Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Mobilizing civil society (soft power) in peace-building

-Chandra D. Bhatta, PhD Scholar, Development Studies Institute, London School of Economics

Up till now South Asian states are found to have been engaged more in promoting the notion of ‘hard power’ as a security shield and less in so1t power’. However, hard power’ has added further agonies on to South Asian problems. It has fragmented societies; pushed nation states towards the old notion of "state of nature" and has proved to be detrimental for regional harmony. The region today faces a clear choice: adopt a carefully designed and concerted series of policy and institutional reforms to address the problems of social disintegration, weakened law enforcement and fledgling political leadership, or permit the crisis of governance to deepen and face a collapse of democracy. What is clear is that unless the pressing internal problems as well as key hi lateral irritants which pollute the political environment are meaningfully addressed; SAARC will keep running into obstacles. To paraphrase K. V Rajan’s point, an empowered and alert civil society alone can help the governments of the day on both counts. A key challenge for making SAARC achieve its potential is thus to move beyond governments and get civil society involved, enthused, motivated and focused. Indeed, it is civil society alone which can objectively monitor the implementation of commitments made at SAARC meetings and hold governments accountable for failures to honor them.

Civil society intercourse in South Asia, is not necessarily driven by the market forces, has a rich history. People are moving across border for social, religious and cultural purposes to an extent that never before existed despite the painful history of state formation (emphasis added), including when South Asia was a political unity’. The benefit that we South Asians inherit is that we understand each other linguistically, literary, culturally and religiously. These references of commonalities should have been taken as a source of ‘unity’ rather than ‘division’. Nevertheless, despite having these commonalities and sense of belonging at the citizens’ level, neither South Asian slates nor the SAARC as an organization, are fully successful first in building a sense of community within South Asia and second normalize inter-state relations. Political fallouts among nation states based on domestic and sectarian conflict and involvement of neighboring country to support or resist political movement in another neighboring state with whom it shares affinity can be seen as major reason, among others, why SAARC has not been able to generate the sense of community within the region and why conflicts in the subcontinent are not amenable.

The visible contradictions between nation states in South Asia now pose tension between citizen and state. We can only overcome from this problem when people at the lower rank of society truly realize about the commonality they share and this feeling comes through civic associations. Therefore, formation of transnational civil society networks consisting enlightened persons/associations of the region will not only help to bolster the process of regional momentum but also to resolve existing inter and intrastate conflicts. It appears that the existing model of people-to-people contact through various professional associations formed under apex bodies have not been able to generate civic vigor in the region. These bodies more or less are driven either by their own perception of interests or interests of their respective countries. The rationality behind this phenomenal dismal in every aspect is that the civic sphere is shrinking in the region. Whatever civic sphere exists that too is populated by those who have capacity and power to manipulate government resources and influence policy makers and political leaders to their interests by surpassing rule of law. This way many suffer from multiple deprivations on account of their income, creed, gender or religion, political participation and social discrimination there elevating the state of exclusionary politics. That said, the exclusion is not only limited within the sphere of benefits of growth but have also failed to empower citizens in every aspects.

Therefore formation of ‘civic constituencies’ at the citizens’ level and building civil society from below can bridge existing gaps. For this, continuous discourse needs to be regularized through SAARC at different levels of society not only between parliamentarians, speakers, chambers of commerce, judges’ et al .These groups sometime tend to represent elitist ideologies and practice statist approach rather than representing society and citizens at large. The perfect model would be to formalize dialogues among academicians, rights groups, media, artists, actors, exchange programmes, faith based organizations, activists. Perhaps development of transnational civil society associations comprising these groups and dialogues among them would provide an alternative means to resolve mirage of issues that South Asian states had to confront with. And SAARC should play constructive role in developing this notion.

