Erica Mumford, KAS New York: Why are global non-proliferation and disarmament norms important today, especially in light of the current geopolitical context?

 

Dr. Randy Rydell: Norms – both legal and political – are indispensable in establishing and maintaining expectations of the behavior of sovereign states in a largely anarchic international society. Non-compliance with fundamental norms of international relations, frequent though it may be, does not disprove either the existence of norms or the value of maintaining them. This is also true in domestic society: we don’t point to acts like driving through red traffic lights, committing murder, or any other egregious felonies as justifying the repeal of laws or norms to prohibit such activities. Disarmament and non-proliferation norms are no exception, and, in many ways, they are more relevant and important than ever, especially in these fields. This is because of the horrific, catastrophic human and environmental effects of using weapons of mass destruction – nuclear in particular – and the wider social and economic opportunity costs of expending vast resources in the development, maintenance, and deployment of such weapons. Norms alone cannot be expected to eliminate rivalries between these sovereign states, but they play a crucial role in modulating that competition and channeling it into directions that serve mutual interests. The greatest dangers ahead in these fields are the gradual erosion of the fundamental taboo or norm against the use of nuclear weapons, and the continued failure of states possessing such weapons to enter into good-faith negotiations on nuclear disarmament – developments that jeopardize the future of both disarmament and non-proliferation, and indeed, the future of our fragile planet and civilization itself. This is precisely why disarmament and non-proliferation norms are important today.

 

Erica Mumford: What do you see as the biggest challenges for the United Nations in reinvigorating the WMD/nuclear non-proliferation regime?

 

Dr. Randy Rydell: In a speech on 13 May 1954 in California, UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld concluded, “It has been said that the United Nations was not created to bring us to heaven, but to save us from hell.” The twin goals of disarmament and reductions of military spending have been pursued at the UN since its origin, certainly, since the General Assembly’s first resolution called in 1946 for the elimination of nuclear and other “weapons adaptable to mass destruction”. Since then, these goals have become part of the identity of the UN as an international organization.  In the decades that followed a complex “regime” of multilateral treaties, bilateral arms control agreements, regional initiatives, and various unilateral or plurilateral commitments has evolved that aims both at the elimination of nuclear weapons and the achievement of “general and complete disarmament”, which combines WMD disarmament with conventional arms control, limits on military spending, and implementation of the primary UN Charter norms on the peaceful settlement of disputes and the prohibition of threats or use of force. In the disarmament and non-proliferation fields, the UN has served as a kind of “assembly line” for the establishment, elaboration, updating, and implementation of multilateral norms in these fields.  Yet as an inter-governmental organization, the UN can only be as successful as its member states wish it to be – it is convenient (some might say indispensable) means available to states to pursue their common interests, should they choose to do so, a contingency often termed “political will”. The biggest challenge for the UN relates to decisions by member states to use the organization simply as a tool to pursue exclusively only their own perceived, narrow national interests, rather than the common good. Though this applies to all the UN’s work, the failure of this overarching “regime” would most surely lead us all to Hammarskjöld’s hell. If this happens, the responsibility won’t lie with the UN but with the policies, practices, actions, and inactions of its member states.

 

Erica Mumford: How might the reform of the global disarmament machinery complement wider global governance reform initiatives, including UN Security Council reform and the proposals outlined in the Secretary-General’s New Agenda for Peace?

 

Dr. Randy Rydell: Hammarskjöld often referred to disarmament as the UN’s “hardy perennial”, and a half-century later, it remains so. Yet another such hardy perennial is the never-ending process of reforming, re-organizing, and tinkering with the administrative apparatus of the UN, often in the familiar names of “efficiency and effectiveness”, or at times, fairness, and justice. Reforms in the disarmament machinery have dealt both with procedural matters and attempts to adjust substantive priorities. The UN Disarmament Commission has sought for several decades to deliberate principles, guidelines, and recommendations typically in two substantive areas, with one dealing with nuclear weapons. While reforms have limited the number of issues for deliberation, its productivity has been limited by the lack of consensus among its members, which includes all UN member states.  The General Assembly continues to adopt fifty or so resolutions each year on disarmament-related issues, though it has attempted to reduce the number of such resolutions and their annual repetition. Two of its handicaps have been the non-binding nature of its resolutions and its failure to examine their actual results. The disarmament treaty-negotiating forum, the Conference on Disarmament, has been in stalemate for almost 30 years largely due to its own “consensus rule” which allows individual members the right to block progress. Member states have proposed Security Council reforms in several areas including membership; voting (the veto), regional representation, and relations with the General Assembly, which has acted in response to the “uniting for peace” resolution that enables the Assembly to address and make a recommendation on issues that are deadlocked in the Security Council, such as most recently issues relating to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Overall, one might say that reforms in the disarmament machinery have centered on issues relating to “democracy” and the “rule of law” – with the former recognizing the fundamental right of each member state to participate in the deliberation of global norms while recognizing also the need for civil society to contribute to this deliberative process. The focus on the “rule of law” has been apparent in the close attention to the status of existing disarmament treaties and identifying the need for negotiating new treaties. There are lessons here that would benefit the work, credibility, and legitimacy of the Security Council—namely, by enabling more democratic participation in the Council’s deliberations, expanding opportunities for civil society participation, and encouraging the Council to address issues relating the status of existing disarmament and non-proliferation treaties. It is noteworthy that the Secretary-General’s New Agenda for Peace gives nuclear disarmament a high priority, while also emphasizing the fundamental Charter norms about peaceful resolution of disputes and the prohibition of the threat and use of force. Many of these goals echo the norms inherent in the concept of “general and complete disarmament”, which has been on the General Assembly’s agenda since 1959. To this extent, the work of the disarmament machinery has already had a significant impact on the priorities found in the New Agenda for Peace—and maybe one day, in the Security Council as well.

 

Erica Mumford: What role can youth and civil society play in reinvigorating disarmament efforts looking towards the Summit of the Future in September 2024?

 

Dr. Randy Rydell: The UN is an institution with the uniquely challenging mission of pursuing the advancement of global public goods—goals that serve all humanity and the planet as a whole, rather than just the interests of particular states. They include issues relating to disarmament, non-proliferation, climate change, human rights, gender equality, the rule of law, and other such worthy causes.  The common denominator of these goals, however, is that they are both substantively complex and long-term in nature, many of which will require persistent efforts for decades to come, if not generations. This means that it is never too soon to engage a younger generation in the pursuit of such goals, through such means as education, internships, scholarships, civic action projects, and access to international deliberative arenas. Youths can bring their views to virtually all public and governmental arenas, from cities and towns to national governments and international organizations. This is nothing less than a prudent investment in the planet’s future, given that new generations will most assuredly have the responsibility to deal with the large array of “unfinished business” due to the shortcomings in the current world community’s approaches to pursuing global public goods. Education is key, given the extraordinary political, technological, economic, and organizational challenges that lie ahead.  And as youths become more engaged, so too will grow the pool of resources available throughout “civil society”, as individual youths join with others and cooperate through non-governmental organizations to have concrete impacts on national policies and international responses.  In recognition of the long-term nature of this work and the burdens that will be passed to future generations in these areas, the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs has—as has its predecessors in the UN Secretariat—long attached great importance to disarmament education and outreach to civil society. Everyday UN staffers go to work they have to pass by an abstract statue called “Single Form” by British artist Barbara Hepworth. It consists of an odd-shaped form marked with hundreds of little dents, with a perfect circle placed in the middle. By one reading, the dents symbolize the individual labors of citizens and diplomats in pursuit of a common global good, which, when finally achieved, forms the perfect circle.  The statue symbolizes well the many contributions that will be required from current and future generations in achieving global public goods. Youth and civil society will have key roles to play in materializing the “political will” needed to mobilize national and international resources to address such goals … and to create new circles.

 

About the Interviewee

 

Randy Rydell is an Executive Advisor to Mayors for Peace, which is managed by the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation, and is a member of the Board of the Arms Control Association.  He retired in 2014 as Senior Political Affairs Officer in the Office of Ms. Angela Kane, the UN’s High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, where he was Team Leader of the office’s Strategic Planning Unit.  On a UN leave of absence from January 2005 to June 2006, he served as Senior Counsellor and Report Director of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (Blix Commission) and Senior Fellow at the Arms Control Association in Washington, D.C.  He joined the UN secretariat in 1998, where he advised Under-Secretary-General Jayantha Dhanapala and his successors, Ambassadors Nobuyasu Abe, Nobuaki Tanaka, Sergio Duarte, and Ms. Kane.  He was Secretary of the Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters (2001) and a Visiting Lecturer at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School (1998/1999 and 2009/2010). He received the “Unsung Heroes” award in 2009 from the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute for International Studies.  He is also Principal Trumpet in the UN Symphony Orchestra.

 

Rydell worked for Senator John Glenn between 1987 and 1998 as a member of the Professional Staff of the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the United States Senate.  He assisted in the drafting and subsequent enactment of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and other legislation.  He also served as a staff member of the Senate’s Arms Control Observer Group.

 

He was an international political analyst at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory from 1980 to 1986, where he studied problems related to the global spread of nuclear weapons.  He worked as a post-doctoral fellow at the Center for Science and International Affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University from 1979 to 1980.

 

He received a B.A. in Government and Foreign Affairs from the University of Virginia (1973), an M.Sc. in International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science (1974), an M.A. in Political Science from Princeton University (1977), and a Ph. D. in Political Science from Princeton (1980). 

 

 

Climate change and human rights in Africa

Dr. Chantelle Moyo

Overview

Over the past half-century, global temperatures have increased significantly resulting in extreme climatic events such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and frequent storms. The effects of these changes in the weather patterns, usually referred to as climate change, are particularly severe for populations in poor countries. Moreover, climate change adversely impacts the enjoyment of a wide range of human rights, including the right to life, adequate housing, food, and the highest attainable standard of health. Therefore, efforts in mitigation and adaptation should take a human rights-based approach to addressing the impacts of climate change.

 

It is within the context of identifying the impacts of climate change that the phenomenon cannot simply be understood as an environmental or even economic problem but also as a human-rights concern. The consequences of climate change result in human migration and displacement, food insecurity, water shortages, and a greater risk of certain illnesses. For instance, in the Horn of Africa, an estimated 36.1 million people have been affected by the drought, and 8.9 million livestock have died due to the impacts of climate change. While climate change is not the singular reason for this, it becomes a threat multiplier in a region exacerbating insecurity and existing tensions. Furthermore, approximately 16 million people cannot access enough clean water, and 20.5 million face acute food insecurity and rising malnutrition in parts of Ethiopia, Somalia, and Kenya, with more than a million people in Somalia (mostly women and children) already displaced.

 

At the ongoing COP28 in Dubai, calls have been made for countries to prioritize human rights in negotiations for climate action. The most significant act to heed this call, so far, has been the operationalization of the loss and damage fund. This is because, under human rights law, the actors responsible for climate change-related harm should be accountable for remedying them. Moreover, human rights principles and standards should inform all action to address loss and damage including needs assessments and specific measures to respect, protect, and fulfill the rights of those who are often disproportionately affected by climate change such as women and girls, children, youth, older persons, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, minorities, migrants, rural workers, persons living in poverty and others in vulnerable situations.

 

The Paris Agreement and the UNGA Resolution on the right to a healthy environment

 

Historically, there had not been an explicit mention of human rights in addressing the impacts of climate change. However, the Paris Agreement became a turning point. The Paris Agreement became the first international environmental treaty to explicitly mention states’ obligations under human rights law. The preamble to the Agreement specifies that parties “should when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights”. The preamble lists the rights that should be taken into consideration in climate action and these include “the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity”. While this preambular reference draws attention to parties’ obligations under treaties that they have ratified already or may ratify in the future, the operative part of the Paris Agreement (Articles 7(5), 11(2), and 12) makes implicit reference to human-rights-related considerations, such as gender-responsiveness, public participation, and access to information. The list of rights in the Paris Agreement is limited excluding the right to life, property, or any of the social and economic rights, which experiences from the Horn of Africa show that the full enjoyment of these rights is curtailed by climate change.  

 

The nexus between human rights and climate change did not stop with the Paris Agreement. In 2022, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a Resolution (A/RES/76/300) recognizing the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. The Resolution recognizes the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment and its relationship with other human rights and existing norms of international law. The UNGA’s Resolution responds to the call for climate action by taking on a triple planetary crisis: climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss through a human rights-based approach. Thus, it calls for the full implementation of multilateral environmental treaties and urges international organizations, corporate actors, and other stakeholders to adopt policies, enhance international cooperation, strengthen capacity-building, and share good practices to ensure a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment for all.

 

While the Resolution is not binding, it can be considered a catalyst in strengthening the nexus between climate change and human rights by ensuring that all climate action is centered around respecting, protecting, and fulfilling human rights. Based on the Resolution, it is pertinent to note that a human rights perspective directly addresses environmental impacts on the life, health, private life, and property of individual humans. Such a perspective serves to secure higher standards of environmental quality, based on the obligation of States to take measures to control pollution affecting health, private life, and other human rights. Therefore, it provides a framework within which detrimental impacts on food and water security can be addressed. It also helps to promote the rule of law that governments become directly accountable for their failure to regulate and control environmental nuisances, including those caused by corporations, and for facilitating access to justice and enforcing environmental laws and judicial decisions.

 

Securing the protection of human rights through climate change litigation Since the Paris Agreement, there has been some traction in court cases relating to the protection of human rights and climate change in Africa. Although these cases are not explicitly labeled as climate change litigation cases, they are often heard based on environmental degradation claims that either contribute to or exacerbate the impacts of climate change. For instance, in Okpabi v. Royal Dutch Shell, the claimants comprised 42500 individuals from Nigerian communities and alleged that oil spills from pipelines operated by Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd (SPDC), a Nigerian registered company, caused widespread environmental damage, including water and ground contamination. Due to this alleged contamination, the communities could not use natural waterbodies for drinking, fishing, agricultural, and recreational purposes thereby violating multiple human rights. The claimants argued that the oil spills were caused by the negligence of SPDC and that RDS, the UK-registered parent company of SPDC, owed the claimants a duty of care as it exercised significant control over material aspects of SPDC’s operations. The UK Supreme Court held that it was at least arguable, based on the degree of control and de facto management, that the parent company owed a duty of care to the Nigerian communities concerning alleged environmental damage and human rights abuses by Shell's Nigerian subsidiary.

 

In Save Lamu v. National Environmental Management Authority & Amu Power Co Ltd, a Kenyan community-based organization representing Lamu County and other individual claimants challenged the approval of a license by the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) to a power company to construct the first coal-fired power plant in the country. The claimants argued that the NEMA failed to conduct a proper environmental impact assessment (EIA). By so doing, this violated the right to a healthy environment, human health, and other rights linked to the impacts of climate change. The Tribunal set aside the license and held that NEMA had violated the EIA regulations by granting it without proper and meaningful public participation in the process. Importantly, the Tribunal directed that the power company conduct a new EIA in compliance with the EIA Regulations including the Climate Change Act 2016, the Energy Act 2019, and the Natural Resources Act 2016, should it choose to pursue the project.

 

In Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs, a South African environmental non-governmental organization brought a claim against the Minister of Environmental Affairs in charge of granting the environmental authorizations, and the companies intending to build the 1,200 MW coal-fired Thabametsi power plant.  Earthlife maintained that the Chief Director in the Ministry was obliged to consider the climate change impacts of the proposed power station before granting authorization and that he failed to do so. Based on the government’s specifications Thabametsi was designed to be highly greenhouse gas emission intensive. Thabametsi’s climate change impact assessment showed that it would be one of the most emission-intensive plants in the world. Although the South African NEMA does not expressly mention climate change, the High Court held that considerations relating to climate change are relevant and their absence from the project's EIA made the approval unlawful. In its reasons for deciding, the High Court also mentioned South Africa’s commitments under the Paris Agreement.

 

These judgments create jurisprudence in climate change litigation in Africa. Moreover, they have the intended purpose of showing that courts will not stand idly as human rights violations occur through environmentally adverse practices.

 

Looking to the future of climate change and human rights in Africa

 

With the increasing acceptance of the nexus between human rights and climate change based on both the Paris Agreement and the UNGA Resolution, it can be expected that more cases that violate human rights and are linked to climate change will be brought to courts in Africa. Furthermore, while existing cases are brought under environmental legislation, this might soon change with more African countries enacting climate change-specific legislation. Currently, countries such as Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda already have climate change legislation while South Africa and Zimbabwe are in the final stages of enacting theirs. The protection of human rights is likely to continue being intrinsic to future cases, considering the increasing acceptance of the impacts of climate change on health, livelihoods, access to clean water, and other fundamental rights. 

 

About the Author

 

Dr Chantelle G. Moyo is an admitted lawyer and researcher who specializes in environmental law. She holds an LLB, LLM in Environmental Law, and a PhD in Law and Development specializing in climate change and energy in African cities. Dr Moyo is also a Certified Expert in Climate Change and Renewable Energy Finance.

 

Right to a livable environment in the context of Environmental Human Rights

 

Prof. Padma Rijal

 

It took a long time for the United Nations (UN) to formally recognize environmental rights as a human right worthy to be rescued from the shadows of the interpretative interrelationship with other human rights. The lack of an explicit right to a clean, adequate, healthy, suitable, balanced, productive, or sustainable environment in UN legally binding documents did not yet hinder the environmental rights to thrive and establish themselves in adverse or seemingly inhospitable conditions created by humankind themselves. In addition, the Draft Principles on Human Rights and the Environment 1994 contributed to the normative tone setting of environmental human rights. The institutional reform through the creation of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment in 2012 was another commendable development. Finally, the General Assembly passed a resolution in 2022 titled “The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.” This resolution is a symbolic integration of International Environmental Law with Human Rights law, albeit rather late because it already existed at the regional human rights regime.

 

The right to live a dignified life lies at the heart of the human rights law. The fragility of this right is exacerbated by the uninhabitable environment due to the challenges of climate change that have been knowingly and willfully ignored. We are speeding up the process of making the earth an uninhabitable place. We know that the environment will no longer be livable shortly as a small increase in temperature could exponentially destroy the vitality of our ecosystem and in turn, could wipe out humanity. People from the Global South would be the first ones to be affected by this and the process has already begun. The agriculture-dependent population, people residing in soon-to-be ocean areas, people living below the glacier lakes, and people living without drinking water and food, are the ones to feel what climate change is and what living with it means while the largest emitters are in the comfort zone of denial.

 

On this background, I have some reservations about the words being used in the recent UN General Assembly resolution such as ‘clean’, ‘healthy’, and ‘sustainable’ as they are still soft and do not reflect the direness of the situation yet. These words are susceptible to the subjective interpretation of the state of cleanliness, health, and sustainability that changes over time. We need something that permeates the fundamental essence and stays timeless. Rather, I would advocate for environmental human rights that live up to the fundamental value of human rights. Environmental human rights should sound undeniable, inherent, universal, and inalienable. The right to a livable environment could reflect a literary quality and appeal that matches the persuasive charm of human rights. The use of the word ‘Livable’ also implies that there is a visible threat that our habitat could be ‘Unlivable’ too. Although the etymological debate may not contribute much to the substance of the content, different depiction of ideas communicates and impacts differently on the backdrop of the situation where the world refuses to wake up to the climate crisis and resulting injustice.

 

Claim against whom?

 

The reliance on pure environmental rights such as the right to live in a livable environment could expand the legal horizon of climate change issues. However, it should be made claimable against a wide array of actors and interest groups including non-state actors such as corporations and economic powers. As the changing socioeconomic structure has created economic superpowers stronger than the government itself, it is high time to identify these new players in the governance system and make them accountable. The economic interest of stronger groups and the silence of vulnerable groups is one of the causes of the climate crisis and the unstable environment we're facing today. The emergence of Corporate Environmental Accountability through recognitions such as the UN Draft Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations, 1983, and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights 2011 are undernourished and cannot offer a legal mechanism to create a legal duty and corresponding claims against those duties.

 

The synergy

 

Meanwhile, the convergence of human rights law and environmental law through the inclusion of a substantial environmental right in the existing human rights framework assures optimism to some level due to two major reasons.

 

Firstly, the language of human rights is accommodating as well as enjoys the privilege of being universally accepted normative values and standards. The common goal of both areas of law is to ensure a dignified life. The flexibility of human rights both in principle and practice can offer creative solutions. In contrast, international environmental law has not yet been able to achieve unanimity and universality that could transform into a legally binding solution to climate change. Rather, the denial of scientific data and evidence on climate change has shamefully aggravated the situation, universal acceptance and realization is far from the truth.

 

Secondly, both areas of law share some common rights that are procedural. For example, the right to information, right to participation, and right to have access to (speedy, effective, and affordable) justice and remedies. These rights at their core regulate the relationship between the government and the governed in the issues concerning environmental interest among others. Such procedural rights can rejuvenate substantive environmental rights. They can offer some legal ways to monitor and thus regulate the environmental law in practice such as scrutiny of mitigation and adaptation measures being followed by the government.

 

Some issues remain.

 

The issue of environmental protection and tackling climate change is often positioned as an adversary of economic development because cutting emissions is seen as an unprofitable venture. Our vision and understanding of economics need to be reoriented and made greener by exploring and accepting methods to attach value to environmental services. The cost-benefit analysis in the context of environmental policies has created injustice because the economic cost of the industry is calculated penny by penny, but the environmental benefit enjoyed at large remains undervalued. The beneficiaries (both intergenerational and non-human entities) of the stable climate and livable environment are ‘poorly defined’ or to be honest ‘unidentified’.

