Incidence of human poverty in Nepal is the highest in South Asia

- Ms. Saraswathi Menon, UNDP, Nepal

Since 1990 the annual Human Development Reports have served as a mirror for governments and for all of us to see what development has meant for people. The benchmarks and analyses in these reports are firmly grounded on people’s own lives, their well being and their aspirations. Just as people value more than income in their lives, the HDR has assessed progress not in terms of income alone but in terms of the full range of capabilities and aspirations that people cherish.

Because people are not all the same, but are women and men, young and old, belong to different ethnic and social groupings within a society and live in different regions with different natural and economic endowments the HDR has analysed how outcomes can be different. By assessing changes in people’s lives and by throwing into sharp relief persisting deprivation, these reports have focused on how progress has been achieved. What types of policies have been most effective? What forms of public action by government and other actors in society have led to real results? Where can public and private resources be most usefully allocated? What institutional arrangements work best? These are questions that the HDR seeks to answer.

This year’s HDR is no exception. In holding a mirror up to development, the lens used is people centred in a very special sense. The analysis of development outcomes in terms of people’s lives is deepened by a focus on human rights.

What is new about this analysis? Both human development and human rights focus on securing human freedoms. Both recognise the crucial role of the agency and activism of people in bringing about change. Focussing on human rights adds a dimension of moral legitimacy and social justice. In recognising human rights as universal, as all countries do, we recognise that individuals have a claim on others, on their governments, on their communities, on their families and on their international partners to help them fulfil their rights. In turn, governments, communities, families and businesses have an obligation to respect and protect these rights.

How do we translate this analysis into human rights for all – an achievable goal in this century in the estimate of the authors of the HDR? Allow me to highlight five issues in this context.

First, legal frameworks and a network of institutions that respond to human rights are essential. The world has moved a great distance in defining the international framework of human rights and in building systems for monitoring and supporting accountability. Nepal’s Constitution is exemplary in upholding this framework. It explodes the myth that societies have cultural specificities that limit the applicability of human rights. Nepal is signatory to all major international conventions and declarations. A network of national institutions has evolved, including the recently established Human Rights Commission and an active and vibrant civil society. A path-breaking initiative has been the formulation of the National Plan of Action on CEDAW in which the judiciary, legislature, executive and civil society themselves spelt out actions they need to take to implement CEDAW. But discriminatory laws still exist. There are 300 cases pending in the courts for every judge in Nepal. There is still a long way to go.

Second, although human rights may be universal they are not universally accepted or realised and we must focus on those who are most deprived and marginalised. Freedoms from discrimination, want, fear and injustice are human rights. Freedoms to realise one’s potential, participate in the community and have decent work are human rights. Yet, the human development balance sheet for the world as a whole and for every country shows us how far short we fall of achieving these freedoms. More than half the people of Nepal are trapped in human poverty. When measured by the Human Poverty Index Nepal ranks 80 out of the 85 countries for which data is available and the incidence of human poverty in Nepal is the highest in South Asia. Income inequalities are vast. The poorest 20 percent of the population earn less than 8% of national income, while the richest 20% earn nearly 50%. Nepal is the only country in the world where female life expectancy is lower than that of males.

It is clear that if we want to achieve human rights for all we must begin with the weak links, with those most deprived of rights, those for whom the realisation of rights requires active intervention and support by government and other partners. It is for this reason that the human development approach calls for a pro-poor growth strategy that directly benefits those who live in human and income poverty instead of a blind pro-growth strategy with the expectation of benefits trickling down.

Third, the human development approach with its focus on policy transformation can lead to a realistic strategy for the realisation of all human rights. The Report calls for a national assessment of the human rights situation. Based on this assessment priorities can be developed. Every country has to set priorities but this should not be confused with choosing among rights, all of which are equally important. Many countries and people hide behind the excuse of limited resources for their inaction. The resources required are not huge. Changing discriminatory laws costs nothing and unleashes the potential of the whole society. Achieving the right to basic health and education is an affordable task for all countries. Budgets can be restructured to provide non-discriminatory expenditures. The international benchmark for spending on priority social sectors is 5% of GNP. Although, there has been improvement in recent years, Nepal still only spends 3.4%. There is room for further improvement

Fourth, we have to locate the fulcrum of responsibility and accountability at the appropriate institution and level. Take the case of school enrolment as analysed in the HDR. The questions asked may be the same in every country. Are the parents willing to send children to school? Does the government provide schools that are accessible with adequate facilities? Does the community support the school, teachers and parents? Does the media report on the neglect of basic education? And so on. The answers, however, will be different in each country. Changes in institutions and norms and new policy choices will flow from the answers in each country. Human rights education for all becomes a must if individuals and institutions are to assume their responsibilities.

Fifth, human rights can be fulfilled only in an enabling and open environment. The report highlights the elements of an inclusive democracy. The standard equation of democracy with a multi-party system is simply not enough. For substantive participation and equality we also need an independent judiciary, non-discrimination against women in politics, minority participation in decision-making structures, an independent election commission, codes of conduct in political parties, political space for civil society, an independent media and pro-poor development policies which are formulated in a participatory and decentralised manner. Every country has some distance to travel in creating a fully inclusive democracy and Nepal is no exception.