It is clear from the above discussion that South Asia is full of both inter and intrastate conflicts and experience shows that South Asian states have not been able to resolve existing conflicts on their own for quite long now. It is also evident that states alone cannot address these problems on their own. Against the backdrop the major challenge that stands before us now is how can we expect to have a regional club more vibrant when we do not address these problems collectively with due sincerity? Therefore there is a genuine need to develop a ‘civic forum of South Asia’ where we can express problems and seek solutions at the citizens level through ‘island of civility’ which simply doesn’t wither away even during tumultuous times without any prejudice and intimidation. This ‘island of civility’ can help to keep two way communication channels open even during the turbulent times as opposed to SAARC Summits which are no good during the turbulent times. In fact issues like religious fundamentalism, dross border terrorism, sharing natural resources and exchange of energy, political problems can only be given a well and meaningful space at the civic forums first to find out all agreed sustainable solution and then to pressurize respective government individually and collectively at the regional level for their implementation. It is because these problems directly relate with citizens activities not with the state and when citizens’ voices are heard there is no way that problem cannot he solved.

Although SAARC as an organization is there to address these problems hut SAARC alone in no way can address or mediate problems because of modus operandi it adopts. The organization has already completed twenty years but it is still ii its early stage in terms of moving towards institutionalization. In fact there should he some provision in the SAARC Charter to involve civil society organizations (CSOs) in policy deliberations.

The occasional wars that erupt between some South Asian countries perhaps can he restrained by mobilizing civil society activists. Also, the civic forum can be more plausible for smaller and strategically less important states.

South Asian civic solidarity is even more desirable to make all- inclusive and all representative governments throughout the region by discouraging the politics of oligarchic interests. This is also needed to represent South Asia collectively at the international forums. The most important factor however is that South Asians have common problems and governments possess same attitudes whatever political system we pursue and religion we practice. That said, in order to make our government(s) pro-public there is a genuine need to have a common platform for South Asian civil society activists which allows them to exchange ideas, discuss problems, guard against the personalization of political power. By and large, the civic solidarity of South Asia will play a greater role in peace-building and reducing both inter and intrastate conflicts in the long run by promoting a sense of “brotherhood”. This will ultimately revitalize democracy and elevate people’s stake in the political system as well.

There are many signs of vitality in South Asia within civil society which have served to hold parties and politicians accountable for their mis-governance. The classic example is the recent ‘spring uprising’ in Nepal that played a crucial role in reinstalling democracy and ending a decade long insurgency. We can perchance mobilize civil society in a broader spectrum of peace-building in South Asia first by resolving intrastate conflict by learning from each others experience and then by mobilizing civic initiative for the regional peace-building. However, for the regional peace-building an all time alert and active civil society is a paramount need. The foremost reason to underpin hope on civil society primarily lies with the fact that state belongs to its citizens. Statist activities therefore have to be operated as per citizens’ demand not by the rulers. 1-lenec if the desire of the majority of South Asian citizens is to see conflict free South Asia then the states have to abide by citizens desire. The challenge for now, however, is to form a vibrant South Asian civil society that can counterbalance conflicting activities.

Concluding Remarks

I have, in this paper, argued that formation of south Asian civil society is required for two reasons: first to bolster the full scale of integration and second to resolve both inter and intrastate conflicts and give a fresh impetus to peace-building in the region. The civic initiative will surely generate the sense of ‘equistan’ as against the existing un-equistan’ in the region. While pointing the geo-politics of South Asian countries, it is true that the legacy of state formation in South Asia have produced almost permanent set of relations that pre-empt regional cooperation however, it does not necessary stop forming civic solidarity in the region. The political reason behind this apathy towards regionalisation is well known and involves serious strife’s in which countries of the region are entangled. The main dilemma behind smooth progress of regionalism in South Asia and sustainable peace-building is the existence of more political and bilateral problems than anything else between member states. Therefore unless these problems are ironed out the future of full scale integration and resolution of various natures of conflicts will remain at crossroad.

An optimal degree of reorganization of transnational civil society cooperation perhaps could act as a dyke against such political disorder at least in the short run. Nevertheless building an assertive civil society network in South Asia which can work towards ‘mediating factor’ is an arduous task. In this regard, I would like to draw upon Rehman Sobhan’s remark who opines that if the bedrock for cooperation is to be established, the people of South Asia must increasingly be made to feel that they are part of a community. To do so they must rediscover their shared inheritance without having to forego their national identities’.

Text courtesy: Excerpts from the author's paper presented at a seminar held in Kathmandu on June, 2006 on " Role of Civil society in peace building in South Asia-ed.

Dossier:
Will pro-poor policy deliver?

By Raman Grandon

To meet the objective of poverty alleviation by encouraging and empowering particularly the disadvantaged poor community to take benefit from tourism the government is preparing to introduce pro-poor tourism policy in the new tourism policy. The decision has been made based on the success of Tourism for Rural Poverty Alleviation Program which has been implemented in 6 pilot districts since 2001 as an effort to directly benefit impoverished ethnic groups through employment and income generating tourism activities.

The program has made substantial achievements in terms of providing skill based training, social mobilization and spreading awareness. Supported by DFID, SNV Nepal and UNDP, the project has created model sustainable development units at DDC and VDC level and micro-cooperatives.

Sharadha Prasad Trithal, Joint Secretary at the tourism ministry informs that the government is planning to introduce pro-poor tourism policy as an important component to address poverty alleviation. “The experience of TRPAP has shown a positive impact on those marginalized and underprivileged lot as it provides direct tourism benefits and opportunities. If possible we will try to extend the program. The policy will encourage and facilitate investment from private sectors.”

Past experiences and researches carried out have shown that it’s only the privileged ones who are major beneficiaries of tourism development. Tourism development has been limited to few urban areas and its benefit scattered disproportionately, however, if managed properly Nepal, due to its rich natural and cultural resources, can be a potential destination. Pro-poor as such is not a new concept, Nepal has been practicing it for years. As a commitment government introduced village tourism in the first tourism policy of 2052 and the concept of poverty alleviation in 10 five- year plan.

Dr. Pitamber Sharma, a noted tourism expert designed the draft plan of Rasuwa district for TRPAP. He opines: “Research carried by ICIMOD in the early 90s showed that relatively well-off people were the ones who benefited from tourism whereas the disadvantaged group had little or nothing to benefit. In village tourism poor benefited incidentally not intentionally. Pro-poor policy’s objective to ensure benefits to poor in a systematic manner through skill-enhancement. However, the government should take strong commitment to take initiative in policy and program, like training and establishing marketing links. The government ought to be pro-poor in its approach.”

The recent report of NPC shows that the total percent of population below poverty line has decreased from 42 to 38. Over 85% of the total land in Nepal is covered by villages. There are around 3.2 10 VDCs in Nepal and only few of the places have been converted into tourism destination. Among them Sirubari. Ghalegaon, Kavre, Thulo Parsel. 11am. Bandipur, Tansen, and Bhadgaon have been traded off with village tourism concept.

There is a strong difference between village/community tourism and pro-poor although the objective is the same. The former usually tends to operate and expand on the strength and resources of a community and there is even lesser chances of impoverished getting direct benefits from tourism. In addition, village tourism starts and spreads from periphery of urban areas that are already enjoying tourism development. Village tourism often seems sustainable as it often prizes on domestic travelers and requires low cost for high yielding.

According to Bal Bdr Khatry, member of Bandipur Tourism Committee, they have been practicing village tourism for the past 7 years and the output is good. Bandipur receives 500 tourists per year and around 700 people are directly involved in tourism. The majority of the tourists to Bandipur comprised of domestic tourists rather than foreigners. “ In support of Nepal Tourism Board we have generated human resources by providing skill based training.”

There are many mediums for addressing poor and disadvantage community among which, village tourism is one. Pro-poor policy making is an encouraging commitment made at the government level, opines Prof. Pradeep Kumar Khadka Chief of Rural Development Department at Tribhuvan University. He adds, “When we are talking about poverty alleviation we should be looking at the potentials of that place. Instead of focusing on different general products, it should emphasize on possible areas like fisheries, agro, national park, cottage, cooperative development etc. At the moment, pro-poor should discourage misuse of resources, spread awareness and make it self-sustainable.”

Professor Dr. Prem Sharma shares his experience, “Sirubari can be more indigenous an native. However, the missions of the visiotrs of Ghandruk does not end within the village, rather they are inspired to go further or enroute round Annapurna for trekking but the Sirubari guests have to end their journey within the village. Likewise, the visitors to RoyalChitwanNational Park do not end their visit in the Tharu community of SuarahaVillage whereas the enjoyment speciality of Thau culture in a village in Dang may cease itself.

Surendara Bhakta Pradhananga, father of village tourism says, “There have been efforts to make induced changes in the name of pro-poor tourism. In such a case, expectation is high, behavioral modification s are too costly and domestic tourism is hard to come by. The sense of cultural values is missing as it is only perceived to be a tool of making profit. Besides, Nepal is not that poor. Unlike village tourism which is a gradual low-cost high yielding self-sustainable process, aid driven pro-poor approach is dubitable as community can’t come as one.”

Lisa Choegyal, tourism consultant, says that one shouldn’t waste time in analyzing the definitions and terms. Pro- poor tourism is similar to eco-tourism and sustainable tourism, although the term is different the objective is same: to benefit local people while protecting natural resources. Nepal is a leading exponent in making tourism a development too. It’s not about who the disadvantage group is, it’s more to link interested rural people towards benefits. To ensure benefits to disadvantage group is an idealistic thought, it has never happened anywhere in the world. It’s just the step to engage private sector and spread those patterns to other areas as well. The system can’t be self sustainable without tourist getting into the area.

Pro-poor tourism seems another way of diversifying products. Although there is no such mechanism to judge or evaluate the state of poor people, it solely depends upon perception. Pro- poor destinations promise to offer unique culture and rich lifestyles.

No matter what medium we approach the question is of self-sustainability. It is very important to have tourists in the area which in turn depends upon the attractions and offers that a destination make and how it is packaged.

Text courtesy: The NTTR May 2005 issue-ed.

Document:
Political participation in a constitutional democracy is uncoerced by the state and its rulers

-John J Patrick
Indiana University , Bloomington , USA

The American model of constitutional representative democracy distributes power among three coordinate branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial departments. Each branch has constitutional means to check the actions of the other branches to prevent any of the three coordinate branches from continually dominating or controlling the others. These constitutional checks involve practical overlapping and sharing of powers among three distinct branches of the government, each with a particular function.

Of course, the American model is merely one way to separate, distribute, and share power in constitutional government. There are other workable structures, such as those associated with various forms of the parliamentary type of constitutional democracy. The parliamentary democracies usually exemplify legislative primacy vis- à-vis the executive functions of government. However, they also tend to have a separate and truly independent judiciary, usually including a constitutional court with the power of constitutional review, which is roughly similar to the judicial review of the American system. For example, the three Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are parliamentary democracies with constitutional courts that exercise the power of constitutional review.

A notable worldwide trend in constitutionalism has been the distribution to an independent judiciary of the power to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional (Tate and Vallinder, 1995). This is a critical constitutional means to stop the legislative and executive powers from being used to violate human rights or subvert democracy. A bill of rights in a constitution may eloquently declare lofty words about rights to life, liberty, property, and various forms of social security. But these rights will he practically useless unless there is governmental machinery to enforce them against acts of despotism or neglect.

The constitutional courts of parliamentary democracies only respond to constitutional questions. Issues that pertain strictly to statutory interpretation, apart from the constitutionality of a law, usually are resolved by other courts, without action by the constitutional court. Unlike the American judiciary, these constitutional courts may provide opinions about the constitutionality of an act apart from the adversary process whereby a real case involving the act at issue is brought before the court by a prosecutor or someone tiling suit against another party.

Thus, these constitutional courts may render advisory opinions, which are not done by the American judiciary (Favoreu 1990). The essence of constitutional review by the constitutional courts, however, is the same as judicial review in the- United States.

Another fundamental aspect of comparative constitutionalism in education for democracy pertains to different kinds of constitutional guarantees for human rights. In the United States of America, there has been a long-standing tradition of inherent or “unalienable” natural rights. Thus, in the American political tradition the constitutional government is expected to be the guarantor and protector of God-given rights possessed equally by each person prior to the establishment of the government. Indeed, the 1776 Declaration of independence proclaims that “governments are instituted among men to secure these rights.” So, in the United States, there has been a long-standing tradition against the idea that rights are granted by the government.