 

On a similar note, the protection of the vitality of the environment is projected as a responsibility and duty instead of portraying it as a prerequisite of human development to its fullest.  Paradoxically, South Asia is the region where economists and development experts such as Amartya Sen and Mahbub ul Haq have advocated for humane development. Sustainable Development studies in theory have walked along that rope in principle but it is difficult for the South Asian countries to live up to that ambition.

 

Sustainable development is a luxury the global south cannot afford. The immediate threats of climate change faced by the global south have created a fight-or-flight situation. The disproportionate impacts of climate change faced by South Asians and other vulnerable population has not caught the serious attention of the international communities resulting in the unresolved yet sensitive issue of climate justice. The fact that the South Asian countries despite sharing a common trait of vulnerability have not been able to revitalize the regional cooperation is more disheartening.

 

These are the bigger challenges that the Human Rights Law or Environmental Law, be it in integrated or disintegrated form, cannot address in its entirety. However, a practical renovation of the Regional Human Rights instrument in South Asia that incorporates enforceable environmental rights could be a commendable approach, at least in theory.

 

Contrasting Human Rights with ecocentrism

 

The philosophy of human rights and ecocentrism have distinct perspectives in ethical and philosophical frameworks, particularly concerning the relationship between humans and the environment. The anthropocentric base of human rights focuses on the well-being of individuals through the language of rights while ecocentric environmentalists center around the well-being of the entire ecosystem. The claim-based approach to human rights resembles the anthropocentric idea that nature serves as a resource for human development.

 

The preferable solution to the problems of climate change should be based on the collective well-being and integrity of the whole ecosystem. The reason behind it rests on the fact that the current climate crisis is the result of anthropogenic interference with the climate system and such interference has compromised the integrity of the whole ecosystem which is indeed a shared habitat. Therefore, the human rights approach may not always be the correct approach to deal with climate change-related problems as the right-based approach might not appreciate the inherent value and inherent dignity of nature irrespective of the utility to humans.

 

Such differences in the moral and ethical grounding of these inherently different areas of law have been blurred by a legal innovation concerning the Rights of Nature. The courts in India have recognized the juridical personhood of rivers in 2016 and 2017. The expansion of human rights-like rights to nature is uncharted territory with navigational difficulties. Still, the difference in ethical grounding prevails as the uncertainty looms over the issue of such a reductionist approach.

 

The audacity of human beings to grant or not grant such rights to nature is based on pure anthropocentrism. Nevertheless, this trend advocates for the inherent ecological integrity of nature and represents nature as a subject of law through juridical personhood. Despite such differences in theoretical roots, the lookalike branches and the canopy created might still offer protection to the environment and ultimately to human beings.

 

Considering all this, the incentive to improve the situation is lesser than the incentive to stay in the comfort zone of not doing enough at both regional and international levels. The right to a livable environment should be recognized and enforced under the already matured human rights mechanism. Human Rights Law and International Environmental Law together should create a legally binding and effective solution to avoid this tragedy of the commons. There are cases where these two areas perfectly intersect to create synergy, while some differences such as divergent viewpoints on anthropocentrism subsist. Given the unanimity of the countries on the issue of human rights and its elevated normative status, the shortcomings of the climate change laws and resulting injustices could be addressed unconventionally through cross-fertilization with other areas of law such as human rights law.

 

About the Author

 

Ms. Padma is a licensed advocate from the Nepal Bar Council and a distinguished legal academician based in Nepal. Specializing in the intricate realm of law, she stands as a much-admired faculty known for her dynamic and innovative pedagogical methods at Kathmandu University School of Law. Her dedication extends beyond the classroom, reflected in her active involvement in professional associations and esteemed journals. Driven by a vision for legal education that combines theoretical depth with practical application, she envisions a long-term future serving legal academia through her alma mater, where she aims to contribute significantly to both scholarly discourse and institutional development. Her research contributions, particularly in the broader field of law, have been published in reputable journals, showcasing her profound engagement with contemporary legal issues. She demonstrates versatility in Environmental Law, Administrative Law Legal reasoning skills, and Logic. Her scholarly pursuits extend to a wide array of topics, including climate change, energy law, sustainability, and governance. Her passion for these subjects is evident in her writings, innovative teaching pedagogy, mentorship of student advocacy, and the research output of her students. Her holistic approach to legal education seeks to nurture critical thinking and ethical reasoning, preparing the next generation of legal minds to navigate the complexities of the evolving legal landscape with acumen and foresight.

Read PDF version

In 2015, global leaders took a historic step to include peace, justice and strong institutions as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The adoption of SDG16 demonstrated a clear recognition by all the countries of the world that economies might be performing well, and health and education may improve; but without peace and justice, people will be unable to achieve their full potential and development will remain precarious.

 

They were perhaps mindful of the fact that the Arab Spring protests and the ensuing violence was sparked by Mohamed Bouazizi’s (a fruit vendor in Tunisia) death by suicide in December 2010, as a protest against sustained harassment by the police. At the time, Tunisia was hailed as a “success story”, including by the Human Development Report (HDR) published just a month before Bouazizi’s death. The per capita incomes had almost doubled in the last decade, poverty rate had fallen by 1/5th, and the country had shown remarkable progress on the Human Development Index. The HDR had, however, warned about lagging political freedoms and a failure to protect democracy and the rule of law.

 

 Injustices have a huge impact on people, families, communities, and countries. They can result in loss of wages, employment, housing, or illness. The Justice for All report notes that “People with a justice problem lose an average of one month’s wages…. Around a third of people with a justice problem are likely to experience a physical or mental health problem”. Recent data from the World Justice Project indicates that on average “the economic cost of legal problems for individuals amounts to 1.7% of the GDP. Country-level estimates range from 0.1% to over 5%”. Injustices also lead to lack of trust in institutions and the state, which weakens the social contract. By driving exclusion and fueling grievances, injustice increases the risk of political instability and violent conflict. In his report on Our Common Agenda, the UN Secretary General, recognizes that “justice is an essential dimension of social contract”.

 

Yet, 5.1 billion people – two thirds of the world’s population – lack meaningful access to justice.  If we want to achieve equal access to justice for all, justice systems need to transform by putting people at their center. The following principles of people-centered justice were first articulated in the Hague Declaration on Equal Access to Justice for all by 2030:

 

1. Put people and their legal needs at the center of justice systems. Understand what people need and want when they seek justice, which obstacles they face and what kind of justice they receive.
2. Solve justice problems. Transform justice institutions and services through a broader range of justice providers, to ensure respect for human rights, to respond to unmet legal needs of billions of people, using high-tech as well as low-tech innovative solutions, based on data, evidence and learning, while taking into account the specificities of the context.
3. Improve the quality of justice journeys. Empower people to understand, use and shape the law, while offering them fair informal and formal justice processes that meet their needs in terms of both procedures and outcomes.
4. Use justice for prevention. Make use of mediation and other methods to prevent disputes from escalating. Address legacies of human rights violations. Invest in justice systems that are trustworthy and legitimate.
5. Empower people to access services and opportunities. Break down legal, administrative and practical barriers that people face to obtain documents, access public services, and participate fully in society and the economy, while promoting gender equality

 

At its core, people-centered justice is data-driven, evidence-based and outcome focused. Empowering people and respecting their rights lies at its heart, but it is not only about bottom-up community-based approaches and applies equally to institutional reform. Access to justice is not narrowly defined as mere access to courts or formal institutions; it is understood more broadly as people’s ability to prevent and resolve their disputes, grievances and other justice problems using a range of justice actors and systems.

 

The evidence speaks for itself: the business-as-usual approach is not working to prevent and resolve people’s justice problems. Data shows that justice aid is on the decline and it is unlikely that in the current context, either donors or domestic finance ministries will see an increase in their justice budgets. Any positive change will have to rely on effective allocation of resources. Justice data and evidence is critical to support governments and donors in deciding which policies, strategies, solutions and justice systems to fund and to what extent.

 

Data driven. We need data to better understand the most common justice problems faced by people, where they go to resolve them and their experience in trying to resolve them. This data can then be used to focus on people’s most common problems and improve their justice journeys, with tailored actions for those most at risk of being left behind. Yet, notably, SDG16 is one of the goals with the lowest available data. For example, only 6 countries have reported against the new civil justice indicator 16.3.3.

 

Evidence-based focus on outcomes. Justice is one of the few sectors which focuses so much on processes that it often neglects outcomes for people. Can we imagine a health minister saying that the Ministry has built hospitals, trained nurses and procured medicines but they don’t really know whether all this prevents or cures diseases? Yet, while most justice ministries will claim with pride that they have an independent judiciary and bar association, trained judges and lawyers and free legal aid services, in all likelihood, they will lack evidence to understand the extent to which people are able to use these systems, actors and services to prevent and resolve their most common problems. This is not to say that processes are not important but to emphasize that the importance of fair outcomes for people should not be forgotten.

 

Even when justice actors and systems focus on outcomes, it is often for institutional efficiencies rather than to improve people’s ability to resolve their problems. However, when we don’t take a people-centered approach, even laudable goals like reducing pretrial detention can have unfair outcomes. Illustratively, we have ample examples of governments and judiciaries pushing poor people to ‘plea bargain’ and effectively plead guilty to crimes they may or may not have committed in order to be released from detention, often with the period undergone in the prison serving as the punishment. The fact that a poor daily wager has pleaded guilty to stealing a bike merely to be free to feed his family does on weigh on our conscience. That he is likely to be arrested again on suspicion when there is another bike theft in the areas or that this might impact his ability to get employment in the formal sector is often easy to ignore when there is pressure to demonstrate low pretrial detention rates.

 

Moving forward, we need more evidence-based policies and solutions to people’s problems. If a policymaker or funder in other sectors like health or climate wanted to know how to reduce child mortality rates or cut carbon emissions in half, there would be readily available evidence-based solutions. Yet, if a justice minister or a donor wanted to improve resolution rates or fair outcomes for land, family, property, or labor disputes, they would struggle to find easily available and scalable solutions. Again, there are some very good examples or Gamechangers like using prison paralegals to reduce pretrial detention, or community-based mediation models or one-stop dispute resolution platforms but such solutions are: i) very few; and ii) often not operating at scale.

 

However, it is not all doom and gloom. The winds of change are blowing and there is much to be hopeful about. A people-centered approach to justice is gaining traction. The recently launched UN Secretary General’s New Vision for the Rule of Law states that the “rule of law is people-centered”. To date, over 60 countries have endorsed this approach and the principles of people-centered justice.

 

There is an increased focus on justice data and evidence. An increasing number of countries and organizations are conducting legal needs surveys, either standalone or as a part of broader surveys. The World Bank’s new initiative, Global Partnership on Justice and Rule of Law, seeks to connect different stakeholders and ‘provide analytical and thought leadership to advance justice reform by co-generating, consolidating, and disseminating knowledge’. The Global Justice Data Observatory aims to identify a shared data and research agenda on people-centered justice. The Justice Action Coalition, a multistakeholder, cross-regional high ambition coalition comprising countries and organizations, is committed to promoting people-centered justice and closing the justice gap. It seeks to demonstrate political leadership, generate data and evidence, make a case for financing justice effectively, support national action and build a shared narrative and a strong movement on people-centered justice.

 

As we celebrate the UN Day today, it is an opportune moment to be mindful of the crises facing us – climate change, rising conflicts, increasing inequalities and immense polarization – and recognize that justice, which lies at the heart of the UN Charter, is a critical tool to build resilience of communities, strengthen their trust in institutions and forge the path towards sustainable development. Now is the time to align our vision and work collaboratively to demonstrate measurable change by the next SDG Summit in 2027.

 

PDF Version

 

About the author

 

Swati Mehta is the Program Director, Justice for All for Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies initiative. A passionate believer in law and justice as tools for empowering people, building trust and social change, Swati has worked on rule of law and access to justice for over 20 years.

Starting her career by providing legal aid for women, she soon moved on to systemic reform. More recently, her work has focused on legal empowerment as well as decentralization and democratization of justice, with people at the center of justice programming. Working with several CSOs, UNDP and other justice programs in South and Southeast Asia, Swati has provided technical advice and/or strengthened capacities of police organizations, prison officials, lawyers, legal aid institutions, judiciary, law schools, and CSOs in taking a people-centered and learning approach to justice. She has written/edited/reviewed several papers on legal empowerment, policing, legal aid, and traditional, customary, and informal justice systems.

Swati is a Chevening Scholar and holds an LLM in International Criminal Law, Criminology and Criminal Justice from King’s College London. She loves to engage with young people, artists, and musicians on justice. She excels at building strong and productive cross-cultural teams.

 

 

Effective parliaments are critical to promoting democratic governance and are pivotal components of a country's broader governance framework and checks and balances. While there are differences between government and political systems, democratic parliaments, through their constitutional mandates, must fulfill three basic functions: representation, legislation, and oversight.

These functions are key for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the national level. Parliaments are pivotal for drafting and enacting the legislation needed for incorporating the SDGs into national legal frameworks, including the required state budget appropriations. Parliaments are also fundamental for overseeing the implementation by the government of the SDG targets and the public expenditures resulting from it.  Moreover, parliaments are essential for ensuring that marginalized groups’ needs and views are represented in the laws and budgets derived from their work.

Yet, in many countries, there is an urgent need to reform and improve the functioning of parliaments, making them more representative, open, and accountable, and able to respond to the urgent needs of people and the planet. Capacities for oversight and legislation are limited or under-utilized, laws and budgets are not in sync with national development plans, women, youth, and vulnerable groups are under-represented, and individual SDGs are still dealt with in silos.  Furthermore, parliamentary engagement in the efforts to implement the SDGs has been weak, and institutional challenges remain. 

We are now at a mid-point in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and it has become clear through the limited data gathered worldwide that only about 12 percent of the SDG targets are on track and some 30 percent have either seen no movement or regressed below the 2015 baseline (UNSG SDG progress report, 2023)[1].

With the achievement of the SDGs by 2030 in real peril, the world needs “all-hands-on-deck” and the effective engagement of parliaments has become paramount. In December 2022, the United Nations General Assembly recognized this again fact when it adopted a resolution entitled Enhancing the role of parliaments in accelerating the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals[2].

The SDGs and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change call for deep transformations in every country that require complementary actions by governments, parliaments, civil society, science, business, and other set of actors.  These transformations are linked with priority investments and regulatory challenges calling for actions by well-defined parts of government working with business and civil society. How can parliaments navigate this complexity bringing their big political power to the table for enabling the 2030 Agenda and the operationalization of its SDGs? The 2022 Global Parliamentary Report (IPU; UNDP, 2022) highlights that parliaments have a vital role to play in addressing the challenges of today’s rapidly changing world, but they need to connect with people and enable them to participate in the law-making, policy formulation, and oversight processes that impact their lives[3]. It is through public engagement and work with critical actors and institutions that parliaments can fulfill their mandate well.

Governance principles of accountability, effectiveness, transparency, and inclusion are directly related to the three essential parliamentary functions. Parliamentary oversight, when effective, ensures that the executive and its agencies, or those to whom authority is delegated, are open/available and accountable.  For this reason, UNDP support to parliaments has gone beyond traditional institutional strengthening to focus on supporting more constructive and systematic partnerships with executive governments, civil society, independent oversight bodies, and new and old media. Lessons from this engagement show that governance systems that result from such partnerships are demonstrably more inclusive; leading to more effective oversight of how services are delivered; and to laws and budgets that look beyond the interests of the elites.

An interesting example in this regard is the work that UNDP has done on budget oversight with parliaments and multiple actors in public finance management in all six Portuguese-speaking African countries and Timor-Leste. Through the UNDP longest and biggest EU-funded multi-country and south-south triangular cooperation program in Africa region for consolidating Economic Governance and Public Finance Management Systems (PFM) in the PALOP-TL  Countries (Angola, Cabo Verde, Guinea Bissau, Mozambique, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Timor-Leste)[4], UNDP empowers parliaments, government ministries (particularly ministries of finance/planning and gender equality line ministries), independent oversight bodies and civil society on a systemic basis for more open, transparent, and accountable public finance management. This whole-of-society model has proven to boost overall governance transparency and openness - key ingredients to building democratic accountability and trust.

Because “words don’t change policies, but budgets do!!!”[5], This innovative program has worked with legislatures in 6 countries to “follow the money” and render the government accountable towards its sustainable development commitments, including the Agenda 2030 and its SDG targets. Since 2014, MPs and parliamentary staffers have been systematically immersed with other PFM actors in budget analysis and gender-responsive budgeting workshops, communities of practice, and advanced studies programs in public finance management. One of the most prolific and relevant communities of practice facilitated by our program has been the High-Level Working Group of Legislative Budget Committees bringing to the table, annually, presidents of these important parliamentary standing committees to share views, build capacities, access best practices that benefit legislative budget oversight.

In Angola, Cabo Verde, Mozambique, and Sao Tome and Principe, this systemic work has developed an internationally acknowledged methodology for effective oversight of public expenditures and policies focused on gender inequalities – with parliamentary processes as an entry point[6] – and has given teeth to gender equality policies and more gender-equal economies[7]. Today, not at all coincidentally, out of the six PALOP-TL countries, four have elected a woman as speaker of Parliament (67% of this community of countries, against 20% global average, 25.5% in sub-Saharan Africa or 29% in Europe)[8]. Three of those Speakers of Parliament, women, were immersed in the systemic initiatives carried out in the context of the Pro PALOP-TL program considered impactful by an independent evaluation in 2021[9] and by its beneficiaries[10].

As we stand halfway to the 2030 deadline for achieving the SDGs, it is essential to strengthen democratic governance systems that accelerate progress towards all the SDGs. Governance systems need to adapt and respond to the rapid changes in our societies while putting the rights and needs of people at the center.

Parliaments will continue to be the House of Representatives of the public; they will never be think tanks or research cabinets. Legislation and oversight will continue to be subjected to the politics of representation.

In the current global context and its impact at the national level, parliaments need to partner with other actors to enforce checks and balances in today’s Volatile-Uncertain-Complex-Ambiguous world and navigate the complexity of operationalizing and accelerating the implementation of the SDGs.

The many transformations needed to accelerate the operationalization of the SDGs will require increased capacities of oversight over Domestic Resource Mobilization instruments and frameworks, but also easy access to open, timely, and accurate/granular data on sustainable development at local/national/regional/global levels. Governments need to provide these services and parliaments need to be able to make them accountable for it and use such data effectively.

 

Read PDF Version

 

About the Authors

 

Aleida Ferreyra

 

Since 2010, Ms. Aleida Ferreyra is serving as the Global Lead, Democratic Institutions and Processes in a Digital Era, Governance Team at UNDP. She has been a Policy Electoral Specialist for the United Nations Development Programme’s Global Programme for the Electoral Cycle Support (GPECS) based in New York. She is responsible for developing policy and knowledge in the area of electoral assistance, providing electoral support to UNDP country offices, and managing the global, gender and the Latin America and the Caribbean and Europe and Commonwealth of Independent States regional components of the programme.  From 2010 to 2012, she was also responsible for the regional electoral work in the Arab States region. 

 

From 2005 to 2010, Ms. Ferreyra worked for UNDP as an electoral specialist and research analyst in the area of inclusive participation and elections. She was involved with policy development and the research, writing and production of several publications and training courses, including Elections and Conflict Prevention: A Guide to Analysis, Planning and Programming; UNDP Electoral Assistance Implementation Guide; Electoral Financing to Advance Women’s Political Participation: A Guide for UNDP Support, and the Electoral Systems and Process module of the Virtual Development Academy, among others.

 

Prior to her work at UNDP, Ms. Ferreyra taught Comparative Political Systems and Institutions at the New School University in New York and worked as programme coordinator of the Janey Program for Latin American Studies. She has worked as Regional Coordinator and Electoral Observer for several electoral missions with the Organization of American States from 1996 to 2002. She holds a M.A. and an MPhil in Political Science and Government from the New School for Social Research in New York and a B.A. in International Relations from the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

 

Ricardo Godinho Gomes

 

Ricardo Godinho Gomes is the Chief Technical Advisor of the PALOP-TL Programme. He is a political scientist with significant experience in the international arena with the United Nations family as a development practitioner and leadership experience, supervising and coordinating complex multi-country programmes in democratic and economic governance.

He has extensive first-hand experience in dealing with host governments, national parliaments, supreme and constitutional courts, supreme audit and other independent accountability and transparency watchdogs, as well as local non-governmental organisations, UN country teams and the donor community.

Since 2014, Mr. Godinho Gomes has been working in the field of Economic Governance (public finance, budget transparency, parliamentary budget oversight and legislative and government openness) as Chief Technical Advisor. The Pro PALOP-TL SAI initiative is an important strategic partnership in the region between UNDP and the European Union aimed at enhancing transparency and anti-corruption through South-South and triangular cooperation involving all the relevant actors in public finance ecosystems.

Spanning five countries in Africa Region and Timor-Leste, involving also Brazil and Portugal, he has been responsible for senior policy advisory to high-level political officials. Ricardo Godinho Gomes has experience working with a wide array of United Nations Country Teams and agencies in different country contexts.

Between 2006 and 2013, Mr. Godinho Gomes provided expert advice and technical assistance to Electoral Management Bodies and all the relevant governance and electoral actors (mainly in Africa region) as an electoral expert and one of frontline responders of the EC-UNDP Joint Task Force on Electoral Assistance. During this period, I liaise closely with senior political national officers and judiciary, but also with the donor community, political party and civil society organizations’ leaders.

