Third Annual Hawke Lecture
Human Rights and Human Development: Fulfilling the Basic Needs of People
delivered by Dr Mamphela Ramphele, Managing Director, The World Bank Group8 November 2000 at the Adelaide Town Hall
This lecture was dedicated to the memory of Dame Roma Mitchell, past inaugural patron of the Hawke Centre
The support of the Corporation of the City of Adelaide towards the Annual Hawke Lecture 2000 is gratefully acknowledged
Your
Excellency, Chancellor, Madam Vice Chancellor, the Honourable Mr Bob Hawke,
distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so much for your warm
welcome to me. It is not surprising because Australia is indeed a warm
country. It makes me feel homesick. It’s so good to be back in the Southern
Hemisphere and to see so much that goes on that really stimulates the mind.
Human rights and human development share the same vision and purpose - to
secure the freedom, well being and dignity of all people everywhere1. Human
development is understood to be a process of unleashing the capacity of
human beings to be fully who they can be. The Nobel economics laureate
Amartya Sen argues that development should be viewed in terms of expanding
substantive freedoms2. Viewed in these terms, development requires the
removal of major sources of what he calls unfreedoms: poverty, as well as
tyranny, poor economic opportunities as well as systematic social
deprivation, neglect of public facilities as well as intolerance or
overactivity of repressive states. The freedom of human beings to realize
their full capabilities is what development is all about. It is the mission
that we at the World Bank are striving to fulfill under the visionary
leadership of Jim Wolfensohn, one of Australia’s most illustrious sons.
There is an emerging consensus in the global community that accepts and
supports the interrelationship between human rights and human development.
It is so appropriate that I am going to talk to you about this theme in the
very place where Dame Roma Mitchell, popularly known as Roma the First,
lived and died as a visionary champion of human rights and justice. In the
spirit of her actions I would like to share with you the sense of excitement
about what the human race can achieve if it puts its mind to the goal of
banishing ignorance, disease, want and unfreedom. I will also sketch some
worrisome trends that threaten the attainment of this goal. Coming as I do
from a country that has so recently emerged from the darkness of division,
racial discrimination and denial of the most basic human rights to the
majority of its people, I will share with you my passion for the role of
individuals as agents of history .
Human rights and human development
The right to development is no longer in dispute amongst civilized
people. What remains in dispute is how to create the environment for
sustainable development that enables all individuals to exercise their
rights and discharge their responsibilities. There is growing collaboration
between the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights, multilateral development institutions such as
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, governments, civil
society including NGOs, the trade unions, the private sector, universities
and religious communities. Each partner is deploying its comparative
strengths to make a contribution to a Better World for All3, the vision set
forth at the recent Geneva social summit.
The world made progress through the 1990s in fighting poverty. There has
been an increase in life expectancy in developing countries adding almost a
decade to those who would not have survived until the age of 55 (this is
sadly being eroded by HIV/AIDs). The proportion of people without access to
safe water declined from 32% to 28%. Adult illiteracy went down from 35% to
28%. Decline in income poverty from 29% to 24%. But progress has been
patchy. East Asia made the largest gains with China as a leader in reducing
poverty from 33% in 1978 to 7% in 1994. India has a mixed picture of success
and failure. Indian states that have made progress are characterized by
their commitment to tackle inequity in terms of caste and gender. The
sub-Saharan region has performed the worst of all parts of the globe with
major portions showing growing poverty and destitution.
The global community faces major development challenges. Why is it that
despite the emerging consensus on the need for human development have we
entered the 21st century with 6bn people a fifth (1.2bn) of whom still
living on less than US$1 per day and almost half (2.8bn) on less than US$2
per day? The problem is not only confined to the least developed countries.
Eighty-seven percent of people living on less than US$2 per day are in
middle income countries. In selected OECD countries the percentage of people
living on less than US$1 per day ranges from a high of 17% for the USA, to
12% for Australia, and 11% for both Canada and the UK4.
The issue seems to be not simply a question of resources. Disparities
between rich and poor persist amidst the amazing prosperity we see today.
What are the impediments to the attainment of development goals set at the
Social Summit in Copenhagen in 1995? These development goals are:
- halving the proportion of people living in absolute poverty (less than US$1) by 2015
- enrolling all children in primary school by 2015
- enhancing gender equity by empowering women and girls and eliminating school enrollment disparities by 2005
- reducing infant and child mortality by two thirds by 2015
- cutting maternal mortality ratios by three quarters by 2015
- increasing access to reproductive health care by 2015
- implementing national strategies for sustainable development by 2005 to reverse environmental damage by 2015
It seems to me that at the heart of the failure to deliver on international development goals are six main factors:
- lack of vision at the national, regional and global levels to mobilize support for a more equitable and prosperous world
- loss of a sense of human connectedness in a rapidly changing and expanding world
- lack of understanding of the relationship between individual freedom and human capability and the common good
- lack of political will to give concrete expression to this understanding by managing conflicts of interest creatively within and between states and regions
- lack of capacity to implement agreed public policies that would create better opportunities for development of poor people
- insufficient cooperation and coordination in bringing to bear all available resources.
