The Challenge of Governance: Ensuring the Human Rights of Women and the Respect for Cultural Diversity. Yakin Ertürk

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The Challenge of Governance: Ensuring the Human Rights of Women and the Respect for Cultural Diversity. Yakin Ertürk"

Dorcas Jefferson
5 years ago
Views:

1 The Challenge of Governance: Ensuring the Human Rights of Women and the Respect for Cultural Diversity Yakin Ertürk tolerance and respect for diversity facilitates the universal promotion and protection of human rights, including gender equality and enjoyment of all human rights by all (GA res.55/91, op. 7). Introduction Social diversity has been a salient feature of human experience and historically the basis for the formation of modern societies. The famous binary opposites of Gesellschaft versus Gemeinschaft (Tonnies ) and organic solidarity versus mechanical solidarity (Durkheim ) were coined to distinguish social development on the basis of diversity and heterogeneity. It was assumed by the founding fathers of modernization theory that social evolution is a movement from uniformity to one of diversity in the social division of labour, which is accompanied by a movement from traditional to legal-rational forms of governance (Weber ). The latter, by employing uniform norms and means to manage differentiated social roles and diverse interests, would result in a higher level of organization containing inter-dependent parts operating on the basis of specialized functions rather than on traditional bonds of kinship. This evolutionary process, often used to depict the Western experience of development, was in fact, regarded as the ideal type of modernization, thus, offering a model that was assumed to be replicable in the underdeveloped-traditional parts of the world. Hence, the main challenge of nation-building, proceeding independence for many of the colonized parts of the world during the 20 th century, was to integrate diverse cultural groups into a national entity. This entailed transforming traditional solidarity groups into rationally organized interdependent actors performing specialized tasks. In short, nation-building was a process that aimed to achieve unity in diversity. Accordingly, nation-building in both the developed and the developing world, favoured homogenizing public administrative measures to create a common national market and a legal system as well as other unifying institutions. The homogenizing impact of the national state, however, always remained problematic as the competition over political power continued to be underpinned by the tendency of sociocultural groups to assert themselves as distinct political entities. Therefore, the tension between the homogenizing tendencies of nation building and the diversifying tendencies of particularized socio- cultural groups, continued to be a major concern of the modern national state. This tension, more often than not, emanated from the distributive system underlying Ms. Yakin Ertürk, Director, Division for the Advancement of Women, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

2 social relations, i.e., the issue of the haves and the have nots, which was a decisive factor in shaping the contest over political power. The latter part of the 20 th century clearly showed that the process of nation-building and modernization, could not sufficiently deal with the distributive structure, making national integration in many parts of the world an incomplete project. 1 The aspirations for achieving a melting pot was seen to be merely an ideological construct. The frequent outbreaks of ethnic, religious and communal riots and armed conflicts characterize the world today. Communalism rather than national integration, diversity rather than uniformity and decentralization rather than centralization are high on the political agenda of peoples across the globe. Shift of focus in political discourse The renewed prominence of cultural diversity in the competition over power whether in situations of armed conflict (such as in former Yugoslavia) or parliamentary democracy has resulted in a shift of focus in political discourse as well as systems of public management from notions of citizenship, equality and welfare to those of identity politics, equity and empowerment. Therefore, the critical question is, what accounts for the politicization and resurgence of culture in determining identity politics at this stage in history? While the emergence of cultural particularism as a critical political force can be attributed to the failure of nationalism to universalize the conditions of citizenship, whereby, satisfy the aspirations of plural socio-cultural groups, this is only part of the story. The answer lies in the effects of the socio-economic forces associated with globalization. 2 The homogenizing and standardizing impact of the global market and new communication technologies have made national borders more transparent and domestic values easily penetrable. The 1999 World Survey on the Role of Women in Development (DAW, UN) sums up the cultural, social and political correlates of global integration: Populations around the world are being familiarized through economic exchange and exposure to advertising, the media and telecommunication, to a culture of instant gratification through material consumption. Additionally, globalization is tied to momentous political changes of the present era such as the rise of identity politics, international civil society, new forms of governance and universalization of human rights (XV). Global governance structures are increasingly undermining the power and sphere of influence of the central national state particularly in economic decision-making. The predominance of information technologies and the free flow of capital has reduced the regulatory capacity of the national states over their economies. Economic governance is increasingly transnational and embedded in electronic space unrestrained by national boundaries and bureaucratic procedures. Parallel to this has been the convergence of values around international human rights regimes. As a result, the thrust of advocacy and political activism is increasingly shifting from issues of self-determination to those of human rights defined on the basis of personhood, regardless of one s status vis-àvis a sovereign political entity. 1 2 Despite its many failures, the rise of the modern national state, which in principal rests on the rule of law and the notion of equal citizenship rights, provided the historic opportunity for excluded groups, including women, to expand the boundaries of rights in advancing their claims for equality and justice. The term globalization, as used here, depicts a new phase in the integration of the world economy which has been in process over the past few hundred years. As opposed to the modernization phase, which entailed the creation of national market economies, globalization entails the creation of a global market where capital flows freely across national borders and labour less so.