 

[1] https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2023/

[2] https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N22/756/15/PDF/N2275615.pdf?OpenElement.

[3] https://www.ipu.org/impact/democracy-and-strong-parliaments/global-parliamentary-report/global-parliamentary-report-2022-public-engagement-in-work-parliament.

[4] https://agora-parl.org/pt-pt/pro-palop-tl-sai.

[5] https://agora-parl.org/pt-pt/pro-palop-tl-sai/articles-publications/orcamentacao-sensivel-ao-genero-e-possivel-metodologia.

[6] file:///C:/Users/Ricardo.GGomes/Downloads/EJLR_2019_21_02.def_1.pdf.

[7] https://www.undp.org/dfs-publications/durable-transformation-and-structural-changes-gender-equality-through-pfms-and-budgetary-circles.

[8] https://data.ipu.org/speakers.

[9] https://www.agora-parl.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2022_03_Relatorio_Final_de_Avaliacao_Intermedia_ProPALOPTL.pdf.

[10] https://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/2ad63ab8-6797-4375-a28f-036acac173a2/page/ulffC.

On the occasion of the International Day for People of African Descent, the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) New York Office interviewed Dr. Michael McEachrane, Member and the Rapporteur of the United Nations Permanent Forum of People of African Descent (PFPAD). He sheds light on the persistent racial inequalities holding back this diaspora population and the UN’s efforts to improve the well-being and advance human rights of people of African descent.

 

Who are people of African descent? What disparities and obstacles are this population facing worldwide, for example, in terms of access to education, employment, health, and justice?

 

‘People of African descent’ is an expression that was first made popular by Pan-Africanists such as Marcus and Amy Garvey—which the International Day for People of African Descent commemorates—and basically refers to ‘Black’ people (broadly speaking) outside the continent of Africa and in North Africa. It is a population that worldwide is among the most discriminated against across areas of society such as those that you mention. For example, whereas people of African descent and Roma tend to be most discriminated against across Europe, in the Americas it tends to be people of African descent and indigenous people. These problems of racial discrimination and inequity in the enjoyment of rights across areas of society are so consistent that it is apt to describe them as ‘systemic’ and ‘structural’ problems in the social, institutional, and other organization of societies. Here it is critical to note too that racial discrimination, inequity, and stratification are not merely an issue at the domestic level, but also at the international level, and that the international and domestic levels often reflect each other. For example, whereas all so-called ‘developed countries’ (except for Japan) either are European or majority European-descendent, former settler colonial states, most so-called ‘least developed countries’ are in Africa.

 

What was the genesis of the PFPAD’s formation, and what is its mandate?

 

The Permanent Forum on People of African Descent (PFPAD) was first mentioned in the programme of activities adopted by the General Assembly (GA) in 2014 for the International Decade for People of African Descent 2015-2024. It is one of the two most significant outcomes of this decade—the other one being the current drafting of the UN Declaration on the human rights of people of African descent. PFPAD is also among the outcomes of UN processes coming out of the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa.

 

PFPAD is a first-of-its-kind global platform and UN consultative mechanism for people of African descent and other relevant stakeholders to improve the safety, quality of life, and livelihoods of people of African descent. It consists of ten Expert Members elected by the GA and the Human Rights Council (HRC). PFPAD holds annual sessions for Member States, civil society representatives, and other stakeholders (every other year in Geneva and New York City), and reports annually to the HRC and GA.

PFPAD also offers advice, recommendations, and further support on people of African descent to other UN organs, programs, funds, and agencies. Other aspects of PFPAD’s nine-point mandate are to contribute to the drafting of the above-mentioned declaration and examine the urgent need for disaggregated data collection for the better execution of public policies in relation to people of African descent.

 

Although the PFPAD is quite a new platform, what would you consider some of its achievements to date? What does the PFPAD look to achieve in the coming year?

 

Although PFPAD is heavily underfunded with a minimal secretariat, and we the ten expert members receive no remuneration from the UN for our work, I am frankly amazed by PFPAD’s achievements to date. At the First Session in Geneva in December last year and our Second Session in New York in May-June this year, we had nearly 1,000 participants from across the world, most of them civil society representatives. Given that the UN has provided us with travel grants for merely 25 civil society representatives, the great turnout speaks to the hopes and expectations for the forum. The Second Session also had more than 60 side events. It was beautiful to witness how people of African descent from across the world were using the space to congregate, exchange, and amplify their voices. The conversations at the first two sessions were vivid and on such key themes as the declaration, global reparatory justice, Pan-Africanism, sustainable development, an evidence-based approach to addressing systemic and structural racism, transnational migration, and health, well-being, and intergenerational trauma. Perhaps more than anything else, the greatest achievement of the forum to date may be the extensive—and I dare say, powerful—battery of recommendations that came out of the first two sessions. These recommendations are included in our first final report to the HRC and GA, which will be made public in September and presented in October to the HRC and GA by our Chair Epsy Campbell-Barr.

 

In the coming year, we will focus on the implementation of the recommendations in the final report, regional consultations for the declaration (two of which will likely take place in Brazil and Brussels later this year), our first comprehensive submission for the declaration in March next year, and then the Third Session in Geneva in April next year. The declaration is a big deal, especially as the GA has already decided that it will be a first step towards a new binding agreement (i.e., a new piece of international law). PFPAD has already made some innovative recommendations for it, including a new human right to comprehensive recognition, monitoring, and address of systemic and structural racism. Apart from all this, we will be looking for some much-needed additional financial support to grow the forum to become as institutionally sustainable, impactful, and empowering to people of African descent across the world as we can make it. As I like to say, PFPAD will only become as strong as we all make it.  

 

How is the PFPAD addressing compound or intersecting forms of discrimination against people of African descent, for example, on account of age or gender?

 

Intersectionality is a critical point for PFPAD, both in terms of understanding various forms of racialized discrimination and inequities as they affect people of African descent and in terms of placing these within broader contexts of social and global justice. These perspectives have been reflected in the conversations coming out of the first two sessions, as well as in the recommendations of PFPAD, which are summarized in the first final report. We have Black Feminism and Critical Race Theory to thank for the profound insights of intersectionality, and we have the two waves of the Black Lives Matter movement to thank for popularizing intersectionality such that it has become common knowledge across the world. Today, it is hard to imagine any consequential understanding of the basic principles of justice, equality and non-discrimination, and racial or gender equality that is not intersectional. Several of my female colleagues on the forum—not least our Vice-Chair Alice Nkom, a pioneering lawyer and stalwart for LGBTQI+ rights in Cameroon—keep reminding us of this and the need to ensure the full inclusion in our work of women, the elderly, the disabled, gays, transsexuals, and others. 

 

We are at the halfway point towards the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, and the outlook looks particularly grim. Progress on nearly one-third of SDG targets has stalled or reversed. As we near the SDG Summit in September, what can Member States do to ensure that Afro-descendants, as a discriminated group, are prioritized in SDG implementation?

 

Yes, the SDGs are beginning to look as much like a failure as the previous Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were. For example, SDG 10 on reducing equality both within and among countries, which is the SDG most directly relevant to PFPAD, has practically been ignored. Neither are people of African descent and indigenous people really included in the SDGs. The implementation of the SDGs is not living up to the truly urgent need to put caps on greenhouse emissions and unsustainable uses of natural resources. Nor is it living up to its promise of making global resource consumption and social, economic, and ecological development more equitable.

 

The world desperately needs humanity to come together, and work together, in a spirit of equality and non-discrimination. For this, recognizing, addressing, and eliminating racial discrimination, inequality, and stratification at both the domestic and international levels will be essential. Africans and people of African descent have historically been among the most victimized by racial injustices at the domestic and international levels, as well as at the forefront of struggles against them. This is no less true today. In this regard, I am hoping that the work of PFPAD will act as a clarion call.

 

How has your own experience as a person of African descent shaped and informed your activism in this area?

 

My activism is informed by both a passion for justice, and fairness, and viewing things from that perspective, as well as an embodied point of view as a person of African descent. I was born, grew up, and have spent most of my life in Sweden. My father is from Tobago and my mother is from the Swedish Arctic in the very north of the country. During my childhood, we lived in immigrant-dense public housing projects in Malmö in the south of Sweden. Sweden is very much an ethnoracial nation-state much like any other country in Europe, with its own share of ethnoracial exclusivity, contempt, and alienation. I have certainly experienced my share of that. My father passed on to me a certain fire around racial, colonial, and postcolonial injustices, the memory of our ancestors, and the nurturing strength of African diasporic historical, social, cultural, and intellectual resources. In addition, as someone with an international background—who may be described as a light-skinned person of African descent and who has spent most of his life in the ethnoracial nation-state of Sweden—nationalism and other forms of group-based chauvinism or narrow self-interest have never sat well with me. All this has shaped and informed my activism.

 

Read PDF version

 

About the Interviewee

 

Dr. Michael McEachrane is a Member and the first Rapporteur of the UN Permanent Forum of People of African Descent and a Senior Visiting Researcher at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights. He has a PhD in Philosophy from Åbo Akademi University in Finland and has held positions at universities in the U.S., Canada, Trinidad & Tobago, Sweden, Germany, and the UK.

 

His current research focuses on postcolonial/decolonial perspectives on people of African descent, Swedish society, human rights, systemic and structural racial discrimination, and reparatory justice. He is a regular commentator on issues of race for international as well as Swedish media. He is also a seasoned universal human rights advocate who, among other things, has helped found several CSOs and served as an expert advisor to the UN around the International Decade for People of African Descent 2015-2024.

 

 

 

 

In the global political landscape, World Parliamentarism Day is a moment of reflection on the importance of democratic systems and how to ensure through them the representation of citizens. Latin America is no stranger to this debate and despite overall progress currently faces two main challenges: a) the disempowerment of parliaments by the executive through constitutional mechanisms (illustrated by the recent developments in Ecuador); and b) the still weak representation of women in parliament and political leadership positions.

 

The illustrative case of Ecuador

 

A recent example of democratic defiance in Latin America is the case of the “muerte cruzada” (crossed death) in Ecuador. This legal-political term refers to the power of the executive branch to dissolve the legislative branch in certain cases, which happened in May 2023 when Ecuador’s President Guillermo Lasso dissolved Congress and general elections were called.

 

The cross-death in Ecuador raises questions about democracy in the region because, while the constitution gives the president the power to dissolve the national assembly, it is not a democratic process, as legislators are elected by the people in the same way as the executive branch.

 

-As Hernán Molina, constitutionalist, and professor at the Department of Public Law at the University of Concepción (UdeC) in Chile, explains, "the ideological struggle has to be between loyal adversaries and not between enemies".

 

This does not imply that the state should ensure de facto equality between the different ideologies, since "intellectual quality" and the social weight of opinions vary. They enjoy very different levels of support which when combined achieve harmony and equality by exercising a necessary counterbalance. Thus, the enthusiasm of the masses, the sympathy of the clergy, the support of trade union organizations, the resources of big business are factors interacting freely and holding themselves in a certain balance.

 

In other words: in two completely different cases, based on the same political scenario, we can see that democracy plays an indispensable and inexorable role, as well as the diversity of opinions through the inclusion of women in these political spaces and representation in parliaments (an indisputable tool in a state governed by the rule of law).

 

-Karl Loewenstein in 1970 noted that: "According to democratic principles, the proscription of any public opinion, whatever its political aim may be, covert or overt, is unlawful. A state society that outlaws political opinions, as such, can no longer be considered fully democratic. Protected democracy or limiting democracy is one that defends itself against its enemies and proscribes them from legality."

 

Constitutionalism and Democracy are interrelated since in a democracy the Constitution plays a fundamental role as the indisputable legal framework guaranteeing citizens' rights and establishing the limits to power.  However, let us remember that Constitutionalism is present in both democratic and non-democratic regimes - even in authoritarian systems. It is a system of government limited and regulated by a Constitution, with the aim of protecting individual rights and guaranteeing a balance of powers, ensuring the rule of law.

 

Democracy, on the other hand, has as its main objective citizen participation in political decision-making, representativeness, equality, and freedom of expression, promoting the elaboration of public policies.

 

Strengthening women's representation in the legislature

 

Although we have witnessed in recent years a growing empowerment of women in the political arena, tensions and obstacles still remain on the road to full equality and political participation. Affirmative action tools, such as quotas and legislative parity laws, not only strengthen the fundamental principles of equality and justice; but also improve the quality of political decision-making by ensuring the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences.

 

Latin America recognizes the need to overcome historical barriers that have excluded women from political decision-making, and the region has been a pioneer in the use of these affirmative action tools. Argentina was the first country in the world to pass a quota law in 1991, and a few years later the participation of women legislators rose from 5% to 30%.

 

It is worth noting that at present the global percentage of women parliamentarians in the Lower House or Single Chamber is 26.5%. In Latin America, the regional average of 27% is similar to that of the Americas (including North America) at 26%, but it is much lower than the female representation in the Nordic countries which is 41%. This highlights the need to continue the work to increase women's participation in the political sphere.

 

Latin America has worked intensively in recent years to strengthen its democratic institutions and to promote greater political participation in all sectors of society. One of the main areas of focus has been the promotion of quota laws for legislative elections as an effective means of ensuring equitable gender representation and establishing strong and democratic parliaments.

 

Some countries in the region have made significant progress in this regard: Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Uruguay, and Venezuela, among others, have established 50/50 gender parity in their parliaments. However, other countries still have some way to go, such as Paraguay with 20 percent, and Peru and the Dominican Republic with 30 percent and 33 percent respectively.

 

Using democratic logic

 

It is an undeniable fact that women represent half of the population and therefore their voice and perspective must be heard and considered in all spheres of decision-making, especially in politics.

Standardizing the presence of women in spaces of power enhances the awareness for gender-related issues amongst their male counterparts. At the same time, women have to be reminded that they deserve the quality of life as such, spaces free of violence and free of discrimination, so they are able to enjoy life as a human being.

 

The absence or low participation of women in political spaces isn’t an issue of the past. Even today we are seeing countries with very little political participation in their parliaments as is the case in Brazil.  This reality sustains the problem and women continue to accept the violence that is exercised against them, the silence of their voice, the silence of their problems, and of their rights.

 

World Parliamentarism Day, celebrated every June 30, gives us the opportunity to reflect on the role of women in parliaments. We can shed light on those areas where gender inequalities persist and where women face significant barriers to access positions of political leadership.

 

Importance and Contributions of women legislators

 

The presence of women in parliaments is essential. First and foremost, it is they who can put on the agenda the issues that need to be resolved as a society in order to achieve greater equality.

 

-Equal representation: Women make up approximately half of the world's population. It is essential that parliaments reflect the diversity of the society they represent. Having more women in the legislature ensures a more equitable representation of the interests and needs of all people, regardless of gender.

 

-Different perspectives and experiences: Women bring unique perspectives and experiences to legislation. As a result of their experiences, they can direct attention to issues that have often been ignored, such as equality, violence, motherhood, and work-life balance, among others. This diversity of approaches enriches the legislative process and contributes to the creation of more inclusive and fairer laws.

 

-Boosting economic development: Women are a key part of the country's economic and labor force. By having representation in parliaments, policies that promote equal opportunities, female entrepreneurship and women's participation in all economic spheres can be promoted. This helps to unlock the country's economic potential and generate greater prosperity for society as a whole.

 

-Leadership based on experience and knowledge: Women legislators, having experienced inequality first-hand and faced obstacles in their development, bring a unique and relevant perspective. Their personal experience and knowledge of gender issues enrich debate and decision-making, allowing for a more comprehensive and sensitive view of women's needs.

 

-Improving existing legislation: Women's participation in the legislative process leads to greater attention to the problems and challenges faced by women in society. This can result in the introduction of new laws or the amendment of existing laws to address gender inequalities and promote equal opportunities for all more effectively. Diversity of perspectives and knowledge ensures more informed and comprehensive decision-making, which can lead to more effective and sustainable policies.

 

-Strengthened democracy: The active participation of women in the legislature strengthens democratic values. As society moves towards gender equality in political representation, it promotes citizen participation and broadens trust in democratic institutions. This creates a more inclusive and cohesive society in which all voices have the opportunity to be heard and contribute to decision-making.

 

Reflections

 

The power of women in parliaments lies in their ability to bring about transformative and lasting change. Historically, women have been leaders in the struggle for human rights, gender equality, and social justice. Their empathy, resilience, and inclusive vision are qualities that enrich the political sphere and enable the building of more equitable and just societies.

 

By legislating, women have the opportunity to effectively address issues that affect them directly, such as gender-based violence, the wage gap, discrimination, and lack of opportunities.

 

Moreover, women's participation in politics brings a diversity of approaches and solutions that enrich the political debate. Their unique experiences and knowledge generate more comprehensive and effective proposals, promoting inclusive public policies and informed decisions.

 

Ultimately, women's presence and participation in legislation is not only a matter of justice but also a driver of change and progress. It is time to break down the stereotypes and barriers that limit their access to political power and usher in a new era of equality and collaboration. The future needs us to build a more inclusive world, where the voices of all people are heard and represented.

 

Material consulted:

 

https://oig.cepal.org/es/indicadores/poder-legislativo-porcentaje-escanos-ocupados-parlamentos-nacionales

 

https://data.ipu.org/women-ranking?month=4&year=2023

 

What is the "death cross" invoked by President Lasso in Ecuador and what happens now - BBC News World

 

Guillermo Lasso: keys to understanding the political crisis in Ecuador after the dissolution of Congress (elpais.com.co)

 

What is the cross death, the decree of Guillermo Lasso that dissolves Congress and calls for new elections in Ecuador | International | EL PAÍS (elpais.com)

 

Muerte cruzada Ecuador - Search (bing.com)

 

https://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2023/05/23/elecciones-generales-en-ecuador-quienes-buscaran-llegar-a-la-presidencia-tras-la-muerte-cruzada-decretada-por-lasso/

 

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracia_constitucional

 

http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1853-19702018000100001

 

https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/perspectiva_de_generos_y_diversidad_1.pdf

 

Read PDF version

 

About the Author

Sofía Brambilla is Chairwoman of the International Women’s Democrat Union and a Member of the Parliament of Argentina, currently serving her second mandate as National Deputy for Corrientes, Argentina (2017-2021 and 2021-2025). She is also the National Secretary of Women of Propuesta Republicana Party (PRO) and co-founder of the Women’s Network at the Latin American Party Union (Red de Mujeres UPLA). Prior to entering politics, Mrs. Brambilla had an extensive career working for various non-governmental organizations, including at Alianza NEA, which she co-founded. She has also held several positions in public service, including at the National Administration of Social Security (ANSES) from 2016 to 2017. Within the Honorable National Deputies Chamber, she serves as Vice President of the Economy and Regional Development Commission and is a member of the Commissions on Social Action and Public Health, Agriculture and Livestock, Women and Diversity, Small and Medium Business, Natural Resources, and Human Environment Conservation and Tourism.

Peacekeeping remains one of the United Nations’ (UN) most vital instruments for effecting lasting peace and security in the world’s most conflict-torn countries. Creating conditions for sustainable peace requires a multidimensional approach, and to that end, peacekeepers play a critical role in facilitating political solutions to supporting democratic processes, protecting civilians to restoring rule of law. They also serve in extremely dangerous and difficult environments, facing unprecedented threats and risking their lives in pursuit of peace.

 

On the occasion of the 75th anniversary of UN peacekeeping and the International Day of UN Peacekeepers on May 29, the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) interviewed Lieutenant Colonel (Lt. Col.) Mathias Voss, Deputy Military Advisor at the Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the United Nations, to discuss the changing nature of peacekeeping operations in the 21st century, examine how the UN and Germany are addressing new operational challenges and preparing personnel for peacekeeping missions abroad, and highlight Germany’s engagement in UN peacekeeping as a troop and budget contributor.

 

Today, peacekeeping operations are taking place in an increasingly complex security environment, exacerbated by the rise of non-state actors, new and emerging technologies, and other threats. What are some of these new challenges that peacekeepers face in this modern and high-risk operational environment?

 

Lt. Col. Voss: The whole character of conflict has changed. It’s not the traditional two-party conflict with the peacekeeper in between anymore. It’s gotten more complex in all dimensions. There are more actors involved that might not abide by the laws of armed conflict or even follow one common leadership. Other dimensions like cyber, technology, and innovation are being heavily exploited by malicious actors. Generally, the world has gotten more complex, and this is unfortunately also reflected in peacekeeping operations. I think it’s very demanding for each individual peacekeeper to deal with all of that.

 

The general characteristic [of peacekeeping] has also changed in that the light blue color is not a sufficient protection anymore. It used to be enough just to drive a white vehicle and have a blue helmet or beret on, and then you could feel fairly safe. But unfortunately, that’s not the case anymore. There has been a fundamental change in how peacekeepers have to act in this environment, because now the environment is quite hostile to them. It’s not just parties who are hostile to each other and where the peacekeeper was accepted as a neutral, additional actor. Now peacekeepers have become a target. That obviously changes the whole way you have to act.

 

What is the United Nations doing to address these new challenges in peacekeeping?

 

Lt. Col. Voss: There’s not one remedy that you can buy or implement; you can’t just write a new doctrine to fix things. I think the major challenge is that there’s not just one thing you have to deal with. It’s more complex. Everything affects everything. If you increase the level of armor on your vehicles, you will have less interaction with the population, and thus, you might lose ground in the information realm because you’re further apart from the population. But maybe that’s necessary because the IEDs [improvised explosive devices] that peacekeepers are attacked with have improved, or maybe the peacekeepers are shot at frequently and so they have to protect themselves.

 

It’s about finding that middle ground between all these challenges, where to find the best possible way to navigate all that and still work towards the mandate, which peacekeepers have to fulfill. There’s a narrow path between a priority on self-protection on one side and actually delivering towards protection of civilians, towards whatever the specific mandate in the mission is. This complexity is really difficult to navigate, and that makes it so hard to react to it. Naturally, there’s room for improvement in the missions in many areas; that can be training, that can be equipment, that can be conduct of operations, that can be safety and security of peacekeepers in terms of evacuation, etc. It’s always possible to become better and be faster or more reliable.

 

We have the A4P [Action for Peace] program and the A4P+ program. New technologies are really embraced, for example, the use of UAS [unmanned aerial systems]. The UN is open to innovations, but it needs time to implement them and it can be costly. The general peacekeeping and mission budgets are sufficient to run the missions, but when things change and you want to implement new things, for example, if you want to start a new program, there’s always additional funding needed.

 

How do you prepare peacekeeping troops for deployment?

 

Lt. Col. Voss: Germany has a two-step preparation system. We have a general military preparation that prepares soldiers selected for deployment abroad and equips them with military skills. The training is different for a peacekeeping context compared to a traditional war scenario, but conducting patrols or dealing with an IED threat, or interacting with local populations—that’s the same for all missions.

 

In the second step, for the unit or person identified for deployment in a specific mission area, we have additional training that’s tailored to that mission. That would include history, learning cultural specifics of a region and host nation.

 

To what extent does the expertise and experience of Germany, as a troop-contributing country, inform the planning or renewal of peacekeeping mandates?

 

Lt. Col. Voss: Germany is not a permanent member of the Security Council, so over large stretches of time we cannot influence UNSC decision-taking directly. Formally, there is a TCC/PCC [troop-contributing country/police-contributing country] meeting before a mandate renewal, where the TCCs and PCCs are heard by the Security Council, and we can officially voice our opinions on how things should be done or share our experiences. But obviously, that’s a very formal procedure. Most of the actual work is done between those meetings. That’s what we and the other Permanent Missions here in New York do through our relationship with other actors, both in the Secretariat and also international partners. We give feedback to the Secretariat when it comes to force generation, what is feasible for us, what is difficult for us. It’s this day-to-day relationship where we feed our ideas and thoughts to those that are either deciding on the mandate or preparing the mandate or writing the reports. We also try to facilitate discussion by organizing or hosting events, not with a view to the German opinion of how the mandate should be, but to provide a forum for discussion and make the best possible mandate achievable.

 

Does Germany have a say in terms of where its peacekeepers are deployed?

 

Lt. Col. Voss: We support multilateralism and want the UN to function well, so we try to support it wherever possible. But for Germany there’s always a regional aspect that we consider when it comes to the deployment of troops. For example, German support for the [United Nations Interim Force in] Lebanon [UNIFIL] has been strong over many years; we have been requested by both Lebanon and Israel to be part of it, and we have a long-standing engagement there. In the Sahel region we have also taken a very deliberate decision to support MINUSMA for the past ten years.

 

One of the most concerning trends in recent years has been the hostility of—and even attacks by—local communities towards UN peacekeepers. What is being done to educate local communities on the purpose of peacekeeping missions and help manage expectations? Or put differently, what is being done to win the hearts and minds of local communities?

 

Lt. Col. Voss: The UN still has the best message [of international peace] out there. It’s a question of how to transport the message. We’ve seen many efforts, for example, as in the dos Santos Cruz report on MONUSCO from a couple years back which suggested to improve strategic communications, to better communicate with the population. We increase female participation in peacekeeping missions to better engage with the population; we have the female engagement platoons, for example. There’s a pretty good awareness, and there are many ways identified where we can improve.

 

Unfortunately we see a lot of misinformation and disinformation going on, working with emotions and simplifications. This can sometimes be easier to transmit than the complexities of reality. It’s easier to blame someone than to explain why it’s difficult to achieve progress. In many cases, the UN is having an uphill struggle in terms of communication, as it is easier for other actors to reach a population that is closer to them. They might speak the local language or be part of a local tribe; they are familiar with the cultural environment.

 

Has there been any pushback from the German population back home regarding the deployment of German troops to dangerous UN peacekeeping missions?

 

Lt. Col. Voss: I don’t see that. There can be political scrutiny, not least by the political opposition which is a normal situation in democracy, but I don’t have the feeling that there’s huge pushback from the general public or media. There’s more a feeling of sympathy and amenity towards the military in the field than a reflex to pull out immediately.

 

About the Interviewee

 

Lieutenant Colonel Voss is the Deputy Military Advisor for the Permanent Mission of Germany to the UN in New York. He has served in multiple national and international staff positions and has gained operational experience in NATO and UN missions. He is also the author of “Defence in a changing world – How defensive should (NATO) defence be?”, an analysis for the German Institute for Defence and Strategic Studies. 

The multilateral system based on clear and predictable rules and a high level of respect towards multilateral mechanisms to settle disputes between sovereign states and to which the world has become accustomed over the last seven decades, has gradually changed. (ECLAC 2023 (b)). The affirmation of regionalism and nationalism in commercial, supply and national security matters have given way to protectionism, isolationism and a system less based on rules and more based on the use of force and geopolitical considerations.

 

Following the devastation of World War II, a new phase of global integration began, in which international institutions for technical, financial, and commercial cooperation developed, while trade in manufactured goods expanded. The United Nations came into being with the maintenance of international peace and security as its central mission.  A new international monetary system, the Bretton Woods system, was created to provide financial stability, postwar reconstruction, and economic development to less developed countries. The Bretton Woods institutions would also seek to address the lack of cooperation among the countries that characterized the inter-war period where competitive devaluations and restrictive trade policies had been prevalent. The final quarter of the twentieth century, was marked by the gradual spread of free trade, the growing presence of transnational corporations operating as integrated production systems, the expansion and notable mobility of capital that coexisted with restrictions on the movement of labor. (ECLAC, 2002).

 

During the first quarter of the twenty-first century, escalating trade tensions between the two largest economies in the world, the disruptions in supply chains brought along by the Covid-19 pandemic together with climate change concerns, re-opened the discussion about the advantages of having shorter, regionalized supply chains, governments enacted trade barriers and investment restrictions to promote reshoring of some manufacturing industries, diversification of supply sources and to promote self-sufficiency in some industries.

 

With the conflict in Ukraine, what was already a clear rivalry of technological competition around the digital revolution turns into a geopolitical clash. In the new scenario, the economic interdependencies that were previously celebrated create geoeconomic and geopolitical vulnerabilities. In this setting, not only multinationals would seek to diversify the origin of their supplies away from certain countries or regions, but also governments would design policies that increased the risk of fragmentation of trade and investment. Some of the world's leading economies are undertaking industrial policy initiatives that could lead to a major reconfiguration of the global value chains in the coming years, with the goals of self-sufficiency in energy, food and security manufacturing (ECLAC, 2023 (b)).

 

The growing divide between countries with respect to access to affordable financing for development presents a danger to any country. Global cooperation and multilateral action are urgently needed to preserve global peace, security and development.

 

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the different resources available to developed and developing countries[1] in the face of global challenges. While developed countries adopted expansionary fiscal and monetary policies that enabled them to invest in recovery and have largely returned to pre-pandemic growth paths, developing countries were unable to do so, in part because their currencies would be under pressure. Financial conditions have become tighter for developing countries as well; they face higher interest rates and withered capital inflows. Tighter global financing conditions have been devastating for countries with high debt levels. Over 40 per cent of people living in extreme poverty live in countries with severe debt challenges. (UN, 2023)

 

In addition, the climate crisis has a disproportionate impact on least developed countries and small island developing States. While developed countries can afford to pay for adaptation and resilience, developing countries cannot (UN, 2023).

 

"Without the necessary means to invest in sustainable development and transform their energy and food systems, developing countries are being left behind" “A dual world divided between the haves and the have-nots is a clear and obvious danger to any country. We urgently need to restore global cooperation and find solutions to the current crisis by acting multilaterally.", Secretary General of the United Nations, António Guterres, foreword to the Financing for Sustainable Development Report 2023: Financing Sustainable Transformations. (UN, 2023)

 

The post-World War II international financing system needs a serious revamp since its institutions are expected to deliver on an ambitious agenda: continuing the fight against poverty while also preserving global public goods, such as climate, biodiversity, and pandemic preparedness and prevention.

 

"If we do not deliver a reformed international financial system while scaling up investments in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), we will not deliver on the shared commitment of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development," said the United Nations Deputy Secretary General, Amina Mohammed. (UN, 2023) 

 

An effective and reformed international financial architecture that provides for sustainable transformation must include, among others, revised schemes for international tax regulations; the scale and mission of multilateral development banking system; a climate change loss and damage fund; debt relief and a major improvement in the international debt resolution architecture; multilateral trade rules to review the approach and resolve current tensions in relation to green subsidies.

 

The ongoing discussions on the World Bank Group’s (WBG) Evolution Roadmap have raised concerns among middle and low-income countries since the new vision and mission could create the potential for tradeoffs in investments and policies. The G-24 Ministers made it clear in the Press Communique at the last Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, that these tradeoffs should not come at the cost of development finance. “In addition to climate change, conflict and fragility, and pandemic preparedness and prevention, the WBG needs to scale up support for access to affordable water, food and energy, human capital development, digital development and debt sustainability.“  Furthermore, the G-24 called for closer cooperation with other multilateral organizations including the UN Green Climate Fund, other Multilateral Development Banks and Regional Development Banks to explore comparative advantages, seeking complementarity and synergies as the guiding principle for the WBG reform.

 

Additional financial capacity to avoid an unfunded enhanced mandate for the WBG will be required[2]. This would be achieved, in part, by optimizing the use of the WBG balance sheets, better leverage of existing capital, and increased efficiency and lower transaction costs on trust funds. In addition, a capital increase in the medium term should also be considered.

 

Latin America and the Caribbean

 

The effects of the series of shocks that affected the global economy, including the global financial crisis, economic tensions between major powers of the global economy, the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the resurgence of inflation, in a context in which the environmental emergency is worsening and the technological revolution is accelerating have also reverberated in the Latin American and Caribbean countries where investment and production conditions have deteriorated significantly.

 

The combination of external and domestic factors stemming from the policy decisions made, or from the absence of such decisions, has reduced the capacity for economic growth and quality job creation and hampered its fight against poverty and extreme poverty. Its economic and social structures have weakened and have fallen into situations that reinforce the inertia of a weak economic performance. In parallel, the region faces the challenge of implementing ambitious adaptation and mitigation strategies to address the climate emergency, while at the same time accelerating the pace of social, economic, and institutional progress, all within narrowing fiscal space. (OECD et al., 2022)

 

A transition to a low-carbon and inclusive economy requires the mobilization of vast amounts of financial resources. Fiscal policy, national and multilateral development banks, and the private sector will have to play a stronger and more coordinated role to catalyze investment, develop market instruments and regulatory tools, and compensate the most affected and vulnerable populations. A legitimate and politically viable transition requires a broad consensus on its objectives and proceeds through reforms that result from a collaborative and inclusive dialogue. This is particularly important in a region where support for green policies is high, but where trust in public institutions has seen a sharp erosion. New forms of cross-border partnerships and cooperation will be crucial, as national efforts will not suffice. Addressing climate change and decarbonizing economies require coordinated global action. Boosting international partnerships, can help Latin America and the Caribbean adapt to the “greening” of trade norms and regulations, attract greater investment, access new technologies and decisively contribute to shaping global norms and actions (OECD et al., 2022)

 

In terms of financing for development, ECLAC proposes an agenda for the recovery of the region: i) expand and redistribute liquidity from developed countries to developing countries; ii) strengthen regional cooperation by increasing the lending and response capacity of regional, subregional and national financial institutions, and strengthening their links with multilateral development banks; iii) carry out an institutional reform of the multilateral debt architecture; iv) provide countries with a set of innovative financing instruments, v) integrate liquidity and debt reduction measures into a resilience strategy.

 

Multilateralism and international cooperation to address global challenges.

 

Even if the macroeconomic consequences of the conflict in Ukraine and their spillover effects dissipate in the near term, many challenges remain that require international cooperation. Global issues such as climate change, geopolitical tensions, humanitarian and migratory crises necessitate collective attention and action. Climate change is affecting billions of people worldwide, contributing to further poverty, hunger and instability and making the transition to greener economies more urgent.

 

"We must find the necessary political will to overcome the growing political tensions, the breakdown of alliances between countries and the worrying trend towards nationalism and seize the present moment to urgently invest in our common future.” Li Junhua, head of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the United Nations Assistant Secretary General[3].

 

References

 

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). 2002. “Globalization and Development”. CEPAL May 2022. Twenty-ninth session, Brasilia.

———. 2022. “América Latina y el Caribe es una de las regiones más impactadas demográficamente por la crisis sanitaria.” Text. CEPAL. November 17, 2022. https://www.cepal.org/es/noticias/america-latina-caribe-es-regiones-mas-impactadas-demograficamente-la-crisis-sanitaria.

———. 2023 (a). “ECLAC Calls on Countries to Strengthen the Production, Analysis and Use of Statistics to Address the Causes of Migration with a Development and Human Rights Perspective.” Text. CEPAL. January 26, 2023. https://www.cepal.org/en/pressreleases/eclac-calls-countries-strengthen-production-analysis-and-use-statistics-address-causes.

———. 2023. Iberoamérica: espacio de oportunidades para el crecimiento, la colaboración y el desarrollo sostenible (LC/TS.2023/33), Santiago, 2023.

OECD et al. (2022), Latin American Economic Outlook 2022: Towards a Green and Just Transition, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3d5554fc-en.

United Nations (UN), Inter-agency Task Force on Financing for Development, Financing for Sustainable Development Report 2023: Financing Sustainable Transformations. (New York: United Nations, 2023), available from: https://developmentfinance.un.org/fsdr2023.

 

 

[1] More than 60 international organizations led by the United Nations released the Financing for Sustainable Development Report 2023: Financing Sustainable Transformations on 8 April 2023. The recently released 2023 Financing for Sustainable Development Report[1] describes a growing divide between countries that can access affordable financing for development, and those that cannot.

 

[2] “The scale of the new ambition and ongoing high cost of addressing multiple challenges highlights the need to substantially scale-up the WBG’s financing capacity. We reiterate that this should be done while preserving the Bank’s financial sustainability, AAA ratings and preferred creditor status. Current loan prices should be maintained to avoid increasing the burden on borrowing costs. The WBG should optimize its balance sheets, better leverage existing capital, including from financial intermediary funds, and increase efficiency and lower transaction costs on trust funds. Leveraging existing resources should not necessarily foreclose capital increase in the medium-term, which remains the most powerful mechanism for increasing financing capacity with the lowest risk. We urge MDBs to increase their efforts to discuss and implement recommendations from the G20-convened Independent Expert Panel on Capital Adequacy Frameworks and encourage strengthened communications with credit rating agencies to support methodological revisions that would better factor in MDBs particularities.” Intergovernmental Group of Twenty-Four on International Monetary Affairs and Development Communiqué, April 11, 2023.

 

[3] Li Juhua was in charge of the preparation of the inter-institutional report2023 financing for development. 

 

Read PDF version

 

About the Author

 

Mr. José Manuel Salazar-Xirinachs was appointed Executive Secretary of ECLAC by the United Nations’ Secretary-General on September 1, 2022. He took office as from October 3, 2022. Previously he served as Regional Director for Latin America and the Caribbean of the International Labour Organization (ILO) from 2015-2018.  He joined the ILO in 2005 as Executive Director of its Employment Sector and served as Assistant Director General for Policy from 2013 to 2015.

 

Prior to joining the ILO, he served from 1998 to 2005 as Director of the Trade Unit of the Organization of American States.  Mr. Salazar was Minister of Foreign Trade of Costa Rica from 1997 to 1998, Executive President of the Costa Rican Development Corporation from 1988-1990 and Chief Economist and then Executive Director of a Central American private sector think tank (FEDEPRICAP) from 1990-1996.  In the academic sphere, he is also the author of numerous journal articles on development, trade, productive transformation, competitiveness and employment policies, and has written and edited several books. He has taught at the University of Costa Rica, the National University of Heredia, Cambridge University and Georgetown University.

 

He holds a master’s degree in Development Economics and a doctorate in Economics from Cambridge University and a bachelor’s degree in Economics from the University of Costa Rica.

There is a saying that a good diplomat is someone who can tell someone else to ‘get lost’ in such a way, that the person being told this, asks, avidly, as to which direction to take. Tony Benn is once noted to have said that “all war is a failure of diplomacy”. While academics and the UN may – and do - differ on the precise count of how many wars there are in our world, the reality is that even just the one war, especially in the context where the United Nations system has existed for over 70 years, is more than a failure. It is a catastrophic indictment of our present multilateral system.

 

But what is this multilateral system? For many students and teachers of international relations, and according to the Oxford Dictionary, multilateralism is “the principle of participation by three or more parties, especially by the governments of different countries”. The United Nations system was meant to be the basic infrastructure which serves to convene the world’s nations and works to serve the multiple needs of these nations – all, ostensibly, to also prevent the reasons for war. Just across from the main Secretariat of the United Nations building on First Avenue in New York, the following quote is inscribed on the wall, presumably underlining the very rationale for the edifice and enterprise thereof: “and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. (Isaiah 2:4)”.

 

If the quote from religious scripture offends or surprises some, it really should not. Because the United Nations system is built to also serve as the main bulwark which upholds and defends the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR itself was possible thanks, in large measure, to the common values derived from all faiths (and the cultures they inspired and informed) over many a century of human existence. In other words, if we did not have common religious values, it would have been rather challenging to find agreed common values based exclusively on the realities of a world emerging from colonial domination and constantly changing world orders resulting in two world wars.

 

I will get back to religions towards the end. For now, let us revert to the (secular) journeys of diplomacy and multilateralism. While the United Nations system remains a major feature of multilateral presence and efforts, the last three decades have witnessed what has emerged, effectively, as competing instruments of multi-party engagement. The World Economic Forum, for instance, is today a space where many corporations, diverse organisations, individuals, governments, academics, scientists, artists, among others, meet regularly, and even launch/carry out joint efforts.

 

The actions of regional governmental entities (such as the African Union, European Union, ASEAN, among others), as well as specialised multilateral bodies such as OPEC, NATO, the OECD, and such, are today claiming more successes on the economic, political, military and scientific fronts, than some of the UN bodies created for similar purposes. What is more, International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) are today amongst the top humanitarian actors around the world (with at least two UN entities struggling to coordinate their activities and streamline their own partnerships with them) as many of these INGOs have become indispensable to the work needed. This does not consider foundations, and other specialised groupings (especially in the arena of health e.g., the Global Fund, GAVI), in every corner of the world, which are convening or serving – or both – millions.

 

All this, as the UN decision-making body, the Security Council, retains only five permanent members with a right to veto (including veto morally and ethically correct courses of action); and the leadership of both this Council and the Human Rights Council is, at times, led by the greatest abusers of human rights.

 

Would it be, perhaps, too simplistic to observe that the more the number of international multi-party structures have proliferated, the more multilateralism of and by government members of the United Nations system, appears to have failed to fulfil some basic aspirations of peace? And could this observation mark a simple coincidence? I contend that this is not a coincidence. Our traditional multilateral system, as in the United Nations, is, in fact, only as strong as two of its basic tenets or foundations: a strong (representative, legitimate, efficient) state, and the ability of these states to work together to protect and serve our common public goods (such as security, education, knowledge, infrastructure, environment and health).

 

The reality, however, is that many states are not delivering on basic social contracts and represent a declining minority of their increasingly polarised populations. And it is hard not to see the glaring facts of the UN failing in its basic mandate to stave off so many wars. It is telling that in 2023, as in the 1970s and through the 1980s and 1990s, nuclear war, and the fear thereof, is very much part of the political, military and even financial landscape. It says even more that today that there are multiple tracks where non state actors, and their intertwined interests around weapons, arms, drugs, gang wars, trafficking and related ills, are our new normal. And the rest of the kaleidoscope of our life is the background of a planet we are, collectively, hurting so badly, that it took a young woman activist (Greta Thunberg) to say to the world leaders, at the UN, “shame on you”. And nothing much changed anyway.

 

As we understand that our common values come from religious traditions, we should have realised that when religious institutions -- who are conservatively estimated to provide a quarter of all basic social services (education, health, nutrition, etc.), remain deeply vested in public power spaces ranging from legislatures to investment banking - still refuse to, indeed can see no value to, working together, then our world anyway has major underlying and deeply rooted challenges. Religious institutions are the original development and social providers, the original actors, or backers, in politics, finance, trade, militaries, and many of the original power brokers of empires. They are the original prototypes of our governance, financial and social institutions and realms. They are the original diplomats. And they did not bring world peace. Far from it.

 

So, if ‘the originals’ fail to work together to serve the peace, even though their common values informed the modern-day structural and legal entities of multilateralism, how did our collective arrogance lead us to imagine that the formula for peace would be the UN, and (now) all the various and wild mushrooms of secular networks? Perhaps a more self-critical formula for redefined diplomacy and multilateralism should be the UN plus all the religious institutions working together – and holding one another accountable. Where is the harm in at least assessing, if not trying, that direction for accountability for our global commons?

 

After all, can our world get more ‘lost’ than it is? Or should we simply continue our arrogant state-led march, perhaps mixed in with more similar, like-minded ‘networks’? Or perhaps, we should allow some states to instrumentalise (or is it ‘partner’?) with select religious institutions and actors, many of whom set the tone for unilateralism long ago, some of whom have no inclination to even see one another as equals, all of whom sing from the same choir sheet (of peace/children/climate/poverty/etc.) – on their own terms, using their own logos, creating their own new initiatives, and the rest of those who have the experience and wisdom of learning from genuine collective service to all (barring none), be damned?

 

Religious institutions, ‘the originals’ of institutions, have a history with war and profiteering - while serving as ‘angels of mercy to the most poor and destitute’ - as their secular counterparts. Religious actors proliferated in shape, destination, format, purpose, and reinvention of themselves, long before their supposedly secular counterparts did. None of either set of institutions or actors can claim the moral high ground. All of them owe our planet and all peoples, some serious reparations. Time to hold each other accountable for serving and protecting the global commons.

 

Read PDF version 

 

About the Author

Dr. Karam currently is a member of the United Nations Secretary General’s ‘High Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism’.

Prior to joining Religions for Peace, she served for nearly two decades in the United Nations (UNDP and UNFPA), including as a Coordinator of the Arab Human Development Reports, a Senior Advisor on Culture, and Lead Facilitator/Trainer for the UN Strategic Learning Exchanges on Religion, Development and Diplomacy. During her time in the UN, she founded and was Convenor of the United Nations Inter-Agency Task Force on Religion and Development as well as the Multi-Faith Advisory Council of that Task Force.

She has worked internationally since 1980s, including with the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IIDEA), the OECD and the EU, and has taught and lectured in various academic institutions in Europe, North America (including the United States Military Academy/West Point), and in the Arab region.

Her Ph.D. (in 1996), focused on Political Islam, and became her first book in Arabic and English. She has since published widely, in several languages, on international political dynamics, including democratization, human rights, peace and security, gender, religious engagement, and sustainable development.

Dr. Karam received many awards over the years, including an Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters from John Cabot University (Rome, Italy).

She was born in Egypt, lived and worked in many continents, and now resides in the United States.

For a country that ranks 129 out of 139 on the Rule of Law Index[2] and 141 out of 156 countries on the Gender Gap Index 2022[3], it is essential to consider why has the position not improved over 75 years, especially for women, who make up half the country’s population. In this context, the women of Pakistan face cultural and social barriers where they are cast in a given gendered role, which is conditioned and limited. Although more women are educated now and the number of working women has increased, women do not have a fair share of representation in leadership and decision-making positions. So, the stereotypical role and cultural barriers prevail over education and autonomy. Nevertheless, the underlying issue is much deeper. Beyond the mindset, there are structural barriers where the laws, rules, and policies do not consider the gender perspective and so the same do not allow real-time inclusivity, participation, and visibility for women. This becomes a problem when seen in the context of access to justice as the justice sector is a reflection of the narrative built on traditional roles and presumptions which work against women. So, whether it is to file a complaint or to file a petition in court, women face challenges unique to their gender as the road to access justice is obstructed.

 

This becomes evident when the representation of women in the justice sector is seen. At present, less than 2% of the superior judiciary and less than 15% of the subordinate judiciary are women. There is one female judge at each of the five high courts, and it was only last year when the first woman was appointed to the Supreme Court in the country's 75 years history. 12% of the total lawyer’s community and 15% of the total prosecutors are women.[4] On the other hand, female police officers constitute only around 1.5% of the entire police force in Pakistan.[5] This low representation is not because there are not enough capable women for these positions, but because women do not have equal opportunities and on account of the prevailing mindset, they are not easily considered. Essentially, the barriers are entrenched in the system and have become part of the system which in turn endorses the presumed gendered role. Typically, for these reasons accessing the justice sector becomes a stigma. This mindset can manifest in decisions, in the process and procedures, and in the way, cases are handled and decided which means that the stereotype is perpetuated. This exclusionary dynamic is further demonstrated by the fact that the given structures are not built for women as there are no safe spaces for women to accommodate their presence and they are not facilitated to encourage access. While there may be relevant laws on paper in this respect to promote access, the enforcement and implementation are not visible. To my mind, this clearly indicates that the gender perspective is entirely missing from the justice sector.

 

The gender perspective is about considering the experiences of women, hearing their stories, and understanding their issues, above and beyond the stereotyping, and the generalized preconception of attitudes and gender roles. It’s about giving visibility to women, acknowledging their person and their needs. This is relevant when seen in the context of women judges. Women judges bring a different thinking process, with a different set of emphasis which may still lead to the same outcome required under the law but for different reasons. The reasons are what give meaning to the gender perspective and create inclusivity and visibility. Without this perspective, the portrayal of women’s stories in judgments tends to lack the experiences and impact that may be necessary for an equitable outcome. Oftentimes, there is stereotyping of women in the narrative or understanding of the facts based on biases or societal norms which results in a short-sighted portrayal of female victims and their experiences which further perpetuates stereotypes and myths. It also leads to marginalization or downplaying of the voices and experiences of women which perpetuates a cycle of underrepresentation of women. When seen as a form of cultural appropriation, it takes away agency and control from women over their own experiences. Consequently, with more women in the justice sector, it helps build a narrative that includes the gender perspective.

 

So, the question arises, how can gender perspective be included and enhanced in our justice sector?

 

Firstly, the induction of more women in the justice sector. Ensuring the induction of women in the justice sector not only promotes gender equality but also aids in overcoming gender stereotypes and improving decision-making, ultimately enhancing social cohesion. Female judges provide a gendered perspective, which can lead to more informed decision-making and address social issues concerning women, including gender-based violence, discrimination, and social inequality. In the same way, more women in the justice sector present a fair representation and enhance public trust as it reflects the composition of society. When women are represented in different ranks of the justice sector, it improves access to justice for women as they are more likely to have great trust in the system and feel comfortable seeking justice. Moreover, women in leadership and decision-making roles can challenge gender stereotypes, changing societal attitudes and perceptions of women's abilities and contributions. Women in the justice sector bring a more informed understanding of the experiences and challenges faced by women, ensuring that the justice system is more responsive to their needs and that their voices are heard. It is worth noting that while there has been some effort in recent years to promote the inclusion of women in the judiciary, much of this work and its effect over time is difficult to make out due to the lack of reliable data on cases filed by women, their outcome and the impact of female judges. There is also limited data on the role of female lawyers, prosecutors, and police and the impact that they have on the system. Any literature that is developed on the gendered perspective and its effect and relevance is based on data from other regions, where the issues and their context may be different. To fully understand and redress the issues of women we require our own research and literature based on our experiences and sociocultural dynamics.

 

Interestingly, the appointment of women to positions within the justice sector of Pakistan has long been a topic of discussion and debate. While the idea of promoting diversity within this sector is certainly important, the question arises as to whether appointing women – who make up nearly half of the country's total population – should be considered an act of promoting diversity, or simply a means of ensuring fair representation. It is crucial that the voices and experiences of women are properly represented within the justice sector, not solely for the sake of achieving diversity, but for the sake of fair and equal representation. Women have long been underrepresented in positions of power and authority within the country, and as such, their perspectives and needs have remained unnoticed.

 

Furthermore, in order to ensure that the justice system is truly equitable and fair, it is imperative that judges, both male, and female, are properly trained in the sensitivity and sensibility required to understand and consider gender perspectives. This training should include an understanding of the ways in which gender bias can manifest within the court and the judgments and the ways to identify and address implicit bias. Judges who are well-versed in issues of gender equity and sensitivity are better equipped to handle cases in which gender dynamics are at play, and can more effectively ensure that all individuals, regardless of gender, are treated fairly and impartially. By prioritizing gender sensitivity and sensibility in the training of judges, the legal system can take an important step towards ensuring that all individuals, regardless of gender, are able to access justice fairly and without prejudice. In addition to proper training, judges should also strive to use gender-sensitive language in their judgments. The use of gender-sensitive language acknowledges the existence of gender-based inequalities and biases and can help to promote greater gender equality. This means using language that avoids reinforcing stereotypes or discriminatory attitudes towards gender. This would also be applicable to other stakeholders in the justice sector.

 

Lastly, it is important to build awareness and shift mindsets and attitudes away from cultural and traditional stereotypes. Women who aspire to transcend traditional gender roles often feel compelled to exert themselves excessively to defy societal expectations. In such circumstances, women often find themselves juggling their domestic duties with their professional pursuits, striving to achieve success through increased effort and dedication. Greater awareness creates greater acceptability. Hence, it helps support the new narrative which includes the gender perspective. When women are represented in leadership and decision-making roles in the justice sector, they can serve as powerful role models for other women, encouraging them to pursue careers in these fields, and promoting fair representation in the justice system.

 

A new narrative that includes the gender perspective will help break barriers and improve access to justice for women.

 

About the Author:

 

Justice Ayesha A. Malik, before her elevation to the Supreme Court, was serving as a Justice of the Lahore High Court since March 2012.

Born in June 1966, her education was completed from schools in Paris, New York, and London. She acquired her B. Com from the Government College of Commerce & Economics, Karachi, and her LLB from the Pakistan College of Law, Lahore. She went on to acquire her LLM from Harvard Law School where she was named a Landon H. Gammon Fellow for academic excellence.

Justice Malik started her legal career working at Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim & Co and ultimately went on to become a Partner at Rizvi, Isa, Afridi & Angell, where she spearheaded the corporate & litigation department at the firm’s Lahore office. She has been a Lecturer in Banking Law (University of Punjab) and Mercantile Law (College of Accounting and & Management Sciences, Karachi).

As a Justice of the Lahore High Court, in addition to her position on the bench, she has been a member of the National Judicial Automation Committee overseeing case management, the pace of litigation and effectively harnessing information technology to ensure speedy dispensation of cases. Being a Board Member of the Punjab Judicial Academy, she has contributed successfully to the academic developments therein. She has also been a Member of the Federal Review Board and was the Chairperson for the Judicial Officers Female Supervisory Committee which dealt with issues relating to female judicial officers. She initiated the first Punjab Women's Judges Conference in 2016. Successful conferences have since been held in 2017 and 2019 and have bought to the forefront the gender perspective and potential solutions to improve the litigation process for female litigants.

She has also volunteered her time to the Hermann Gmeiner School, Lahore, an SOS project, teaching both English Language and Development in Communication Skills. She has worked, pro bono, for various NGOs and has focused specifically on poverty alleviation programs, micro-finance programs, and skills training programs. In addition, she is credited with several successful publications and has been featured in the International Journal of Competition Policy and Regulation Global Law Review, the Oxford Reports on International law in Domestic Courts, and the Journal of World Investment, etc.

[1] Justice, Supreme Court of Pakistan

[2]World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2022.

[3]Global Gender Gap Report 2022 by World Economic Forum.

[4]The State of Women’s Representation in Law 2020-21 by Ministry of Law & Justice and Women In Law Initiative Pakistan.

[5]Female Police Officers Step into the Frontlines as First Responders in Pakistan, UNODC.Org

 

Read PDF version

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, male voices often dominated scientific commentary in the media. Why? There may be more women than men with a doctoral or equivalent degree in health sciences in many countries but the great majority of leadership positions in the public health service tend to be occupied by men. This suggests that, when television and radio journalists began searching for a high-ranking personality from the medical field to interview on their programme during the COVID-19 pandemic, they found a pool of male candidates that was much bigger than the pool of female candidates. This will have had a trickle-down effect, with the lower number of women in leadership positions in the public health sector translating into fewer female experts appearing on television and radio during the pandemic. These optics are deceptive and may have fuelled a public perception that scientific experts in the health sector tend to be men.

 

Gender stereotyping is even more likely to occur in fields of science and technology where women are in the minority even at the graduate level. For instance, women make up just 28% of graduates of engineering worldwide and 22% of professionals in artificial intelligence, according to the UNESCO Science Report (2021), even though these are some of the very fields which are driving the Fourth Industrial Revolution and, thus, many of the jobs of tomorrow.

 

So, women are less likely than men to occupy positions of power but also technical roles. When women are less visible, this situation can foster gender bias and gender stereotyping. It also deprives high-level decision-making and research and innovation of the female perspective. Women themselves have a stake in participating in the digital economy to ensure that the Fourth Industrial Revolution does not perpetuate gender bias. Artificial intelligence is already defining societal priorities and algorithms reflect the mindset of the person who designs them. Some smartphone applications have been found to contain gender bias. For instance, Siri, a servile female-gendered voice assistant used by millions of Internauts, had been programmed to respond to insults with the words, ‘I would blush if I could’. The algorithm behind Siri was updated in 2019 to react in a more gender-neutral way by saying ‘I don’t know how to respond to that’. If we take another example, a growing number of employers are using algorithms to rate job applicants and these algorithms are not always doing so in a gender-neutral way.  Of course, the best way to avoid gender biases in algorithms is to have both men and women on the team that is developing the algorithm.

The key to reducing gender biases and stereotyping is to ensure that women are always part of the conversation. This means that both men and women need to become accustomed to seeing women in technical and leadership positions. Once this becomes the norm, perceptions will evolve; people may not even realize that they have come to view women in power or women wearing hard hats as the norm.

 

At UNESCO, we are working with various partners to change perceptions about what is the norm for girls and women. Let me give you a couple of examples. We joined forces with the Fondation L’Oréal in 1998 to create the For Women in Science Programme. By rewarding excellence, this programme supports outstanding women in their scientific careers, while promoting positive role models that young girls and women – as well as men – can look up to. In 2019, the programme extended its international awards to include mathematics and computer science, in recognition of the lack of visibility of women in fields that are at the heart of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. To date, the For Women in Science Programme has recognized 122 laureates, more than 300 mid-career scientists, and about 3,900 young scientists from more than 100 countries. Several of the L’Oréal-UNESCO laureates have gone on to win the Nobel Prize! This was the case for Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer A. Doudna (Noble Prize for Chemistry, 2020), Ada Yonath (Nobel Prize for Chemistry, 2009), and Elizabeth Blackburn (Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine, 2009).

 

Currently, women make up 37% of tertiary graduates in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), according to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics. In 2017, UNESCO launched the #1MillionGirlsInSTEM campaign, together with Women in Engineering, a non-profit organization, to change the perception among girls that some professions are out of bounds to them. The campaign is using a combination of outreach initiatives and education in STEM to mobilize 1 million girls in at least 10 different regions over 10 years. One initiative has been dubbed the ‘Think Pink Hard Hat’ challenge; within this initiative, a series of workshops are being conducted globally for girls aged between 13 and 17 years to encourage them to consider a career in engineering.  So far, over 20,000 young women from the following countries have benefitted from this programme: Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Eswatini, Ethiopia, France, Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi, Mauritius, Mexico, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, the United Kingdom, United States of America and Zimbabwe.

 

Convincing girls and young women to embark on a career in science and engineering is not the only challenge. We also need to ensure that the conditions are in place for them to thrive in this type of environment. That means ensuring that women enjoy equal opportunity and equal pay. Today, that is not the case in either academia or the business world, which is why some women are opting to cut short their careers.

 

In academia, women’s work remains underrepresented in high-profile journals, according to the UNESCO Science Report.  Recent studies have shown that women are less likely than men to be the first or last authors of scientific papers and that they obtain fewer promotions and less research funding than men. Women are also invited less often than men to present keynotes at conferences or to sit on expert committees. Worldwide, one in three researchers is a woman but women account for just 12% of members of science academies. It was not until 2014 that the first woman was awarded the Fields Medal, the most prestigious prize in mathematics; her name was Maryam Mirzakhani.

 

In the business world, fewer than one in four researchers is a woman. Studies have shown that women are underrepresented in technical roles and leadership positions in many companies, such as in the multinational corporations that dominate the new digital economy. In many cases, women are leaving tech companies in greater numbers than men, often citing a feeling of being stalled in their careers. Corporate attitudes are evolving, however, as studies link investor confidence and higher profit margins to having a diverse workforce. A growing number of countries are imposing minimum quotas by law for the appointment of women to the board of directors of publicly traded companies.

 

Women who lead start-ups find it a struggle to attract venture capital. According to a survey by TechRadius of 700 companies around the world, women-led start-ups attracted just 2% of venture capital in 2019. The survey also found that women were almost twice as likely (58%) as men (31%) to find the gender funding gap for venture capital a cause for concern!

 

The overwhelming majority of those who decide where venture capital is to go are men.  If we take the example of the European Union, only 13% of decision-makers are women in the European venture capital industry; 93% of all funds raised by European venture capital-backed companies went to all-male teams in 2018. In venture-capital-backed European start-ups in 2018, just 6% of CEOs and 2% of Chief Technical Officers were women, according to the UNESCO Science Report (2021).

 

In conclusion, one could say that we are making progress toward gender equality but not rapidly enough for women to take their rightful place in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. There is no time to lose: 60% of the children starting primary school today could be employed in a job one day that does not yet exist! It is today that we must begin preparing our girls and boys for the world of work of tomorrow.

 

Read PDF Version

 

About the Author

Shamila Nair-Bedouelle took up her new duties as the Assistant Director-General for Natural Sciences at the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in April 2019. A strong advocate for enhancing women’s role in science and engineering, she launched UNEP’s first training program for women technicians. Nair-Bedouelle holds a Ph.D. in life sciences from the University of Capetown in South Africa. She pursued her research career at the Institut Pasteur in Paris and then within the pharmaceutical industry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She has published in numerous scientific journals and is the co-inventor of several patents. She has been the Director of Research at the University of Paris V in France since 2000 and was nominated as the First Class Director of Research at INSERM in 2017. From 2002 to 2007, she was seconded from INSERM to the European Commission to serve as the Scientific Officer and the Deputy Scientific Coordinator of Scientific Programmes. In January 2007, Nair-Bedouelle was seconded from INSERM to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to head its Ethics of Science and Technology program. Eighteen months later, she joined UNESCO’s Sector for Natural Sciences as the Chief of the Unit for Africa’s Science and Technology Consolidated Plan of Action within the Division for Science Policy and Capacity-building. Here, she managed the United Nations Cluster for Science and Technology in Africa and represented UNESCO at the African Ministerial Council for Science and Technology. As the Coordinator of the Working Group on Gender Equality at UNESCO from January 2010 onward, she launched the first Science Camp for Girls in South Africa and coordinated science education projects on the continent. Africa remained the focus of her work at the Africa Department, where she evaluated UNESCO’s scientific programs on the continent from January 2012 onward before taking up her new functions as the Director of OzonAction at UNEP.

 

As a child, I was endowed with a fundamental curiosity about nature, the world, and other people. This curiosity is still one of my strongest driving forces today. To know how little we know, and how much there is still to discover, especially in the ocean. To realize every day how we must learn about life on earth, its origin, and its ability to survive, adapt, communicate, and form networks of cooperation. How we must understand the role of nature and the networks of life for a sustainable future when we grow to 10 billion people on the planet at the end of the century. In the face of crises in climate, biodiversity, and health – what a giant task for research and for society to invent a future for living together sustainably. Every hand and brain is needed! So why is it, that the majority of girls and women are still excluded from a profession in science and technology? It appears especially astonishing for a wealthy country like Germany, where I am from. Despite high socio-economical investment in the academic education of women, who now make up the majority of university graduates, we seem stuck at 27% female professors, and less than 15% in top leadership positions as presidents of universities, or directors of non-university institutions. Even in the new digital disciplines and enterprises, the figures are dire – only 18% female participation in IT professions, and even less as owners of start-ups. How strange.  On the World Cultural Map 2022, Germany belongs to a cluster of counties identified by high self-expression and secular values in their citizens. What is missing?

 

As the eldest daughter of a single mother of three children, the problem of lacking equal opportunities between women and men did not occur to me during my childhood and youth. My father, an artist, seemed to have larger struggles in life compared to my mother, a high school teacher. My mother did not have a high income, but she was able to provide for us a childhood rich in positive and diverse experiences. I was lucky to develop an idea of who I wanted to be already as a kid – an oceanographer sailing the seas - and I got full support from my family even if it was not more than a dream at that time. My early reading ability allowed me to dive into a world of books and fiction of ocean adventures. I was so intrigued by nature documentaries showing teams of happy people exploring the oceans like that of Hans and Lotte Hass. Growing up, I was convinced that the world was open to me. When I studied biology in 1986-1992, women were already about half of the semester. Throughout my first years in science, I encountered inspiring female role models in ocean research: successful, smart, brave, diving to the depths of the seas, and exploring the unknown in the ocean. And so happy about their work. Just like I wanted to be. To me, having role models available, being able to dream of different lives one could live, and different professions that seem within reach is a key factor for kids to get fascinated by the world of jobs. Beyond their insight into what their parents, family members, and of their friends do, all media play a big role in this. The industry of children’s books, television, film, toys, advertisements, and increasingly social media - all create dreams, and images of what one could be. They should take their role in filling the dream gap that still exists, especially for girls as recent research shows. But the biggest responsibility is in education. It must improve the experiences kids make at a young age with the world of jobs and professions.

 

As to diversity in science, it wasn't until I was a professor of biology myself and was asked on every committee for lack of female representation that I started getting curious about equal opportunity in science. Considering that we have been training 50 percent female doctoral students in Germany for decades, there are clearly too few who continue after the doctorate and postdoc, and become professors. And percentage numbers have recently stalled.