By contrast, the tradition of legal positivism prevails in the constitutions of many democracies in the world. In the Constitution of Latvia, for example, Article 89, states that rights are recognized and guaranteed only “in accordance with this Constitution, laws and international agreements binding upon Latvia” (Flanz and Ludwikowski 2002, 74).

The idea of negative constitutionalism is embedded in the Constitution of the United States. Thus, there are provisions in this Constitution that specifically prohibit the government from denying or abusing the natural rights of individuals. Negative constitutionalism is exemplified by Amendments 1- of the U.S. Constitution, which are commonly called the Bill of Rights. These amendments are directed against the power of government to stop it from depriving an individual of her or his civil liberties. Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, for example, says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Center for Civic Education 1997, 27).

Restrictions on the power of government to protect rights to liberty can be found in the constitution of every state in the world that is committed to constitutional democracy. For example, the kinds of rights guaranteed in the U.S. Bill of Rights can be found in the constitutions of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. So, all democratic countries practice negative constitutionalism as a means to guarantee certain human rights.

By contrast with the US Constitution, however, the constitutions of Estonia and Lithuania also exemplify positive constitutionalism in regard to human rights; this means that the government is constitutionally directed to act affirmatively to provide certain social and economic rights to individuals. For example, the 1992 Constitution of Lithuania says in Article 41, “Citizens who demonstrate suitable progress should be guaranteed education at establishments' of higher education free of charge.” And in Articles 52 and 53 there are guarantees of rights to social, economic, and medical benefits: “The state shall guarantee the right of citizens to old age and disability pension, as well as to social assistance in the event of unemployment, sickness, widowhood, loss of the breadwinner. The state shall take care of people’s health, and shall guarantee medical aid to citizens free of charge at state medical facilities. . ,“ (Flanz and Ludwikowski 2002, 127. 130).

Unlike the United States Constitution, positive constitutionalism in regard to rights is found in most constitutions of the world’s democracies. In some constitutions, the guarantees of social, economic, cultural, and environmental rights are very great in number in score to the point of empowering the government to very amply intrude into the private lives of citizens and the operations of the civil society and economy to redistribute resources or otherwise promote social and economic equality of the citizenry.

In the United States, social and economic rights are not constitutionalzed. Rather, social and economic rights are provided more or less through the legislative process. Thus, they may be expanded or narrowed or even eliminated through the enactment of laws. But they are not guaranteed by the Constitution.

Education for democratic citizenship should include lessons that require students to examine, compare, and evaluate human rights claims on government, which exemplifies both negative and positive constitutionalism. And these lessons should involve comparative analysis and appraisal by students about alternative viewpoints concerning negative and positive constitutional ism and the extent to which social and economic rights should be guaranteed by constitutional democracy. Through these lessons students should comprehend that availability of resources enables or limits a government’s capacity to guarantee certain social and economic rights. Further, they should examine the possible threats to liberty that come from empowering a government beyond certain limits, even in the cause of equality, justice, and the common good. Insufficient limitations on the exercise of positive constitutionalism could lead directly to the possibility of despotism or even totalitarianism of the kind exercised by the discredited and defunct government of the Soviet Union.

A basic human right in a constitutional representative democracy is political participation which is a means for citizens to influence public decisions and resolve public issues. In a democracy, voting in public elections is the typical type of political participation. But involvement in the activities of a political party in the work of a political interest group or in a public protest movement are other common forms of participation by citizens in a democracy.

Political participation in an autocratic or totalitarian regime may be extensive, but it is by command of the state. By contrast, political participation in a constitutional democracy is uncoerced by the state and its rulers, and it is limited legitimately only by the rule of law, which is anchored in the consent of the people.

Education for democracy should include comparative analysis of the extent and types of political participation in democratic and non-democratic systems. For example, students should learn how citizens participate in political parties and how participation in voting and elections varies in a two-party system, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, by contrast with a multi-party system, such as India and Italy. The key point, however, is to note that like other generic characteristics of democracy, there is variation on the common theme of participation by citizens in the different democracies of the world. But there is an authentic democracy only when there relatively unfettered freedom of citizens to participate in elections and between elections to influence decisions of the government. Through comparative and international inquiries, students of democracy should compare and assess the extent and methods of participation as a means to influence government in their country and in other countries.

However, if students would be engaged most productively in comparative lessons about constitutions, institutions, human rights, and participation, then they need a core curriculum that conjoins interactively the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that constitute competent citizenship in any authentic democracy of our contemporary world. This educational imperative point to the fourth proposition in my statement of a compelling 2lst century civic mission of schools.

At alt levels of pre-adult education and in programs of teacher preparation, we should provide a global, international, and comparative education for democracy in terms of four connected and interactive components or categories: civic knowledge, cognitive civic skills, participatory civic skills, and civic dispositions.

The four components of education for democracy are congruent with teaching and learning the six core concepts by which we define, compare, and evaluate democratic and non-democratic governments. Civic knowledge, however, is primary. Content not process should be the foundation of the curriculum.

Good comparative, international, and global education for democracy is anchored in civic knowledge. It emphasizes deep and abiding comprehension of the six concepts about the meaning and practice of democracy. These concepts should be learned in common by all students because they are widely accepted as the distinguishing categories and characteristics by which we judge whether a government is more or less democratic. As students mature, they should encounter and use the same interconnected core concepts in cycles of increasing depth and complexity and in relationship to an ever-broader scope of information. Mastery of this kind of common knowledge enables citizens to communicate and act together for common civic and political purposes. So common comprehension of core knowledge is the basis for the formation and maintenance of a civic community or democratic civil society.

Basic knowledge of democracy, its principles, practices, issues, and history, must be applied effectively to civic and political life if it would be learned thoroughly and used constructively. Thus, a central facet of education for citizenship in a democracy must be the process by which students develop cognitive civic. Cognitive civic skills enable citizens to identify, describe, organize, interpret, explain, compare, and evaluate information and ideas in order to make sense of their political and civic experiences.

The third component treats participatory civic skills, which enable citizens to influence public policy decisions and to hold accountable their representatives in government. In combination with cognitive civic skills, participatory civic skills are tools of citizenship whereby individuals, whether acting alone or in groups, can participate effectively to promote personal and common interests in response to public issues.

The fourth and final component of education for citizenship in a democracy pertains to civic dispositions, which are universal traits of character necessary to the preservation and improvement of a constitutional representative democracy. If citizens would enjoy the privileges and rights of their polity, they must take responsibility for them by promoting the common good and participating constructively ff the political and civic life of the community. This kind of responsible citizenship depends upon the development and practice of traits such as self-restraint, civility, honesty, trust, courage, compassion, tolerance, temperance, fortitude, respect for the worth and dignity of individuals, and subordination of persona interests to promote the common good.

Effective education for citizenship in a democracy connects the components which interrelate civic knowledge, cognitive civic skills, participatory civic skills and civic dispositions. Effective teaching and learning of civic knowledge, for example, requires that it be connected to civic skills and dispositions in various kinds of activities. Elevation of one component over the other — for example, civic knowledge over skills or vice-versa — is a pedagogical flaw that impedes civic learning. Thus, teachers should conjoin core content and processes by which skills and dispositions are developed among students.

Core content however, is the indispensable foundation of an effective education for democracy (Torney-Purta et aL 2001). Individuals who have a deep and abiding comprehension of the prevailing principles of democracy, the big ideas that define democratic government and citizenship, are more likely than others to exhibit several desirable dispositions of democratic citizenship, such as a propensity to vote and otherwise participate in political and civic life, political tolerance, political interest, and concern for the common good (Nie Junn, and Steblik Barry 1996). Students who comprehend core concepts tend to be more adept in their use of such cognitive skills as organization and interpretation of information and they are more likely than others to know acid retain information about current political institutions, personalities, and events.

Effective teachers of democracy do not stress discrete or unconnected information. Rather, they focus on integrated ideas of enduring importance; that is, they teach the framework of core concepts that enables the learners to know what democracy is and what it is not, to assess the extent to which their regime and other political systems in the world are more or less democratic, and to think comparatively, internationally, and globally about the various democratic and non-democratic systems of the past and present.

Text courtesy: Excerpts of an article by the author on Teaching democracy globally, internationally, and comparatively: The 21 st century Civic Mission of Schools. Thanks the author-ed.