HDR 2000 like its predecessors is a call to action on many fronts. I have highlighted only a few: the importance of legal frameworks and a network of human rights institutions; the critical need to focus on the most deprived; the relevance of strategising and prioritising while retaining a focus on all rights for all people; the effectiveness of identifying the locus of responsibilities and expanding awareness of human rights; and, last but not least, the centrality of fostering an inclusive democracy. It is a great privilege for me, on behalf of UNDP, to welcome you to the launch of this report and to invite you to join together to make human rights for all a reality in Nepal.

(Speech by Ms. Saraswathi Menon, Resident Representative a.i. For the Launching of the Human Development Report 2000 29 June 2000 at Himalaya Hotel

Nepal's educational system needs fundamental change

By Rajeeb L. Satyal

Nepal's political parties and leaders appear incapable of solving our national problems. More than that, they have not even begun to identify the issues and problems to be addressed. The characteristics of effective leaderships clear vision, creativity, innovation and ethical behaviours seem to be absent.

What is the source of our present lack of effective leaders? Can it be found in a fundamental flaw in our educational system? Like many emerging nations, Nepal has adopted a rote learning approach in education, which has remained unchanged since formal education was first practised. Is it surprising, then, that we cannot turn out citizens and leaders who demonstrate clear vision and independence?

Nepal's formal education system is just one point of a triangle. The others are our religious and our social / cultural values. Together they form an integrated, self-supporting unit, forming our identities and directing our actions as Nepalese.

This education system, long since abandoned by more developed nations, tests a students' memory while ignoring their natural ability to cope with their changing environment and to invent their future. It barely addresses issues such as developing leadership qualities, moral values, self-confidence, and creativity.

The education system of Nepal is not designed to develop leaders, original thinkers, learners, creators, inventors or innovators. This fact is not just true at pre-primary level, but also, sadly, at our =

country's universities. The system creates citizens who have memorised a 'solution' for each 'problem'. But in real life, we constantly face and must respond to new problems that we have never met before. Can we find the answers to these problems in books, or among the existing solutions? Each situation we encounter is new. So should be its solution.

This country's leaders are also the products of the same society. If you can imagine this country's leaders as victims, then they are also the victims of the rote learning education system initiated by forefathers. These leaders were taught to seek a ready-made solution for pre-defined problems. When our leaders encounter problems, they look for solutions that worked in the past, or worked elsewhere. But today is not yesterday. They think that 'if it worked then, it will work now'.

The same is true for the 'Nepal Bandh' (Strike). The Nepal Bandh was an effective tool in overthrowing Panchayati System. However, it is not the magic wand our leaders believe. Does the Bandh address national problems and issues such as corruption and poverty?

These leaders who instigated the Bandh follow their own linear rationale. Those who participate share the same reality - that what worked yesterday will work today. But the reality they knew has already

changed while they were looking elsewhere. They are using what worked 'then' to deal with what is happening 'now'. Never in the past has learning become so obsolete, so quickly, as today.

How can we avoid repeating today's mistakes in the future? If our formal education system were to focus on teaching students on how to learn - rather that feeding them soon to become obsolete information we might have a chance. In fact, we would have more than a chance. By educating the children of today - now - to be flexible, inquiring and creative - we will be guaranteeing citizens of tomorrow who will be the caretakers of our cultural identity. Is it too much to dream of a Nepal that is an academic center of excellence? It only takes one generation.

So aren't things getting better?

Unfortunately, not. Nepal's education system is still following the same rote learning approach at all levels of the education system. This is not just true of schools, colleges and universities, but also of the

majority of training events organised at various levels. Many people believe that the education system is getting better and better. How can they say this while we have yet to develop an appropriate indicator to

measure the quality of education, which is linked to any national and individual future vision?

Certainly, there are some schools trying to bring changes in teaching methods and design. Sadly, they can not go far due to the flaws in the fundamental system and policy. The best schools in Nepal are judged by their SLC (School Leaving Certificate examination) performance, which forces them to follow rote / examination-oriented learning, whether they like it or not. All apparent attempts to improve the education system are superficial and will prove futile unless there is fundamental change

in the education system at the national level. The concern now is who will do it? Who will rescue the Nepalese from this counter-productive and obsolete system? Because only thing we seem to know is how to import ideas from other countries without doing our homework first. And while we are copying our neighbours 'answers', it never occurs to us that they might have got it wrong.

The present leaders, irrespective of their political values and their formal or informal qualifications, have one thing in common - they have nothing new to offer. The 'Nepal Bandh' seems to be their magic tool to solve all the national problems. This is a typical example of convergent thinking where only one answer to a question is found. It is a typical effect of the rote learning system.

Blaming others is easy. But the actual fault is in the system, which must be corrected fast. This is proving costly to the nation. With increasing international competitiveness, our delay in addressing this

situation may prove fatal. What are the Nepal Bandh, the Maoist problems, the rampant corruption and the pervading poverty? Nothing but a manifestation of an unworkable system. All are symptoms of a disease, more intense and deeper than it appears.

We need to bring fundamental change in our thinking and value system to effectively address urgent issues like corruption, violence, and poverty. We must move from adaptive learning to creative learning, and from a convergent to a divergent problem solving approach. We must let go of our negative approaches and perceptions, and embrace the positive.

The quickest way is to take a fundamental look at the education system of this country. If we improve it now we may expect a result after 15-20 years. This may sound a long time, but, in the national context, is very brief. We need an education system that is appropriate to our own national context and our own needs. We need an education system that is responsive to the environment, national vision, and value system that we want to promote. We must promote divergent and creative thinking. If we

miss this opportunity, we put our children's future at risk. They will experience the results of the choices we make today.

Headline | 5 Question  | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past |