 

Is this simply a matter of changing values, and overcoming traditions of gender-based role models? After all, discrimination on the basis of gender has only been prohibited in Germany by constitutional law since 1957, women have only been allowed to pursue a job without their husband's permission since 1958, and only since 1970 have all German states offered coeducation in mixed high schools, and only since 2005 have there been as many females as male university graduates. This might be an issue, but still, other countries with a similar context are further today in equal opportunities, especially also in science.

 

To this day, women in the science system are more often employed on a temporary basis, more often have part-time contracts, and still, receive lower salaries than men in Germany. Fewer will receive a full professorship; thus, there are also not many female directors or presidents of scientific organizations. Today, when it comes to explaining the low percentage of women in top academic positions, I often hear about the myth of a lack of analytical competence, decisiveness, assertiveness, and self-confidence. Coaching and mentoring programs are mostly offered with the idea of "Fixing the women" - as if something was broken with them and not with the system. I would challenge that notion.

 

There is almost no unemployment for PhDs, but a mere 5 percent of the 26,000 doctoral graduates per year in Germany have access to independent academic positions after their postdocs. Thus, in such a competitive environment, a further academic career is mainly characterized by coincidences, less by processes that can be planned. Creativity, research with the risk of failure, lasting through difficult problems – all not incentivized by ever-increasing competition and bureaucracy in the science system. Being able to apply for only a few temporary research positions after a long period of scientific training affects all young scientists but has a much less favorable impact on women. This is because, between their twenties to forties, women decide whether to have children and how they want to organize their family system. In Germany, more than four-fifths are already living in a partnership at this time, and the partner is also working – but an academic career requires mobility and a high willingness to take risks in the fierce competition for a few locally distributed positions. Here is another warning sign: According to surveys, the majority of female academics want children - but two-thirds remain childless, and the trend is rising. This is because women, regardless of their education and that of their partners, largely bear the responsibility for childcare, family care, and household organization. Outsourcing part of it, through daycare, and shared parental leave is much more accepted in other countries - in Germany, we continue to struggle with support. Especially the pandemic has shown this very clearly. Advice to female academics to look for supportive partners in their relationship is certainly well-intentioned - but cupid’s arrow usually strikes independent of career plans.

 

I believe that society needs to be more inclusive and open to diverse solutions to family support and academic careers, rather than filtering out proportionally few in a harsh competition. Because we are better in science and technology when we embrace a diversity of life experiences, thinking, and ideas, and thus of people. Anyone who reads the travel diaries of naturalist Maria Sybilla Merian studies the writings of double Nobel laureate Marie Skłodowska-Curie, delves into the life of mathematician Sofja Kowalevskaya, or the texts of sociologist Harriet Martineau, can understand how great the untapped potential of female research drive is.

 

After all, being a scientist is very fulfilling when you get the freedom to think and act for yourself. Developing and implementing ideas with many different people, the joy of communicating results, and astonishing those around you with new insights. Never being bored, always having something to think about, to read, to tell. To create a scientific oeuvre and leave it behind for future generations. Indeed, an early long-term employment contract is enormously important for both female and male scientists on their way to a higher academic career, because it provides the opportunity to develop their own research direction and an independent profile, acquire third-party funding, and build up a working group, lasting collaborations and a legacy of knowledge.

 

But there are simply far too few long-term positions in science and too much pressure on these. As wealthy as Germany appears in contrast to other countries, we are far from adequate priorities in the investment into the next generation, their education, and thereby also the opportunities of women in science. This often feels poor to me.

 

Read PDF Version

 

About the Author

 

Antje Boetius is a marine biologist and Professor of Geomicrobiology at the University of Bremen. Born in 1967, she studied biology from 1986 to 1992 in Hamburg and San Diego. In 1996, she received her Ph.D. in deep-sea ecology.

 

After working at different marine research institutes, she established a working group to explore microbial habitats in the ocean at Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology. Since 2008, she has been the leader of the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres-Max Planck Society joint research group on deep-sea ecology and Technology at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research. Additionally, she is a board member of the MARUM Cluster of Excellence at the University of Bremen.

 

In 2009, she was awarded the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize by the German Research Foundation (DFG). Furthermore, she was elected a member of the National Academy Leopoldina (geology section), the Academy of Sciences and Literature Mainz, and the German Council of Science and Humanities. 

 

Since November 2017 she has been the leader of the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for polar and marine research.

The scientist participated in more than 40 expeditions on international research ships. Currently, she is working on the impact of climate change on the biogeochemistry and the biodiversity of the Arctic Ocean. 

 

Boetius has introduced herself to a wider public through publications, professional articles, and numerous TV appearances. She visited science TV shows such as Makro (3sat), Quarks & Co (WDR), and Terra Xpress (ZDF). Besides, she had performances on shows such as Tietjen und Hirschhausen (NDR) and TV Total (Pro7). 

 

An educational catastrophe

Almost any person – and especially any educated person – would agree that in today’s world, a good quality education is essential for living a productive and fulfilling life. We know that a person who cannot read and understand a simple text, a person without basic numeracy skills, without a basic understanding of the relation between cause and effect, or without basic social skills, is a person lacking the capacities for leading a successful life in today’s world. And yet, as of today, we are told by the experts that the combination of longstanding poverty, increasing inequality, wrong policies, and the impact of the pandemic, are leaving a vast majority of children in less developed countries with so little education that only three out of ten would be able to read and understand a simple text by age ten.

 

This means that seven out of ten persons in less developed countries – but also in many regions and neighborhoods of rich countries – are being left out. Roughly, we are leaving out two-thirds of the world. Out, and yet, in. Out from the opportunities, yet too close to the malls and shops whose windows showcase the wildest array of goods that are in supply for anybody who is anybody to enjoy. But not for them. Consumption – and conspicuous consumption – has never been higher in human history but, left out of education, two-thirds of the persons living on this planet will struggle just to survive in low-pay jobs if they get a job at all. Whiskey caskets are being aged in the space station, Coldplay entertains at a rich guy’s daughter’s wedding, and the other three rich guys take their friends for a tour in space, while two-thirds of humanity doesn’t have the opportunity to even the basics.

 

We know. We also know how to fix it. It takes a teacher, it takes a school, and it takes some learning resources – from books and notebooks too, why not, a tablet or a PC and internet access. We could add school meals and a few other basic conveniences to facilitate learning. Not much to ask, just their right to learn.

 

The right to learn

 

What should this right to learn to imply? What must every person be able to learn? According to the Secretary General´s Vision Statement at the Transforming Education Summit, this implies four key dimensions:

 

First, they must learn to learn. This starts with their ability to read and write, to identify, understand, and communicate clearly and effectively, and to develop numeracy, digital and scientific knowledge, and skills. Education must also instill in them curiosity, creativity, and the capacity for critical thinking and nurture social and emotional skills, empathy, and kindness. This is essential for developing their capacity to deal with complexity in an increasingly uncertain world.

 

Second, they must learn to do. As the world of work undergoes rapid and fundamental changes, so must education change to prepare every person for the challenges of the future – including the green, the digital, and the care economy – and offer them life-long learning opportunities both in formal and informal education.

 

Third, and this is a bigger challenge for educational systems, they must learn to live together. In a world of increasing inequality, rising tensions, fraying trust, weakened democratic culture, and a dramatic environmental crisis, education must help us to live better with each other and with nature. This has to do with ethics, equality, and justice; with civic responsibility, democracy, and human rights; with the respect, understanding, and enjoyment of our rich human diversity; and, of course, with our capacity and active commitment as global citizens with the goals of confronting poverty and inequality and promoting more sustainable development.

 

Of particular importance here is the unabashed respect for human rights and the pursuit of gender equality. This requires a gender-sensitive curriculum that promotes sex and affective education, addresses gender-based prejudice, norms, or stereotypes, empowers and equips learners to combat violence against women and sexually diverse persons, and ensures adequate sexual and reproductive health for all.

 

Finally, and this is something educational systems very often forget or underestimate, they must learn to be: The deepest purpose of education lies precisely in learning how to live well, instilling in learners the values and capacities to lead a meaningful life, to enjoy that life, and to live it fully. Education must expand every learner´s potential for creativity and innovation; their capacity to enjoy and express themselves through the arts; their awareness of history and the diversity of cultures; and their disposition for leading a healthy life, practicing physical activities, games, and sports.

 

Summing up, education implies every person’s right to be an active, productive, and significant member of society. Their right – and the responsibility – to contribute to society, to be active citizens, to be productive and creative workers, to be good friends, to be able to lead a meaningful life and to enjoy it. That is what education is supposed to produce: people capable of living together well.

 

And yet, we are leaving two out of every three children out. How we can look these children in the eye and tell them, bluntly, that – either by action or inaction – we will deny them that right? 

 

Inequality and the educational paradox

 

“But there are too many of them” – we could think. Yes, they are about two-thirds of the world’s children: over one billion children – and one-quarter of them were completely out of school even before the pandemic. And they need good teachers, about 70 million new teachers, and training for over 85 million teachers working today. And they also need good infrastructure in their schools, with internet connectivity and learning resources for each one.  

 

These numbers sound too big to tackle. “We don’t have the money to pay for that” – we could say. And yet, we would be wrong.

 

Today, we invest roughly US$5 trillion in education in the world. That is about 6% of the global GDP. But even though most children live in low- and lower-middle-income countries, most of our educational investment is concentrated in high-income countries, which account for 63% of global investment in education but attend only 10% of the school-age population (using the 0–14-year-old population as a proxy). Next, we have upper-middle-income countries, with 29% of the global educational investment for attending 15% of the school-age population. Very different is the situation of lower-middle-income countries, which, with only 8% of global investment, must serve 50% of the world's school-age population. Finally, low-income countries try to educate 25% of the world's school-age population with only 0.6% of global investment in education, which represents merely 0.03% of the global GDP[1].

 

See Chart on PDF version

 

This unequal distribution of educational investment translates into a global reproduction of educational inequality, as the number of resources each country can invest in per school-age person greatly diverges. Roughly, by 2020, per capita spending on education was over $.8000 per year in high-income countries, about $1.000 in upper-middle-income countries, only $300 in lower-middle-income countries, and merely $50 per year in low-income countries[2]. On average, poor countries invest one dollar per week per school-age person. One dollar per week. You do not have to be an expert to understand what this means.

 

In low and lower-middle-income countries, the challenge of educational investment can only be solved if the national effort is substantially complemented by international cooperation. For countries that are investing from $50 to $300 a year per person, even doubling their national effort – as they should – would not be enough. The international community must step in and make a difference. In most countries, however, this investment should be financed with national resources, because it makes sense to do so.

 

Investing in education should be seen not only as a moral and political imperative – which it is – but it should also be understood as a sensible economic investment. There is plenty of evidence that “education pays”. The World Economic Forum summarizes much of such evidence and argues that a single dollar invested in education at the primary and secondary level yields an estimated $2.50 in additional gross lifetime earnings in lower-middle-income countries, and as much as $5.00 in lower-income countries – that is a 500% return on investment. And these are only the private returns. If we were to add the economic impact of indirect benefits of education, we would find, for example, that every $1 spent on early childhood development interventions yields $13 in economic returns[3].

 

So, yes, the figures that would need to be invested for everyone in the world to have access to a decent education are large, but they are not that large as to grant the assumption that we can’t do something about it. Yes, we could, that is if we really wanted to.

 

The danger of poverty traps

 

Why is it, then, that countries do not invest more in education? Why don’t they invest a higher proportion of their GDP and their national budget? Why don’t they increase their investment per student and pre-school age person? Why is there such strong opposition to a progressive revamping of tax systems that could increase the tax-to-GDP ratio and open more fiscal space for the financing of education?

 

To answer these questions, we need to understand that there is a very strong relationship between the kind of development a country has and the kind of education that comes with it, and it is a relationship that goes both ways.

 

Putting it in very simple terms, when a country is highly unequal and has a large supply of very cheap labor, it can find itself in a low-level equilibrium or poverty trap. The type of investments most easily attracted by the abundance of cheap labor is typically unsophisticated investments, with low capital intensity, low productivity, and little need for human capital. But still, they can be very profitable, not because they contribute to increasing productivity, but because of their continued access to low-cost human and natural resources. With no need for an increasingly qualified labor force, there is little incentive in such an economy for raising taxes to finance education, which is perceived as a mere expenditure. The situation can be even more complicated when countries get entangled in the typical race to the bottom, where they deregulate the labor market, the exploitation of natural resources, devalue their currencies, and grant generous tax exemptions to further reduce costs and attract foreign investment.

 

As Acemoglu and Robinson[4] – and many others – have argued, in countries where these extractive or low-productivity economies prevail, the institutional framework tends to be weak and the balance of economic and political power is significantly skewed towards the upper echelons of income and wealth, which again tend to oppose the kind of progressive tax increases that would be necessary to finance universal quality education.

 

Education is the only way out of a poverty trap, but poverty traps curtail the capacity to invest in education, even though such an investment makes social and economic sense. Short-term profits will not allow it. It will take vision, it will take a movement capable of altering the balance of power for a country to break free from these poverty traps and embark on the virtuous cycle of sustainable development: increasing wages, increasing productivity, expanding, and improving education, making sustainable use of natural resources and strengthening political institutions.

 

In order to achieve sustainable development, we must transform education, but in turn, in order to transform education, we must also break free from perverse poverty traps and race-to-the-bottom strategies.

 

About the Author

 

Mr. Garnier is a Lecturer at the University of Costa Rica and has held a number of posts in the public sector in Costa Rica and in international organizations. He served as Costa Rica’s Minister of Planning and Economic Policy from 1994 to 1998 and two terms as Minister for Education, from 2006 to 2014.  Mr. Garnier has published books and articles on different economic and social topics linked to development and to education. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has appointed Leonardo Garnier from Costa Rica as his Special Adviser on the Transforming Education Summit, which will take place in September 2022. 

 

Read PDF Version 

 

 

[1] UNESCO, World Bank: Education Finance Watch 2022

[2] Ibid.

[3] World Economic Forum (2022), Catalyzing Education 4.0 Investing in the Future of Learning for a Human-Centric Recovery

[4] Acemoglu, Daron, and Robinson, James (2012) Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, Random House

 

Introduction

 

We are at an inflection point in history. In the wake of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), our biggest shared test since the Second World War, humanity faces a stark and urgent choice. We can continue with business as usual and almost guarantee ourselves a future of breakdown and perpetual crises. Or we can change course and breakthrough to a better, more sustainable, peaceful, and equitable future for people and the planet.

The pandemic revealed our shared vulnerability and interconnectedness, upending our world, threatening our health, destroying economies and livelihoods, and deepening poverty and inequalities. It also exposed fissures within and between societies, rich and poor alike, and exacerbated already existing global, regional, and country-level challenges.

COVID-19 is a wake-up call that we would do well to heed. But it is far from the only problem we face, and it is not even the biggest cause of death in the world. By some estimates, nearly three times as many people have died from air and water pollution even as the pandemic has wreaked havoc globally. Meanwhile, conflicts rage and worsen. The disastrous effects of a changing climate – famine, floods, fires, and extreme heat – threaten our very existence. For millions of people around the world, poverty, discrimination, violence, and exclusion are denying them their rights to the basic necessities of life: health, safety, a vaccination against disease, clean water to drink, a plate of food, or a seat in a classroom. And there is an increasing breakdown of trust – between people and between people and their institutions and governments.

But hope is not lost. At the same time, the pandemic has led to a surge of collective action, with people working together to respond to a truly global threat. We have been reminded of the vital role of the State in solving problems, but also the need for networks of actors stretching well beyond States to cities, corporations, scientists, health professionals, researchers, civil society, the media, faith-based groups and individuals. When we all face the same threat, cooperation and solidarity are the only solutions, within societies and between nations. As the Secretary-General likes to say, solidarity is not charity. It is common sense. And increasingly, as challenges multiply that are beyond the capacity of any one State or community to solve, humanity’s welfare and future depend on us working together as a global family to achieve common goals. For people, for the planet, for prosperity, and for peace.

In 2020 we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the United Nations. Multilateral action has achieved an enormous amount over the past 75 years, from preventing a third world war to eradicating smallpox and mending the hole in the ozone layer. But we must strive to do more and to do it better. In commemorating the founding of the United Nations, UN Member States asked the Secretary-General to consider the path forward and report back with recommendations “to advance our common agenda”, building on a series of 12 commitments of their own. The Our Common Agenda report, released in September 2021, is his response.

This is not an ordinary UN report. In preparing it, the Secretary-General consulted widely, including with UN Member States, thought leaders, young people, civil society, and the United Nations system and its many partners. One message rang through loud and clear: we have some important choices to make, and we may not have this chance again. That is why Our Common Agenda is, above all, an agenda of action designed to accelerate the implementation of existing agreements, including the Sustainable Development Goals, and make a tangible difference to people’s lives.

The report makes recommendations across four broad areas.

First, the Secretary-General calls for a renewal of the social contract between governments and people and within societies, to rebuild trust and embrace a comprehensive vision of human rights. Much of our global unease is rooted in persistent poverty, hunger, lack of access to health care, education, and income security, growing inequalities, and injustices as well as misinformation and lack of confidence in institutions. It is time to update the understanding within societies of how people solve shared problems, manage risks, and pool resources to deliver public goods, as well as how their collective institutions and norms operate. The exact nature of these reciprocal norms varies and is for each society to determine, but there are a number of core foundations: trust, inclusion and participation, and measuring and valuing what matters. People also need to see results reflected in their daily lives.

The Secretary-General proposes the renewed social contract include the active and equal participation of women and girls, without whom no meaningful social contract is possible. He urges a new era of universal social protection, health coverage, education, skills, decent work, and housing, as well as universal access to the Internet by 2030 as a basic human right. The Secretary-General invites all countries to conduct inclusive and meaningful national listening exercises, so people have a say in envisioning their countries’ futures. He calls for an end to the “infodemic” plaguing our world by defending a common, empirically backed consensus around facts, science, and knowledge. He stresses that all policy and budget decisions should be informed by science and expertise, and calls for a global code of conduct that promotes integrity in public information.

Renewing the social contract also means correcting a glaring blind spot in how we measure economic prosperity and progress. When profits come at the expense of people and our planet, we are left with an incomplete picture of the true cost of economic growth. As currently measured, the gross domestic product (GDP) fails to capture the human and environmental destruction of some business activities. We need new measures to complement GDP, so that people can gain a full understanding of the impacts of business activities and how we can and must do better to support people and our planet.

Second, Our Common Agenda looks to the future, proposing a deepening of solidarity with the world’s young people and future generations. It is the time to think for the long term, to include the voices of those who will come after us, and to be better prepared for the challenges ahead. Young people will inherit the consequences of the decisions we take but are barely represented in decision-making. Yet, we also have many good examples of involvement of and leadership by youth, and evidence that this greatly enriches our decisions and illuminates thinking and planning. Our Common Agenda is an example of that, with the Secretary-General’s recommendations on youth responding directly to ideas presented by young people themselves in a report entitled Our Common Future. Our Common Agenda proposes meaningful, diverse, and effective youth engagement both within and outside the United Nations, including through better political representation; by transforming education, skills training, and lifelong learning; and by focusing on the jobs of the future including in the digital and green economies. The Secretary-General suggests the convening of a Summit on Transforming Education in 2022, a “youth in politics” index to track the opening of political space in countries around the world, and a recovery barometer that will track career paths and labour market outcomes for youth between now and 2025 and beyond as part of the decade of action to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals.

We must also look even further ahead, to those generations expected to be born. In 1945, the promise of the UN Charter was to save “succeeding generations” from the scourge of war. A similar promise today would necessarily encompass a much broader range of threats, including the very viability of human life on earth. More than 10 billion people are expected to be born this century, most of them in Africa and Asia, and they have no voice in shaping the world they will inhabit. The Secretary-General makes proposals, such as the establishment of a UN Futures Lab, a Declaration on Future Generations, and a United Nations Special Envoy, to ensure that policy and budget decisions take into account their impact on future generations and that we better harness our capacities on foresight, planning and managing future risks. He also asks Member States to consider repurposing of the Trusteeship Council – the organ of the United Nations that was established to supervise the administration of trust territories as they transitioned from colonies to sovereign nations. It has been inactive since 1994 and could potentially be repurposed as a deliberative body on behalf of succeeding generations. 

Third, the Secretary-General calls for a rethinking of multilateralism to ensure we are delivering on the most critical issues of global concern in ways that are more networked, inclusive, and effective. In particular, he urges reinvigoration of the systems in place to protect the global commons and deliver global public goods – such as peace, the planet, the economy, and global health. The Secretary-General urges some immediate steps in urgent areas that cannot wait: a global vaccination plan to deliver vaccines against COVID-19 into the arms of the millions of people who are still denied this basic lifesaving measure; urgent and bold steps to address the triple crisis of climate disruption, biodiversity loss and pollution destroying our planet; and a Biennial Summit between actors in the international system to ensure a more sustainable global economy.

Beyond this, he calls for the convening of a Summit of the Future in 2023 to forge a new consensus on our future and the best way to secure it. Some of the concrete initiatives this Summit of the Future could consider would include a new agenda for peace, a dialogue on the peaceful, secure and sustainable use of outer space, an emergency platform to respond to complex crises, and a global digital compact to outline principles for an open, free and secure digital future for all. Ahead of the Summit of the Future, a High-level Advisory Board on Global Public Goods, involving former heads of State/Government, will be asked to develop further recommendations to advance governance in the areas of greatest concern.  