3 These developments have a number of implications at the national level. Issues of national sovereignty have gained new dimensions as the central state authority is challenged by centers of global economic governance, such as multi national corporations, and the emergence of a civil society linked to transnational networks inspired and motivated by universal human rights values and norms. 3 At another level, as a result of the encroachment of foreign values, identity and sense of belonging to an identifiable socio-political entity has become challenged in its own home base. In the age of globalization, the need for alternative modes of self expression and assertion of cultural specificity has become all the more important not only to delineate cultural boundaries but also as a means of resistance to change. Thus, globalization has reproduced the tension between uniformity and diversity at both local and global levels, considerably altering governance patterns and relations between the state, the individual and the community. Now, the challenge of governance, at national and international levels is to design legitimate institutions and societal mechanisms to manage diversity by securing a sense of identity that respects tolerance of the other and at the same time, embraces the universal human rights for all residents, whether citizens or not. 4 In the light of this global reality, the interest in cultural diversity has become central to current academic as well as policy debates. Advocacy for cultural diversity as an asset for the increasingly inter-connected world has become a widely acknowledged and politically correct course of action. New actors are on the stage of politics internationally and nationally. At the international level, a discourse on the dialogue among civilizations 5 has long replaced the previous debates that centered around the Three Worlds and the clash of grand ideologies. In this sense, the tension between uniformity (i.e., global market forces) and diversity (i.e., national sovereignty) has been carried to the international level. In order to understand the implications of these seemingly divergent trends, described above, for different social groups, in particular for women and to assess the reconciliatory options available for public management systems, further questions need to be explored. Cultural diversity and human rights of women Political identity based on cultural particularism naturally entails loyalty to group values and norms. In a globalizing world, the collective group rather than the individual has once more become the building block of society. It is often argued that small communities or ethnic groups can respond more effectively to the needs of their members as opposed to a large formation such as the national state. These assertions are reinforced by the fact that in many cases state provisions are being withdrawn due to privatization and deregulation policies or due to conflict in some parts of the world where there are no functional states to deliver services. Such situations have also enabled criminal actors with international networks to capitalize on and exploit the fragmentation of identity politics for their illegal transactions, be it trafficking in persons, drugs or other forms of illegal activity. As local power blocks gain There is a growing trend towards individuals or groups appealing to international law and institutions in their claims against the state. It is also noteworthy to mention the creation of International Criminal Court and Tribunals to address the issue of impunity and ensure that human rights violations and abuses are brought to justice. It is paradoxical that, at a time when immigration laws are becoming more restrictive, the immigrants, undocumented aliens and refugees, in some of the most developed countries, are emerging as major actors that challenge the established judiciary processes as their claims increasingly require that courts mediate between their case and the international human rights codes. The General Assembly, in its resolution 54/113 of 10 December 1999, proclaimed the year 2001 as the United Nations Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations.

4 such prominence, the notion of citizenship in determining identity obviously weakens. This poses the issue of who in the group determines the norms and values that represent the cultural identity of the group? If global markets and communication technologies are penetrating boundaries, which values of culture are to sustain a group s identity and are these values susceptible to change? However it may be defined, to what extend then are these claims for cultural purity to be accepted by governing bodies in determining and legitimizing the authority of the group over the individual? Given that groups are diverse within themselves, how can the risks of governance of cultural diversity from becoming dominated by vested interests representing repressive social consciousness and social prejudice, or criminal networks be managed? It has become well known that as some cultural groups claim political space and a niche for themselves, respect and recognition of the other and the autonomy of the human person, particularly women and youth, can become easily violated. The fundamentalist movements around the world have targeted women s status, in particular their public representation, civil and political rights, their reproductive roles and sexuality, as a major site for their political struggle and advocacy. The Taliban have totally wiped out public space for women in Afghanistan. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, in many of the countries in transition, gains made in enhancing women s status were the first to be questioned in the efforts to resurrect pre-communist national traditions. During the Beijing+5 process, a right wing coalition cutting across cultures and religions, was mobilized to obstruct the process of moving forward the agenda for women s rights. The Beijing Platform for Action was declared by this coalition as the most dangerous document aiming to destroy the basic fabric of society. Despite the expectations for more democratic governance within globalization the private sphere of life has become a site for conservative and authoritarian politics and governance systems. In many instances states have accommodated the pressures of radical groups by adopting policies that regulate the symbolic realm of life where socially approved images of women are produced and promoted. When the status of women is concerned, the issue of human rights is more often than not subjected to cultural relativity. Culture and tradition are often cited for legitimizing discriminatory practices and violations of women s human rights. It has become a common political strategy for authoritarian, non-democratic states or militant non-state power blocks to dismiss and justify violations of the universal human rights of women as a defense against foreign cultural bias. Human rights in many parts of the world are suspended under the pretext of national security or at best, they are limited to only a small privileged class. Among the latter, women are less likely than men to enjoy the full privilege of their class. The view that developing countries cannot afford human rights has also been frequently voiced. Is control over women the only way cultural purity can be preserved? Is it culture or authoritarian patriarchal coercion and vested interests that violate human rights of women? When one intervenes with a man beating his wife, are her rights being upheld or his violated? While the answer to this latter question is indisputably clear within a human rights discourse, a cultural relativity perspective can engage even some gender blind human rights advocates in a discussion where the concern for respect for cultural rights may easily overshadow the need to uphold the human rights of women.