The common thread running through these factors is the failure of
institutions to respond appropriately to human development needs. This
failure is evident at the local, national, regional and global levels.
Institutional success or failure rests on two major pillars: structure and
leadership. Many parts of the globe still suffer from poor governance.
Africa has been lurching from crisis to crisis over the last three decades.
Throwing away the shackles of colonial oppression did not lead to the fruits
of uhuru so many had hoped for. Post-colonial governments did not pay enough
attention to the scars of inequity that colonial rule had left behind. Many
replicated the very corrupt practices that they had denounced as freedom
fighters. The Cold War also added to the complexity of developing credible
government structures in the period of the 1960s to the fall of the Berlin
wall at the end of the 1980s. Both East and West used Africa as a playground
for their geo-political games.
The cost in human development terms is huge. Generations of Africans have
grown up without knowing peace. Women and children are over-represented
amongst the victims and survivors of conflict. Yet women remain locked out
of major decision-making in their own countries. Men make war whilst women
try to protect the future by keeping families together and as functional as
possible. In some parts of the continent, parents find themselves for the
first time as having better life chances than their own children. This is a
sure sign of a continent that is losing ground in human development terms.
Latin America has also had its share of the same problems, although the
scale and depth of the crisis is less. The post-Cold War period has not
brought the hoped-for peace and prosperity. Again the world seems not to
take seriously the need for systematic healing of past wounds and redress of
the human development costs incurred. How can people govern themselves after
years of being treated as subjects without the necessary support to
understand and manage the contradictions embedded in the legacy of the past?
Zartman captured these contradictions in his book, Government as Conflict
Management: "Normal politics is thus considered an exercise in which social
groups place their demands before government, which is then held accountable
by the groups of society for the ways in which it handles their demands. An
African assumption could be quite different, that conflict is essential
between groups and government and that in governance, government is managing
its own conflicts with society5." This formulation of politics is at the
heart of the colonial legacy. Colonial governments were by their very nature
illegitimate and in conflict with indigenous people. The departure of
colonial government officials did not automatically lead to departure from
the approach to politics that sees conflict as essential to relationships
between groups and the government of the day. Citizens caught in the
conflict model of politics have lost out on the benefits that mature
democracies bring to their people. Successive cohorts of elites have
captured many an African state to settle scores with previous regimes and to
enrich themselves in the process. Failure by the global community to
confront these contradictions and challenge African leaders to break this
cycle of self-destruction has contributed to the perpetuation of conflicts
in many parts of the African continent. It is not surprising that Africa
lags so far behind in human development indices. The first pillar of good
institutional governance, namely structure, is resting on very shaky
foundations in many parts of the world.
The second pillar of good governance, that of leadership, is undermined by
the first weakness. Neglect of human development deprives society of the
kind of people who are able to assume leadership roles and make creative
contributions to human development. The failure to spread the benefits of
education and basic health has left many societies mired in ignorance and
disease. Such societies not only fail to produce visionary leaders, but
where such leaders emerge, the capacity of citizens to hold them accountable
is often lacking. Even good leaders left without adequate accountability
mechanisms end up succumbing to the temptations of power. Thus a vicious
cycle sets in of government being seen to be unaccountable and in conflict
with its own people, who in turn feel powerless to address the problem until
a new cohort of elites takes over and repeats the performance.
We need to remind ourselves that however powerless we might feel in a
rapidly changing and technologically driven world, human beings are
ultimately the authors of their own history. This authorship has to find
expression in the context of managing the tension between individual freedom
and the essence of being a social being. Successful people are those who
manage this tension creatively. There is a danger either way. Submerging
oneself to the collective demands stunts the creative instinct and leads to
communities and societies with little regenerative power. On the other hand,
communities and societies that create an environment that encourages the
pursuit of individual interests without reference to the common good run the
risk of depleting their social capital. Social capital is used here to refer
to the stock of trust relationships that permits well functioning
communities of common interest and mutual support. Eric Fromm, a passionate
humanist, believed in the possibility of a healthy balance between
individual interest and the common good:
"Since man does not exist except as a social being, the particular type of
society in which he lives determines which possibilities are favoured. Every
society shapes the energies of people in such a way that they want to do
what they must do in order for society to function. Social necessities
become transformed into personal needs, into social character"6.