Finally, for 75 years, the United Nations has gathered the world to address global challenges: from conflicts and hunger to ending disease, to outer space and the digital world, to human rights and disarmament. In this time of division, fracture, and mistrust, this space is needed more than ever if we are to secure a better, greener, more peaceful future for all people. The report calls for an upgraded UN that is fit for a new era: one that can offer more networked and inclusive solutions to the challenges of the 21st century while living up to the purposes and principles of its Charter. This means more inclusion, ensuring every UN entity has a civil society focal point, the establishment of an Advisory Group on Local and Regional Governments, and harnessing the potential of the private sector. It also means strengthening the UN as a source of reliable data and evidence, by reestablishing the Secretary-General’s Scientific Advisory Board and delivering fewer but more coherent reports each year. And it means making the UN itself more effective, through cross-cutting change on a quintet of issues: data; digital innovation; strategic foresight; behavioral science; and performance and results orientation. The Secretary-General also stands ready to support Member States should they choose to adapt any of the UN’s intergovernmental organs, such as the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, or the Security Council.

The Secretary-General has set out a compelling roadmap towards a better future. But it represents the beginning, not the end, of an important process. To transform words into action will require many actors in the international system to come together, and above all is in the hands of UN Member States to take forward. There are a number of key moments that will support this, including the Conference of Parties (COP) 26 in 2021 and the Paris Agreement global stocktake on climate in 2022; the Transforming Education Summit in 2022; the first Biennial Summit on the Global Economy in 2022; the anniversaries of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action on Human Rights in 2023; the Summit of the Future in 2023; and a World Social Summit in 2025.

These events provide us with some crucial milestones. We must harness the collective will to meet and surpass them. Humanity has shown time and time again that it is capable of great achievements when we work together. Our Common Agenda provides a path to recapture this positive spirit and begin rebuilding our world and mending the trust in one another we need so desperately. Now is the time to take the next steps in our journey together, in solidarity with and for all people.

 

Read PDF version

The International Human Rights Day is observed by the international community every year on December 10 to commemorate the day in 1948 when the United National General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This year will mark 74 years since the UDHR was promulgated. Considered the foundational document for the international human rights system, the declaration is standard setting and has inspired several international and national human rights instruments.

 

The bill of rights in the Ugandan constitution is, in large part, inspired by the values and aspirations expressed in the UDHR. It is the fourth chapter that is the inspiration for the name of our organization, Chapter Four Uganda, a civil liberties non-nonprofit organization championing the defense of human rights for all, without distinction.

 

In Uganda, frontline human rights defenders such as Chapter Four Uganda are the bridges between the international normative frameworks and institutions and many people at the grassroots. For this constituency, there is limited interaction and appreciation of international normative frameworks and institutions. To them, human rights have been conspicuous by its abuse and, in many communities, by its total absence. The lived experiences of many Ugandans, the history of the country, and current trends have been dotted by widespread systemic abuse of fundamental rights and freedoms.

 

Frontline defenders’ unenviable and unending task, among a long list of other tasks, is to raise the level of human rights awareness in these communities as means to empowering those on the margins of the international system to be able to claim and defend their rights and the rights of others.

 

In the face of the continuing decline in the respect for human rights in Uganda, the duty of empowering citizens in order for them to defend human rights is an urgent imperative. Uganda is rated as not free in the Freedom in the World 2022, Freedom House’s annual study of political rights and civil liberties worldwide. Basic freedoms such as the freedom of the press, the right to association and the rights of sexual and other minorities are under assault from state and non-state actors.  

 

The World Justice Rule of Law Index, 2022 ranks Uganda 128 out of 140 countries, coming only before countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, and Myanmar – with the state of the rule of law has steadily declined from 2015 to 2022.

 

Under these conditions, it is easy to lose faith in the international human rights project. But it is in and because of them that we find inspiration to continue the advocacy for the protection of human rights. Put differently, it is in the potency of the human rights framework to propel development and ensure sustainable peace and security for all that we find the courage to face the dangers associated with the work of defending human rights.

 

International Human Rights Day is an important moment of celebration as it is a reminder of the monumental task of pursuing human rights for all. It is, to frontline defenders, a celebration as it is a moment to find inspiration. We look back to take a rearview mirror of where we are coming from in order to see where we are going. It is the moment to reflect on where we have come from in order to see where we are going.

 

Over the years, Chapter Four and the Ugandan human rights community have marked International Human Rights Day with a series of events including street processions, town hall debates, radio programs, and open-ground free legal aid sessions. These events are open to the public and are widely broadcasted in many local dialects.  Raising awareness about human rights in general and providing free services to members of the community have been central to these celebrations.

 

The day also serves as a moment to demonstrate the work of human rights defenders and the utility of the human rights framework and institutions in ensuring freedom, development, and peace. By creating a space for interaction with the public, we forge relationships between survivors/victims of human rights violations and service providers, including government institutions – to many, it may be the first time to interact with a lawyer, a judge, a prosecutor, or a magistrate. The interactions with lawyers usually, but not always, are an opportunity for free legal counsel that may lead to securing free legal service in seeking redress.

 

Lawyers and other human rights defenders are connected with indigent individuals and offer free legal advice that often turns into legal representation at no cost. It is not to suggest that this would not have happened were it not for International Human Rights Day. Rather, it is to make the point that the day is another opportunity for this to happen en masse with so much goodwill in one day.

 

On many occasions, state institutions are part of these celebrations. In Uganda, this has been under a donor-initiated, funded and government-hosted framework known as the Justice Law and Order Sector (JLOS). The framework is a coordination point for state justice actors in the country. International Human Rights Day is as much an accountability day as it is a day of free open access to these institutions by the community. These institutions hear from those who benefit from their services. It is common for a court user to face the judge or magistrate in informal settings and let them know how they felt treated in their courtroom.

 

Increasingly, human rights defenders involved in defending the freedoms of others are themselves becoming victims of rights abuse. The CIVICUS Civic Monitor describes the civic space in Uganda as repressed. The report chronicles a litany of violations against human rights defenders such as journalists, LGBTQ activists, peaceful protesters, and civil society. To these human rights defenders, international Human Rights Day is an opportunity for reflection, (re)education, and (re)dedication to the protection and importance of human rights.

 

A burgeoning lot of young human rights defenders are generations removed from the dark historical moments that internationalized the human rights project – from the World Wars to the commitment of nations to establish systems and institutions ensuring a non-recurrence.  The event is a useful reminder of the conditions that precipitated the development of these instruments and institutions. The evil inherent evil that human beings can do to others and the need to protect human rights. It is an education about the fragile nature of rights and a reminder of how quickly they can be imperiled if not protected and guarded by all generations and actors.

 

I mentor many young human rights defenders who, like myself when I was starting out my human journey, look forward to these commemorations and find in them inspiring speeches, interactions, and mentorship.

 

To us, International Human Rights Day is an ever-present signpost – that quietly gives us direction on this well-trodden path, reminding us of the path to take in defending fundamental rights and freedoms.

 

Read PDF version

 

About the Author

Nicholas Opiyo is a Ugandan human rights lawyer commonly known for campaigning civil rights and political freedoms in Uganda specifically electoral law, the restriction of freedom of assembly, and the clampdown on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. He is also known for representing LGBTQ+ people. He is the current Executive Director and Lead Attorney at Chapter Four Uganda. Mr. Opiyo received the German Africa Prize in 2017, Voices for Justice Award from Human Rights Watch in 2015 and the European Union Parliament Sakharov Fellows Prize in 2016. Mr. Opiyo was the 2015 recipient of the Alison Des Forges award for extraordinary activism.

 

Never before has civil society been so actively engaged in global politics as today. While in Iran, the population is fighting for women’s rights following the death of Jina Mahsa Amini and causing women worldwide to cut their hair in support, climate activists are closing roads in Berlin1 and Geneva2 and occupying Black Rock headquarters in New York.3 The activists are asking for something their countries already have signed up for and should be implementing: basic human rights, protected by the Charter of the United Nations (UN) which to this day, 193 countries have signed.

Civil society is not only extremely active in standing up for human rights. Numerous peacebuilding initiatives and projects to advance minority rights, implement sustainable actions or protect the environment are being created by communities at a local level. In doing so, these initiatives are supporting the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) of the UN - oftentimes without conscious knowledge of the fact, that both are working towards the same goal. For many, the UN seems to be an abstract, complex and ill-working construct. The war in Ukraine and the COVID pandemic have only reinforced the perception that the UN is immobilised between power blocks. However, in order to solve ongoing and emerging global challenges, only multistate actions can bring solutions. Functioning multilateralist institutions are therefore more important than ever.

Building connections in order to reinforce communication between civil society and UN entities, and reinforcing the importance of implementing the commitment Switzerland has made by signing multilateral treaties, is the Swiss-UN Association’s (SUNA) core mission. As a member of the World Federation of United Nations Associations (WFUNA), we represent civil society towards the UN and the Swiss authorities in all matters concerning the UN. The complexity of the Swiss direct democratic political system and its principle of neutrality mixed with its humanitarian and human rights tradition make Switzerland a truly unique case, which is not easily understood. However, it is this complexity that makes Switzerland a champion in understanding and tackling complex challenges, being a space for dialogue and a true hub for actions by civil society. Its political system enables its population to be truly engaged in foreign politics. Because the voting population is also the political decision-maker, it is particularly important that people are well-informed. Our work at the SUNA is therefore based on informing, and facilitating exchanges between civil society, the government and the UN entities and open channels for communication, in order to pool forces to tackle global challenges and advance the SDGs.

To understand the complexity behind our work and the relationship between Switzerland and the UN, it is worth diving into the problem of this unique system. In this regard, two factors are largely contributing to making Switzerland a «Sonderfall» (special case): its principle of neutrality and its political system of direct democracy.

«I don’t take sides. I’m Switzerland.» - The Culture of Neutral Dialogue

Its neutrality has made Switzerland world-famous - even in pop culture and short behind Roger Federer. The principle, which is enshrined in the Constitution and closely linked to the Swiss identity, has always been a subject of debate. Some see it as a myth and criticise it as hypocritical, referring to Switzerland collaborating with both, the Nazi regime and the Allies during World War II. Others see it as the silver bullet for staying independent and protecting the country from invaders.4 What can be said for sure, is that Swiss neutrality has had two positive impacts: it has contributed to Switzerland maintaining stable relations with most countries and it has enabled Switzerland to act as an intermediate in interstate conflicts and ensured humanitarian aid for all parties involved, with the help of the ICRC.5

Recently, two major events have put the question about the definition of Switzerland’s neutrality at the forefront of Swiss internal politics: Switzerland’s election as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in 2023-24 and the countries' alignment with the EU on the economic sanctions against the Russian Federation. While the legal definition of neutrality is clear and codified in The Hague Conventions,6 the political dimension leaves room for interpretation. For a long time and again during World War II, Switzerland’s neutrality could be defined as absolute neutrality, which means that Switzerland would not take sides in any way, especially not in military interventions or economic sanctions. After World War I and in order to join the League of Nations, however, Switzerland was forced to adopt what is called differential neutrality,7 which means that Switzerland had to support economic sanctions imposed by the League of Nations.

In the context of the military aggression of Russia in Ukraine, the question of applying differential neutrality is back on the table.8 After hesitation, the Federal Council decided to join the economic sanctions of the European Union (EU) against Russia because of the

«serious violation of the most fundamental norms of international law [...] within the scope of its political room for manoeuvre».9

Before joining, Switzerland had been harshly criticised by Western countries as well as by some actors of Swiss civil society for its hesitation to follow the economic sanctions of the EU and condemn the Russian military invasion. After joining, the Russian Federation condemned Switzerland for following the EU sanctions and as a consequence, rejected its proposal to mediate between the parties, saying Switzerland had given up its neutrality.10

Why are this rejection and the discussion about the definition of neutrality so relevant for Switzerland and our work at the SUNA? Despite being a small country with few commodities, Switzerland has managed to make itself relevant for global politics by establishing itself as a credible actor to facilitate an open dialogue between conflicting parties. With its host-state policy, Geneva provides a neutral physical space for peace negotiations. Only a little more than a year ago, it hosted the Biden-Putin Summit which tried to prevent an escalation of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. With its «good offices», Switzerland further provides mediation between conflicting parties and can even stand in for consular or diplomatic services abroad. Because of its neutrality, «Switzerland can build bridges where others are prevented from doing so because it does not belong to any power bloc and does not pursue a hidden agenda[...].»11

This culture of facilitating a space for dialogue (especially for conflicted parties) which is well reflected in Switzerland’s own domestic political system, is in many ways connected to the values of the UN: «The [UN] Charter brings us together. It defines the United Nations as a centre [...]’, where each member is treated as an equal across social, economic or political differences.»12 It is therefore not surprising that Switzerland was chosen to host first the League of Nations and later UN’s European headquarters as well as the Human Rights Council. Russia’s rejection shows the impact the different applications of neutrality can have on Switzerland. When the question of a seat in the UN Security Council was first raised, critics underlined that Switzerland would have to retrain from any votes that implied taking sides against another state.

However, by signing the UN Charter, Switzerland committed to its principles and values that include respecting humanitarian law and basic human rights. The work of the SUNA includes recalling this commitment towards the 192 other nations signing the Charter. In a statement to the Federal Council, the SUNA together with other actors of Civil Society underlined that

«the coercive measures that it takes vis-à-vis a state that threatens or breaches the peace do not constitute acts of war within the meaning of the law of neutrality but are intended to induce the State to comply with the obligations it has voluntarily entered into by acceding to the Charter.»13

The Swiss Direct Democracy and the UN: Empowering Civil Society

The direct democratic political system enables Swiss citizens to initiate and vote for binding referendums in all areas of political relevance. Even adhesion of Switzerland to international organisations, such as the UN, for example, is subject to a mandatory popular vote. In order to ensure high-quality political decision-making it is therefore crucial that the People have access to a variety of high-quality and independent information and are able to engage in the political dialogue and process. It is the mission of the media, the government, the educational system, politics, as well as of civil society to ensure independent and fact-based information, which is why the SUNA provides different formats to access information about Switzerland’s work in relation to the UN.

Switzerland is not only a direct democracy, but it is also led by a parliament and a multi-party government. The so-called principle of collegiality ensures that every major political party is represented among the seven federal counsellors, who act as an executive force, and decisions are made by consensus. Furthermore, the principle of federalism ensures that the cantons are represented equally in the legislative.14 The advantage of this complex system is that Swiss voters feel represented on a political level. And if they don’t, they usually feel free to change something about it. The population is used to engaging in political debates and the fact that we have to vote on a variety of issues gives us a sense of purpose in politics. It also gives us a feeling of freedom and total independence from any authorities - which can stand in the way of the idea of multilateral actions and international Organisations.

2022 marks the 20 years anniversary of Switzerland joining the UN as a member state - 50 years after the San Francisco Conference of 1945 created the UN. In the context that Switzerland has been a great supporter of human rights, is the birth-place of the Geneva Conventions and the ICRC, was home to the League of Nations and has always been host to Europe’s main UN headquarters as well as of the Human Rights Council, this might seem surprising. In fact, the engagement of the population in the political sphere is at the same time the reason why Switzerland didn’t adhere in the first place and why Switzerland adhered in the end to the UN. Juggling between the tensions of maintaining peace, advancing human rights and providing humanitarian aid and at the same time respecting the principle of non-interference as a neutral state, the Swiss government has remained hesitant of joining International Organisations. Switzerland would not be Switzerland if it hadn’t been a «Sonderfall» (a special case) in joining the UN as a member. For a long time, the government was supported in its strategy of non-adherence to the UN by a majority of the voters, who in 1986 voted against a Swiss membership. The main argument was the fear of losing Swiss neutrality.

However, from the early beginnings of multilateralism, it was also the Swiss population and civil society - oftentimes cross-party associations - which stepped in mobilising in favour of Switzerland supporting and engaging in the multilateral dialogue.15 As Switzerland finally joined the UN in 2002, it was the 190th country to join, the last at the time except for the Vatican.16 It was also the only country to do so on the basis of a result of a popular vote. 57.6% of the population eligible to vote participated and voted 54.6% in favour of the membership. This large support was mainly due to a relatively stable geopolitical context17 and great efforts of mobilisation by civil society - the SUNA being one of them.

Switzerland, it’s Your Time to Shine

In these times filled with one global challenge following the next and traditional power blocks shifting, it is more important than ever to maintain the dialogue between the different parties and reunite civil society in order to tackle the problems at the local as well as at the global level. Only if we pool forces, can we work towards a more stable, peaceful and sustainable future. Building bridges between the different states, between the private and the public sector and between the different local communities is crucial. Switzerland must act as an example.

With its seat in the Security Council, Switzerland will be able to put issues on the agenda at a global level. This is a unique opportunity that we mustn't miss. More than ever, SUNA’s work of maintaining the dialogue and ensuring that civil society has a place at the table is relevant. Being accompanied by a civil society which is used to participate in the political dialogue is a great resource. To say it in the words of SUNA’s president of honour, former Federal Council and former president of the UN General Assembly: «I call on the authorities and the people of our country to seize the opportunity provided by our accession to the Security Council, to take up the challenge by taking action commensurate with the generosity of our people and the peaceful ambition of our State. It is an opportunity to demonstrate that neutrality is not synonymous with selfishness, indifference or even cowardice, but with intelligence, courage and charity. It is a unique opportunity in history, at a time when even the great powers are admitting the need to reform the system of multilateral peacekeeping.»18

Bibliography:

1 Crisis 24 (2022). «Germany: Climate Activists closing multiple Roads in Berlin, Oct. 26»:

 https://crisis24.garda.com/alerts/2022/10/germany-climate-activists-closing-multiple-roads-in-berlin-oc

 t-26.

2 Swiss Info (2022). «Climate Activists block Mont Blanc Bridge.» Oct. 22:

 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/climate-activists-block-mont-blanc-bridge/47999646.

3 Freedman, Ethan (2022). «Climate Activists Occupy Black Rock Headquarters on Third Day of New York Protests»:

 https://news.yahoo.com/climate-activists-occupy-blackrock-headquarters-163947221.html

4 Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (2022). «Neutrality»:

 https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/fdfa/foreign-policy/international-law/neutrality.html.

5 Jauslin, Carl, Graf Christina, Schaad, Lea (2022). «Kooperative Neutralität. Sieben Empfehlungen für ein Update der Schweizer Neutralität». Foraus: https://www.foraus.ch/publikationen/.

6 The main obligations of The Hague Conventions of 1907 are as follows: refrain from engaging in

war, ensure its own defence, ensure equal treatment of belligerent states in respect of exportation of war material, not supply mercenary troops to belligerent states, and not allow belligerent states to use its territory.

7 Fischer, Gabriel (2003). «Swiss Foreign Policy, 1945-2002.» New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 49.

8 Jauslin, Carl, et al.

9 Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (2022). «Questions and Answers on Switzerland’s Neutrality»:

 https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/fdfa/fdfa/aktuell/newsuebersicht/2022/03/neutralitaet.html.

10 Aljazeera (2022). «Russia Rejects Swiss Plan to act as a go-between with Ukraine»:

 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/11/russia-rejects-swiss-plan-to-act-as-a-go-between-with-ukraine.

11 Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (2022). «Good Offices»:

 https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/fdfa/foreign-policy/human-rights/peace/switzerland-s-good-offices.ht

 m.

12 De Rivière, Nicolas (2020): «The Charter of the United Nations: Ideals for Shaping Our Reality». Speech on the occasion of UN Charter Day:

 https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/charter-united-nations-ideals-shaping-our-reality. 13 SUNA (2022): «Stellungnahme - Unterstützung der Schweizer Kandidatur für den UNO-Sicherheitsrat.». Archives of SUNA.

14 In the so-called «small chamber», 20 cantons have 2 representatives and 6 half-cantons each have 1 representative.

15 For example, William E. Rappard, a Swiss economist, together with the former federal council, Gustave Ador, successfully promoted Geneva as headquarters for the League of Nations (see: Burnand, Frédéric (2019). «Switzerland, the League of Nations, and the Shadow of Revolution»:

 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/100-years-ago_switzerland--the-league-of-nations--and-the-shadow-of-r

 evolution/45081906.

16 Bernauer, Thomas, Lavenex, Sandra (2000). «Abschied vom Sonderfall: Die

90-Prozent-Mitgliedschaft der Schweiz in den Vereinten Nationen». Vereinte Nationen: German Review on the United Nations, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Juni 2000), pp. 89-94.

17 A first referendum had been rejected in 1986 in the context of the Cold War.

18 Deiss, Joseph (2022). «Le 11 September 2002, la Suisse devint le 190ème membre de l’ONU», Speech at the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Switzerland joining the UN. Archives of SUNA.

 

Read PDF version

 

About the author

Maria Isabelle is the Managing Director of the Swiss-UN Association. She studied political sciences, law and European studies with a focus on gender and feminist foreign policy at the universities of Lucerne and Geneva respectively. Before taking over as director of Romandie of foraus - Forum on Foreign Policy in 2018, she worked as an academic associate for the Swiss Embassy in Washington D.C and co-founded foraus' Gender programme.

This year, 2022 marks the fifteenth anniversary of the International Day of Democracy. In 2007 The General Assembly adopted a resolution[1] to observe the 15th of September each year for promoting and consolidating the principles of democracy worldwide.