5 Conclusion Violation and suspension of human rights have historically been a response of vested interests and authoritarian rule across cultures and civilizations. Similarly, the struggle for expanding rights, i.e., ending slavery, colonialism and racism has been the response of the dominated and oppressed groups rather than a doctrine of a particular cultural group. It is this latter experience, cutting across cultures and nations, that forms the foundation of the universal human rights regimes. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights reflects this common heritage without presupposing any uniformity or subjugation to another culture. Therefore, the management of cultural diversity and the safeguard of universal human rights for all - is the main challenge of governance at the national as well as the international levels. State legitimacy will increasingly be measured on the basis of the extent to which a state respects and protects the human rights of persons and the neutrality with which a common policy of identity that is inclusionary of diversities is created and sustained. Only a truly secular and democratic state can perform such a function. For international organizations, in particular the United Nations, which is the promoter and advocate of international human rights regimes the challenge is to enhance the mechanisms for handling diversity within a human rights framework. The major human rights treaties, including both the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, provide a normative framework for protecting both human rights and cultural diversity. 6 These treaties as well as existing consensus documents agreed at various intergovernmental fora offer a good starting point. The Vienna Declaration and the Programme of Action adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993, firmly established that women s rights are human rights and called for the adoption of the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women. 7 The Platform for Action, which is regarded as the policy framework for women s rights, was adopted by 169 Member States in 1995 and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 8, otherwise known as the women s bill of rights, is ratified by 168 States parties. Both of these instruments are backed up by strong government commitment and reflect the common aspirations of women around the world. Therefore, they can guide the creation of an enabling environment at the national level to enable women of all cultures and classes to enjoy their human rights. In the past two-three decades such international instruments have enabled many governments to revise their legal and institutional mechanisms to expand the boundaries of social, political and economic rights to all segments of their population See the Report of the Secretary-General on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity, 15 August 2000 (A/55/296). The Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly later that year. An Optional Protocol to the Convention was adopted by the General Assembly in 1999 and entered into force on 22 December 2000, after the receipt of the tenth instrument of ratification. There are now 22 States parties to the Protocol and it was signed by 67 States parties to the Convention. The Protocol brings a complaint and an inquiry procedure to the Convention. Within the Beijing+5 process the Division for the Advancement of Women received reports from governments on the progress they have made in the implementation of the Platform for Action. These reports show the wide range of policies and programmes initiated by governments in accordance with the commitments they made to the achievement of gender equality at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. The report of the Secretary-General on Review and Appraisal of the Implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action (E/CN.6/2000.PC/2) is an analysis of these reports. The reports themselves are available on the DAW website:

6 The Judicial Colloquium, held by the Division for the Advancement of Women in 1999, is an example of good practice in showing the way the U.N. and national institutions work together in promoting human rights of women at the national level. The colloquium brought together over 100 judicial practitioners representing diverse cultures and legal traditions to address the issue of translating international human rights norms into domestic law whereby creating operational openings at the national level to interpret culture from the point of view of rights centered around personhood. Three themes were central to the discussions: nationality, marriage and family life; violence against women; and work and work related rights of women and girls. The participants concluded that international human rights treaty law provides a powerful tool in dealing with the challenge of finding a balance between equal status for women and the need to respect and preserve cultural traditions. The Communiqué adopted at the end of the colloquium emphasized the importance of an enlightened and forward-looking interpretation of existing legal texts with a view to achieving gender equality and the enjoyment of human rights without discrimination by women and girls. 10 The report of the Secretary-General on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity (A/55/296) concludes by highlighting the increasing need to emphasize the core values shared by all cultures, protection of human rights through the rule of law are basic values which are reflected in international human rights principles (para. 60). The basic foundation for the rights of individuals as well as that of groups requires a radical tolerance of diversity in its multi-faceted dimensions. Recognition of difference as a positive value and a sustained commitment to its tolerance are the guarantees for the equal treatment of both individuals and groups. