrect or rehabilitate development, a fact recognised by the award of the Nobel Prize to him for his work in this area. His celebrated work Development as Freedom (1999) begins with the declaration: "Development can be seen, it is argued here, as a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy", a position that he had striven to project right from the 1980s.
Another Indian, Arjun Sengupta, senior editor of the book under review, has played a prominent role in projecting development as a human right. As the Independent Expert on the Right to Development at the U.N. Human Rights Commission until recently, he made significant contributions to defining and operationalising the notion of development as a human right. The U.N.'s Right to Development Declaration of 1986 states:
"The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realised."
The essays in this volume deal with the implications of this claim, which are far-reaching indeed. First, development is not merely an economic issue - higher incomes, eradication of poverty, satisfactory and secure employment or whatever. It embraces all aspects of life, including that difficult-to-define aspect designated `culture'. Secondly, it has to be viewed not merely from an individualistic perspective; it must be recognised as a societal process. And third, it is an inalienable and fundamental human right. One way to interpret it is that if at one time development was considered the duty of society (represented by the state) to ensure that its members had tolerable and rising levels of living, now that and much more is taken to be a fundamental right that every member can claim. It is a tremendous transformation, at once extremely noble and exceptionally difficult.
Both the theoretical and practical aspects of this transformation are dealt with in the book. Without going into the details of how these issues, especially the theoretical ones, are treated, the nature of the problem can be indicated. The World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 proclaimed that "all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated". This can be conceded at the conceptual level. But does it mean that there will be no conflict or trade-off or sequencing in the actualisation of these rights?
For instance, is it not possible that some of my rights as an individual may have to yield place to social arrangements necessary to eradicate the poverty of fellow citizens, which surely is an important and basic tenet of the right to development? This example leads to what in theoretical literature is treated as tension or incompatibility between individual rights or choice and social choice.
Arising from this is the broader issue, with theoretical and practical overtones, of whether there are social goals ("the common good") and if there are, what is the mechanism through which individual members of society participate in arriving at them.
At another level is the question relating to the role of the state and the wide range of social organisations in the realisation of human rights, including the right to development and the related problem of giving content to that frequently referred entity, "civil society".
The lead paper in the volume by Arjun Sengupta tries to answer some of these issues as follows: (a) The implementation of the right to development should be seen as an overall plan or programme of development where some or most of the rights are realised while no other rights are violated; (b) Implementation of any of the rights cannot be an isolated exercise, and should be designed taking into account the consideration of time and cross-sectoral consistency; (c) The exercise of implementing the overall plan and realising individual rights must be carried out with transparency, accountability and in a non-discriminatory and participatory manner and with equity and justice; and (d) The interdependencies of the different elements of the right to development will be determined by the economic, political, social and legal institutions, but may call for changes in some of them.
It is doubtful whether anyone, even the distinguished author, will claim that these statements answer all queries and resolve all problems. But the accent on implementation is wholesome. For the way to evaluate the right to development and development as freedom is not in terms of the nobility of intentions, but of the feasibility of implementations.
Two case studies are reported on the attempt to implement the right to development in its holistic sense, Kerala and Sri Lanka.
In terms of many indicators of human development - literacy, longevity, health care among other things - Kerala is a well-developed State, and in terms of human development index it has been consistently retaining the first rank among the States. Indeed, as is well known, what has come to be known as the "Kerala Model" was celebrated in the 1970s and 1980s. From the point of view of social and political processes, too, Kerala has an enviable record. But early in the 1990s there was a lively debate as to whether the Kerala Model was sustainable because of the fiscal crisis that had emerged as the social sector was claiming a disproportionately high share of public expenditure and the growth of Kerala's economy was none too impressive. Something even stranger happened subsequently.
Kerala took the lead in launching a process of decentralised planning, attempting to make the Ninth Five-Year Plan a bottoms-up, participatory "people's plan". This experiment, however, was not much of a success, although Kerala can claim to have a vibrant civil society "involving trade unions in all possible occupations, caste/religious organisations, temple/church/mosque committees, women's groups, youth and student organisations, library committees, arts and sports clubs, cultural and theatre groups, readers/writers clubs, resident associations, consumers/traders/producers organisations, and commuters/travellers associations". Something did go wrong in the multifaceted human development approach.
The experience of Sri Lanka in this respect is even more glaring. Again, as is widely known, Sri Lanka had achieved a high social development level, even by international standards, before it gained independence in 1948. During the subsequent half century and more the island-nation has developed in many ways, economically, socially and politically.
However, as in Kerala, Sri Lanka too had to face the problem that economic growth did not keep pace with social development. With the launch of economic reforms after a new government came to power in 1977, economic growth received a boost, but problems began to surface in the political sphere.
The 1977 elections were followed by widespread communal violence and the government's handling of these events did not give the minorities the assurance of equal protection under law. Ethnic tensions and conflicts that emerged subsequently are still plaguing the nation.
In connection with implementation, the book has one more chapter and it deals with human development in the global context. What is the connection between the global movement of capital and human development, not only in the poorer countries of the world, but in the `advanced' countries as well, is the theme of that essay. In developing countries this question is frequently narrowed down to the relationship between the higher rates of economic growth usually noticed after the inflow of capital from outside and the level of poverty commonly assessed in terms of the crudest indicator, the head-count ratio. This is useful up to a point, but not enough. Consider the following. Achieving the highest return on capital is the objective and driving principle of the massive capital movements of this age of globalisation. The bulk of this capital belongs to and is operated by private sources that have no sense of public accountability and no commitment to anything that goes under the name of human development.
Though private, some of these sources are giant global players before whom even states are willing to genuflect. How much of freedom do these states have to guarantee freedoms to their people? Is it not true also that while the process of greater trade, capital movement and economic integration have given rise to new opportunities, they have simultaneously also made life much more insecure for most citizens across the globe?
Which lead to the more basic question as to whether in a social system where the quest for profits and accumulation subordinates all other concerns, is it at all possible to strive for human development of the kind envisioned in this volume and currently propagated by specialised U.N. agencies and well-intentioned academics in many parts of the world. The book intentionally or inadvertently fails to address this decisive issue. This reviewer is old-fashioned enough to ask whether in the capitalist and quasi-capitalist economic and social systems that prevail in today's world, there is any chance at all of achieving, or even seriously attempting, human development based on liberty, equality and fraternity.
Printer friendly
page
|