The United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF) was created in 2005 to support and promote democracy worldwide. It was a part of initiatives for the democratization of many UN member states which started around 1990, and a series of democratization became a steady movement with many resolutions on this subject adopted by the UN General Assembly. The movement achieved its highest point at the 2005 World Summit where member states adopted the World Summit Outcome Document emphasizing democracy as one of the key areas of the UN work and endorsing the establishment of the UN Democracy Fund.

Since 2006 UNDEF has been operating in supporting nearly 1000 projects in over 130 countries. UNDEF is unique as it focuses solely on civil society organizations, mostly local, which are frontline in protecting the rights of marginalized groups and enhancing their voices through promoting their participation in decision-making processes in their communities.

Recently in April 2022, I visited Nepal, to monitor a UNDEF project in several communities in the South-East of the country. UNDEF partner, South Asia Partnership Nepal, has been implementing a project to empower the women of Musahar – an underserved community within the caste system. While their living conditions are dire, Musahar women have bright outfits with big smiles. The project started at an individual level – giving training on public speaking, negotiation, and financial literacy so that women became confident in speaking up about their concerns and bringing forth their ideas. The project then aimed at collective empowerment – forming a women’s empowerment group with the participation of women and a leadership structure in place.

Women can negotiate with government officials to obtain a national registration card, where they can receive social and welfare services, send their children to school, or receive a pension after their retirement. They were even able to send their representatives to the local councils.

A young woman said to me, “before I was afraid of speaking up as I did not know how to, and I thought no one would listen to me. After being a part of this initiative, I became confident and became a representative of the group. I was able to negotiate with the local government officials and they listened to me and some of our requests were taken care of– it was a life-changing experience”.

While I witnessed many positive changes at the grassroots level through UNDEF, I also witnessed serious backsliding of democracy in many countries in recent years. There are restraints by governments on civil society organizations’ activities through tightening the CSO registration system, posing a cumbersome project approval process, or imposing complicated restrictions on foreign currency transactions. I also witnessed that, even under such pressure, our partner CSOs are making brave efforts to overcome many obstacles with their creative, innovative, and efficient approaches to the issues at hand. UNDEF, as part of the global movement for democracy promotion, will continue to support such efforts. I feel that UNDEF has become a vital part of the global democracy initiative. 

 

Happy International Day of Democracy to all!

 

[1] A/RES/62/7. Support by the United Nations system of the efforts of Governments to promote and consolidate new or restored democracies, 13 December 2007

 

Read the PDF version 

 

About the author:

The author is the Deputy Executive Head, United Nations Democracy Fund at United Nations (UNDEF).

“Exaggerate the essential, leave the obvious vague” (Van Gogh) 

 

When it comes to the UN Basic Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary (UN Principles), one might think it impossible to exaggerate them, given their fundamental nature. 

In light of recent global trends and the Covid-19 pandemic, the UN Principles remain more significant than ever and must be pursued as scrupulously as possible. 

While democracy has been in decline in recent years, the Covid-19 pandemic accelerated its downward trend. Since the coronavirus outbreak began, the protection of human rights has worsened in no less than 80 countries. Inevitably, as a cornerstone for the Rule of Law, the independence of the judiciary has suffered similarly. 

In a survey among the 44 national associations of judges, or similar bodies, that constitute the European Association of Judges—a regional group within the International Association of Judges (IAJ) comprised of 94 countries—around 50% of European members acknowledged that the situation of justice has worsened. Only 10% detected an improvement. Today, this number would likely be lower as the pandemic has impacted democracy worldwide.

“The judiciary shall decide matters before them (…) without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”

Amid attacks on judicial independence carried out by the governments of some European Union Member States, these words enshrined in the UN Principles have gained new momentum. 

On 27 February 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its Trade Union of Portuguese Judges or “ASJP” judgment issued a landmark ruling defining judicial independence. As set out in the decision, in each country “the body concerned shall exercise its judicial functions with complete autonomy, without being subject to any hierarchical link or any obligation of subordination in relation to any person, and without taking orders or instructions from any source, and shall thus be protected against any external intervention or pressure which might affect the independence of its members in the exercise of their judicial functions and influence their decisions.” 

The guidance set forth in the UN Principles is particularly relevant in light of the current state of affairs in the European Union. Unlike in earlier debates about the Rule of Law, judicial independence is now center stage, not only in the European Parliament but also in the European Commission. Sadly, the latter, as well as the European Council, have shown an inability to protect independent judges in desperate need of support, in contrast to the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights.

Let us be clear: the future of Europe will be defined by the Rule of Law and its ability to uphold and protect it.

As president of the International Association of Judges and previously of the European Association of Judges, I insisted, time and again, on this appeal: the European Union requires “Marshall Plan”-levels of determination to save the Rule of Law. 

Judicial independence as outlined by the UN Principles is not negotiable or susceptible to compromises. It constitutes the “genetic code” underlying all impartial judges.

“ (…) members of the judiciary are like other citizens entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly; provided, however, that in exercising such rights, judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.”

If a State deprives a judge of his/her independence, one cannot be considered a judge anymore, but rather a qualified expert, skilled in legal sciences. We may no longer have to challenge any litigants that are powerful or politically protected, but, at the end of the day, we would not be judges would not be at the service of all our fellow citizens. 

That is why impartial judges have raised their voices each time their independence is at stake. And each time, attempts to inhibit judges’ freedom of expression have multiplied in several regions and different countries. 

For authoritarian politicians, judges must be obedient and silent, no matter what. However, the IAJ—anchored on the described UN Principle—has repeatedly denounced imposed gags on the judiciary as unacceptable. 

Moreover, the right of freedom of expression of judges to address the functioning of judicial systems provides further cause to speak out each time the Rule of Law is in threat. The rulings of CJEU, in line with Opinion 18 (paragraph 41) of the Consultative Council of European Judges, underline this obligation. Regrettably, the recent Muzzle Laws forced upon the judiciary are not limited to Poland. Autocratic regimes persist in suppressing the voices of those who defy their ambitions of controlling the judiciary. The same phenomena arise in different forms in different regions. 

Tunisia is the most recent example of such attacks on the independence of the judiciary, which the Special Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers correctly denounced; the prolonged hunger strike of some of the country’s judges has been a terrible consequence of this assault on rule of law.

“Judges shall be free to form and join associations of judges or other organizations to represent their interests, to promote their professional training and to protect their judicial independence.”

Associations are essential to ensure the impartiality of judges; hence, the reason the Universal Charter of the Judge, adopted by the IAJ Central Council in Taiwan on November 17, 1999, and updated in Santiago de Chile on November 14, 2017, stated firmly that “the right of a judge to belong to a professional association must be recognized” (article 3-5).

It is not a mere coincidence that totalitarian regimes are zealous in obstructing the creation or continuance of associations of judges. In Venezuela, a prohibition to form an association of judges was eventually enshrined in the Constitution itself. Article 256 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela mandates that magistrates, judges, prosecutors of the Public Prosecutor's Office and public defenders, from the date of their appointment until they leave their respective posts, may not engage in associations, trade unions or similar activism. And to leave no doubt, further on, it reiterates in plain words: “Judges may not associate with each other.”

The concept of associationism, as defined by Alexis de Tocqueville, offers an additional explanation for why autocratic regimes would oppose associations of judges. For Tocqueville, the conditions of life in modern societies tend to alienate people from the collective interest, which facilitates the emergence of tyrannies. Thus, associationism would have the fundamental purpose of enabling social integration, fostering the participation of citizens through cooperation and solidarity. 

For the IAJ, judicial associationism must be distinguished from a mere trade union with strict corporatist goals of seeking better wages or defending labor rights. The particular role of judges in contemporary societies requires that our collective intervention is oriented toward the defense of the Rule of Law and judicial independence. 

Our motto, defining the main mission for us, is significant: “International Association of Judges: Promoting judicial independence worldwide.”

Therefore, keeping in mind the obligation of judicial systems to preserve a proper equilibrium with State powers, the IAJ offered substantive guidelines (available here) for those who wish to establish judge’s associations in a sovereign country to fortify Rule of Law and promote democratic societies based on dialogue and tolerance.

The document outlines the legal background and the different steps to establish an association of judges, provides a draft statute, and presents, as possible models, some statutes coming from consolidated national associations of different legal systems.

With this initiative, IAJ tries to embody this UN Principle by mitigating the common problems faced by judges when creating a judicial association.

“All disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct.”

Imagine a judiciary where judges are expelled or disciplined for criticizing judicial reforms or using an international legal mechanism provided by their national law. Imagine a country where thousands of judges were summarily dismissed or arrested. Imagine a country where exile in a foreign country is your only option to escape a criminal sanction, after having condemned corrupt politicians, militaries, or businesspersons in accordance with the law. 

In the world we are living, these are not fiction; in fact, these are only a few examples occurring today across the world from America to Europe, Africa to Asia. 

Against this backdrop, indifference cannot be an option.

“The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing”.

This might seem like a simple statement and almost redundant if one lives in a State which obeys the Rule of Law. However, this is an immense challenge under many regimes; judges in those countries know very well the price to be paid if they raise their voices.

For them, a fair hearing is a distant mirage.

The current state of affairs threatening the independence of the judiciary is troubling. But the difficulties faced by the judiciary must also be seen as an expression of renewed hope. There is an eagerness to confront those who uphold the Rule of Men over the Rule of Law, as well as an innovative ambition by jurists, in general, to defend fundamental rights. 

Globalization brought forth what Antoine Garapon defined as “the mundialization of judges”—a new international judicial sociability that facilitates intellectual trading across borders and the exchange of arguments, ideas, and decisions. One could argue that judiciaries now create transnational answers for large-scale problems.

The International Association of Judges works permanently with its national members on a global level; the conclusion we extracted from our interactions is that the concerns faced by the national judiciaries, although diverse in social, cultural, or political background, are always similar when dealing with our shared obligation to uphold judicial independence. 

Regardless of the attacks of autocratic regimes on the UN’s “soft law” rules, impartial judges around the globe want to demonstrate this unwavering commitment to and uphold the Basic Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary. Only through its implementation can common citizens trust a judicial system that treats each one of them in the same way. Without an independent judiciary, tyrannies will be inexorable, and the well-known Orwellian allegorical statement that “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” will prevail.

            “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines, in particular, the principles of equality before the law, of the presumption of innocence and of the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law”.

These basic principles cannot be overstated and bear repeating, over and over again. 

Read PDF version 

 

About the author

Honorable José Igreja Matos is a Judge at the Court of Appeal of Porto in Portugal. Judge Igreja was appointed a member of the Advisory Board of the Global Judicial Integrity Network in April 2018. He has been President of the European Association of Judges since October 2016 and it served as Vice-President of the International Association of Judges since 2012. He has served in the Portuguese judiciary since 1989 and he is the current President of the International Association of Judges. 

 

Living Nelson Mandela Day, every day.

By Kendra Connock

On the 18th of July 1918, as the First World War raged on in Europe, a baby boy was born in a village in South Africa’s Cape Province – now part of the Eastern Cape Province. The boy was named “Rolihlahla”, meaning “troublemaker”. Some 9 decades later, this day would be recognized by the United Nations as “International Nelson Mandela Day”. On this day, individuals, and organisations from around the world are encouraged to spend 67 minutes engaging in acts of community service to commemorate the 67 years of his life Nelson Mandela spent in service of his fellow South Africans. These 67 years included his time as a human rights lawyer, time spent imprisoned for his activism, his political career as South Africa’s first democratically elected president, and his role as an international peacemaker.

United Nations Resolution 64/13 (A/RES/64/13) designated the 18th of July as Nelson Mandela day in recognition of Mandela’s leading role in the struggle for liberation in his own country, and unity across the continent. In 2015, the scope of Mandela Day was expanded by General Assembly Resolution 70/175 (A/70/175) to include the promotion of humane conditions of imprisonment and placing value on the work of prison staff as a social service.

This day not only serves as an opportunity to celebrate and commemorate Mandela’s brave actions on behalf of all South Africans but also encourages the continuation of Mandela’s own values and dedication to serving his wider community. Mandela Day is a chance for ordinary citizens [ES1] to take a step into Mandela’s shoes and contribute their time, effort, talents, or finances to helping others. At its core, International Nelson Mandela Day emphasizes the universal value of human dignity and encourages individuals everywhere to take up the mantle of protecting and promoting this value.  The average South African may not have the capacity to lead a liberation movement nor the opportunity to become an international icon for peace and equality, but we are each capable of making a difference. This is the spirit of Mandela Day. To do what you can, with what you have, where you are. What matters on Mandela Day is not the scale of your actions, nor how much money you can afford to donate to a cause, what matters is doing something, anything, to help another person.

The official Nelson Mandela Day website has a plethora of options to consider for your 67 minutes from planting trees or vegetable gardens, to helping at local animal shelters, children’s homes, or hospices; helping out on Mandela Day can be as simple as donating clothes or books to a local charity shop or donating blood. As Mandela Day falls in the South African winter, many use the day as an opportunity to spread warmth to those in need through soup kitchen initiatives or blanket drives where blankets, either bought or handmade, are donated to those who need them most for South Africa’s chilly nights.

Every year, on the 18th of July, citizens across South Africa (joined by South Africans and others in countries across the globe) put time aside to do something for someone else. These actions are inspired by the life and legacy of our first democratically elected president. But these actions are not limited to Mandela Day. Every day, ordinary South Africans provide meals, services, financial assistance, and other forms of help to those who need a helping hand. The extent to which South Africans are willing to help and support their compatriots in need of a helping hand has been demonstrated in the first two decades of the country’s democracy and more so in the conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic. The social and economic blows dealt by the pandemic have spurred South Africans to step up to the plate and offer assistance in many different ways. When parts of the country were devastated by recent floods, South Africans came to one another’s aid offering a place to stay or a warm meal to someone who needed it. In some ways, every day in South Africa has a little bit of Mandela Day action in it as someone, somewhere, is always willing to lend a hand[ES2] .

The echoes of Mandela’s life of service to his fellow citizens rings true across the country, most notably on his eponymous day. Acts of service are demonstrated by people of all ages, and from all walks of life demonstrating that everyone has the capacity to make a difference. A particular African proverb springs to mind in the context of our young democracy and our celebration of Madiba’s life and legacy: “If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together”. Despite our challenges and missteps along the way, South Africa has come a long way since Nelson Mandela took the helm as our President in 1994. It is true that, as a country, we still have a far way to go – but with his legacy in mind, and by living a little bit of Mandela Day every day, we are sure to reach our destination.

 

A Giant of Justice: Lessons from the Life of Nelson Mandela

By Jordan Mc Lean

Now, more than ever, Mandela Day calls on us to not only recognize the struggles of our fellow citizens but to help ease their burdens in our own small ways.

This is the ethos of Mandela Day; to bring people together through their compassion and show the world how individuals can make a lasting and positive impact on the lives around them.

In many ways Nelson Mandela’s legacy has touched the trajectory of my own life. As a Born Free, myriad opportunities are open to me through the freedoms Mandela secured after his release from prison in 1990. He grasped the essential understanding that peace and not retribution should be the goal of the post-Apartheid era and worked tirelessly to steer the country to free and fair elections and the dawn of true democracy.

His example has influenced the younger generation’s understanding of justice and enabled us to act on injustice when it becomes clear to us. Confronted as we are with the injustices of inequality, it is easy to forget that when Mandela became active in the fight against apartheid, he was twenty-four years old.

The student-led #FeesMustFall movement in 2016 – which reached its zenith on the University of the Witwatersrand campus where he began his legal career – saw young people, many as young or younger than Mandela was when he first joined the African National Congress, band together and stand for equitable access to higher education.

After devoting his life to the service of all of the people in South Africa, it is a testament to Mandela’s selflessness and humility that he had asked us not to celebrate his life with gifts and honors but to sacrifice a small amount of our own time – 67 minutes – to the betterment of the lives around us. 

Born Frees have much to learn from the figure of Nelson Mandela at a time when South Africa is at an important juncture in her young democracy. Youth unemployment and dissatisfaction with the current government have created significant cracks in the rainbow nation so many fought hard for at Mandela’s side.

His steadfast belief in the principles of equality, unity and justice and his commitment to realizing true freedom for all serve as lessons for what just one person can do.

Mandela’s life is not only a lesson for Born Frees in leadership and justice, but his humble retirement from office after only one term is an example for current leadership as well on how to use power effectively while still recognizing the capabilities of younger generations to accept such a great responsibility as that of public office.

He humbly ended his single term as President having achieved the drafting and adoption of the most progressive constitution in the world which enshrined inclusive civil and socio-economic rights for all South Africans.

He possessed a deep understanding of the duality of leadership, knowing how to drive just social change and when to hand over that responsibility to the next generation.

There is much for the youth to learn from Mandela’s life and from the genuine and exemplary decent human being he was.

As a young student and freedom fighter, his unwavering commitment to justice and equality has and should continue to permeate the actions we take as we enjoy the freedoms he helped to extend to the whole country.

And as a leader, he was resolute in making a credible start on the promises of liberation. These promises have not yet been met but what is clear is that Born Frees can carry on the legacy of Mandela – and most importantly, we are up to the challenge.

Whether it is 67 minutes or a lifetime of dedication, the life of the ‘giant of justice’, as former UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon named him, demonstrates that through compassion, any change is possible.

 

 

Nelson Mandela’s legacy in South Africa today: the responsibility of the ‘born-free’ generation

Laura Rubidge

Nelson Mandela’s legacy in current South Africa emerges from his almost inimitable dedication to improving the lives of all South Africans. Although this aspiration remains largely unfulfilled, his inspiration still resonates with many South Africans.

Democratic South Africa has achieved undeniable gains such as the right to vote, basic education, and primary health care; the introduction of an extensive social security system that has lifted many people out of poverty; the provision of affordable housing and basic services to millions. However, it is common knowledge that true prosperity remains lost in the quagmire of social, economic, and political challenges confronting South Africa today.

The national unemployment rate stands at 34,5%. South Africa remains the most unequal country in the world, with 10% of the population owning more than 80% of the wealth. South Africans are also struggling with the rising cost of living and rolling blackouts in the form of ‘load-shedding’.

Furthermore, the country is still reeling from the capture of the state during the Jacob Zuma presidency, which is estimated to have cost the country well over R50 billion. State capture is a significant stain on the legacy of Mandela who, in his inaugural speech in 1994, pronounced that “never, never and never again”. Although Mandela was referring to the oppression of one by another, not corruption, inherent in his declaration was an accountable government that serves all South Africans. This promise was declared in our constitution which ensures that the law protects all our people against abuse of power, against the indignity of discrimination and against the oppression of one citizen by another. Thus, it is to the great pain of South Africans that 28 years later, this pledge had to be reiterated by our current President, asserting that state capture should “never be allowed to happen again”.

In 2021, public trust in institutions and representatives reached a new low. Many ‘born-free’ youths have become despondent, feeling betrayed that the promises of Mandela have not been kept. However, it was always going to be difficult to overcome the injustices and inequalities wrought by apartheid within one generation. Rather Mandela's legacy lies in the acknowledgement that this is what the South African people deserve and should aspire to.  

In 2008, Nelson Mandela noted that “It is now in the hands of your generations to help rid the world of such suffering”.

As we celebrate the living legacy of the great eponym of Mandela Day, the youth of South Africa ought to reflect on our responsibility to honour his legacy and further his aspiration for a better South Africa for all. We should remember that with rights come responsibilities.

In South Africa’s last election, out of the nearly 1.8 million 18-19 year-olds who were eligible to vote, only 10% registered. As the ‘born-free’ generation, we need to alter this trend in 2024 by exercising our right to vote.

Concerningly, it has been reported that 67% of South Africans would be willing to give up elections if a non-elected government could provide security, housing, and jobs.  It was Nelson Mandela in 1992 that said, “without democracy, there cannot be peace”.  It is beyond doubt that Mandela’s vision and promise of a peaceful, free, and prosperous South Africa remains distant. Nonetheless, on this Mandela Day, South Africans should reflect on their constitutional right and responsibility, to rechart South Africa’s course towards prosperity through democratic elections. This right remains a significant legacy of Mandela and ought not to be taken for granted.

 

About the Authors

Kendra Connock graduated from the University of Pretoria, where she obtained her Bachelors Degree in International Relations and Criminology and an Honours Degree in International Relations. Her research focused on the risks facing Small Island Developing States in the Indian Ocean region. She is currently pursuing her Masters Degree in International Relations at the University of Witwatersrand. Konrad Adenauer Foundation Scholar at SAIIA.

Jordan Mc Lean holds an Honours Degree in Development Studies from the University of the Witwatersrand, where her research focused on the relation between SADC pension policy and the establishment of social pensions in the Kingdom of Lesotho and Eswatini. She also holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree with majors in Politics and Philosophy. While completing her Honours Degree, Jordan was a research assistant for the global CoronaNet Research project, collecting the COVID-19 policy responses of the government of the Kingdom of Lesotho to help create a database for researchers looking into the governance and public health procedures of the pandemic. She is currently a Masters candidate specialising in Political Science at the University of the Witwatersrand. Konrad Adenauer Foundation Scholar at SAIIA.

Laura Rubidge graduated from the University of Pretoria, where she obtained her Bachelor of Political Science majoring in International Relations and French, as well as a Bachelor of Arts Honours in International Relations. She is currently pursuing her Masters Degree in International Relations at the University of Witwatersrand. Her research interests include governance on the African continent, foreign policy and the impact of social media and technology. Konrad Adenauer Foundation Scholar at SAIIA.

 

Read PDF version