Fromm’s views on the nature of humanity raise the question of the kind of
political context that makes possible the intersection of the personal needs
of individuals and social necessities. In his formulation, meeting social
goals is transformed from being a burdensome obligation into a natural
response that gives creative expression to being human. The political
context framed by colonialism, post-colonial Cold War politics, and the
politics of greed thereafter does not favour the emergence of the
transformation of social necessities into personal needs. The social
character that seems to have emerged from the materialistic culture that
dominates many parts of the world undermines the focus on the pursuit of the
common good.
On the positive side, many cultures seem to recognize Fromm’s formulation of
what it means to be human. The Nguni expression often used by South Africans
captures this: "Umtu ungumtu ngabanye abantu" (a person is only recognized
as such by other people). Other cultures express it differently. For the
Italian artist and medical doctor, Carlo Levi, our humanity is defined as
the meeting place of all our relationships7. For the Japanese the concept is
captured in the expression ameru, representing intimate dependency
relationships8. Unfortunately recognition of the interdependence of humanity
does not necessarily result in transformative action to give concrete
expression to the concept. Many African leaders at various levels of society
pride themselves on their humanism whilst engaged in actions that negate it.
The same applies to those governments in many parts of the world that
continue to undermine human rights and human development as freedom. A
global community that remains aloof in the face of abuses of human rights
and neglect of human development in large parts of the world is also
betraying its human essence.
The struggle to give concrete expression to our shared humanity is at the
very centre of history. Tackling the human development problems detailed in
the international development goals is the greatest challenge facing
humanity in the 21st Century. We are blessed with prosperity never seen
before. We have the power of science and information technology to harness
in our fight against poverty, ignorance and disease. What is lacking is the
resolve by individuals and communities at all levels to make a difference in
whatever they do where ever they may be to ensure that the world is a better
one for all of humanity.
There are many individuals who have succumbed to the myth that individuals
don’t matter in history. It is a comfortable myth to embrace because it gets
one off the hook. One doesn’t then feel responsible for anything beyond the
self. Indifference becomes a lens through which one sees the world.
Indifference erects a wall between oneself and fellow human beings.
Indifference leads progressively to immunity to the suffering and misery of
others. The "I am you" that Fromm speaks of becomes lost in the pursuit of
personal interest.
The world has mercifully also seen the emergence of individuals and leaders
who continue to believe that they can make a difference. These leaders
believe in authoring a history that celebrates our humanity in its full
diversity. Nelson Mandela, Dag Hammarskjold, Kofi Annan, the late Dame Roma
Mitchell and many other men and women continue to inspire humanity with
their dedication to the pursuit of the common good. They lead by example.
What characterizes individuals who take seriously their authorship of
history? Common to all these leaders are the following characteristics:
- an understanding of history coupled with a vision larger than themselves as individuals
- self-confidence and the knowledge that their agency in history matters
- capacity for transcendence of the boundaries of time, ideology, nationality, ethnicity, gender, and other impediments such as personal tragedy
- the willingness to take risks.
The power of the human spirit is borne out by the multiplicity of
contexts that have spawned such agents of history. The caring social values
of Sweden that produced Dag Hammarsjold to head the United Nations during
the most treacherous period of the Cold War cannot alone explain his
emergence. Ghana, notwithstanding its own troubled history, spawned Kofi
Annan to follow in Dag’s footsteps to tackle the ongoing conflicts
afflicting many parts of the world. Kofi Annan has not shied away from
urging the developed world to remain engaged with the enhancement of the
global common good, whilst taking a firm stance against irresponsible
leadership in the developing world. For others it was the fire of personal
tragedy that brought out the steel in them. Imprisonment robbed Mandela of
27 years at the prime of his life, but it could not constrain him from
exercising the visionary leadership that transformed his jailers into
negotiating partners who became co-authors of a different path for South
Africa’s future. This role of visionary leadership is particularly hard for
a woman to deliver given the added constraints that women face. Dame Roma
Mitchell’s achievements are thus all the more remarkable. She transcended
many boundaries to become the first Australian woman to be a state governor,
a Queen’s Counsel, a Supreme Court judge and a chancellor of a university.
In the spirit of the times, when she was sworn in as Justice Mitchell of the
Supreme Court of South Australia, she was complimented in these words, "You
have a man’s brain, but behave like a woman." Risk taking is essential to
transformative action. Self-confidence makes risk-taking possible. Unless
one is prepared to risk losing all for a higher ideal, nothing can be
gained.
There are unfortunately many more individuals who fail to take the risks
entailed in transforming the cultural context that suppress individual
creativity. Too many cultures display intolerance towards tall poppies. Too
many cultures elevate solidarity above a principled stance in favour of
human freedom and development of human capabilities to the highest possible
level. Tradition is often invoked to preclude debate about the wisdom of
such an approach. Too many women and girls are left behind in human
development terms in the name of adherence to tradition. Breaking the
traditional mould entails risk-taking by individuals, their families and the
wider community.
What does this say about our conduct as members of the global community? We
all have a wonderful opportunity to rise to the many occasions that require
us to take the risk of standing up for unpopular causes in the interest of
the common good. Many of you sitting here today have done so on many
occasions. But too many people in our world today just want to merge with
the crowds around them. Our countries are also called upon to stand up and
be counted in taking on the challenges of human freedom and development.
Australia has demonstrated its capacity at different points in history to
engage in shaping history: its involvement inboth world wars, its pioneering
involvement in the formation of the United Nations, and more recently the
involvement in East Timor, as just three examples. But much more needs to be
done. It is opportune today for Australia to re-evaluate its global role
given its geographical location in the South yet its identity as one of the
world’s few genuine democracies, where the rule of law, sound institutions,
good governance and fundamental human freedoms are enshrined and upheld.
Australia should never underestimate its good fortune or take its democracy
for granted. Indeed, it has a special responsibility to ensure that these
values are strengthened and supported at home but also in the emerging
democracies of the developing world – your neighbors in the South.
At this time of unprecedented prosperity, overseas development aid has
fallen from the promised 0.7% of GDP of developed countries to pitiful
levels. Some countries have kept their promises, but many more haven’t. For
example, in 1998 aid flows in US dollar terms ranged from a high of $10.6bn
for Japan, $3.8bn for UK, $1.7bn for Denmark, $1.6 for Canada & Sweden, to a
low of $960m for Australia. Denmark comes out at the top when aid is
expressed in % of GDP (0.99%) surpassing the international commitment,
whereas the USA comes out last at 0.10% behind Australia’s 0.27%9.
We know from studies within countries and between countries that inequity in
human development terms is costly for all in the long-term. For example,
gender inequity in Africa accounts for the reduction of its growth potential
over the last two decades by almost half. India’s persistent caste and
gender inequities partly explain its inability to compete with its
neighbours in East Asia who have invested in universal access to basic
health and education. East Asia’s so-called miracle that manifested itself
with such force in the 1980s to early 1990s as Amartya Sen so ably
demonstrated is traceable to the unleashing of the human capabilities of its
people.
Conclusion
The promotion of human rights and human development is not only the right
thing to do for all levels of the global community. It is also the finest
expression of the best in us as a human race. It is in seeing ourselves in
others that we will not be able to tolerate their misery and suffering. The
"I" in "You" is the best guarantee for a better world for all of us. It is
also the best guarantee for a more peaceful world in which all have a real
stake.
How do we give expression to our need to live up to these values? For our
part, we at the World Bank have revolutionised our approach to development
over the past five years in adopting a holistic framework that promotes
social investment in people – their education, their health, their
nutrition, their welfare; protects the environment; encourages private
sector involvement; strengthens the ability of governments to serve their
people, including a fight against the scourge of corruption; and encourages
the reforms that provide a stable macroeconomic basis for sustainable
growth. Development is not just an economic issue – it is profoundly a human
endeavor.
The challenge for Australians is to identify the key contributions you can
make, coming as you do from a country with a high level of education,
achievement and prosperity. You have much to offer – and it is very much in
your interests to seize the opportunities offered by information technology
and the revolution in communications to overcome what you used to call the
tyranny of distance. This is no longer an excuse. You have already
demonstrated your ingenuity in overcoming the great distances in your own
country. You have a historic opportunity to play a decisive role in helping
those parts of the global community that are struggling to meet the
challenges of human development. Your challenge is to link your comparative
advantages in many fields to the global partnerships now coming into play in
all kinds of exciting and innovative ways. A better world for all is in our
grasp.
Mamphela Ramphele
November 2000
References
- Human Development Report, UNDP, 2000:1
- Sen, A., Development as Freedom, 1999
- See a publication with this title by these partners, June 2000
- UNDP, 2000:34 and WDR 2000/1 of the World Bank, pp5-6
- Zartman, W., ed. Governance as Conflict Management: Politics and Violence in West Africa, Brookings Institute, 1997
- Fromm, E., The Heart of Mean: Its Genius for Good and Evil, in Religious Perspectives (vol 12) ed. Ruth Nanda Ashen, New York, 1964:93
- As quoted in Smith, M.L., The Word is Very Near You, 1989:32, Cowley Publication, Cam, Mass
- Davis, W., Japanese Religion and Society: Paradigms of Structure and Change, Paperback, 1992
- OECD, Development Assistance Committee database, 29/2/00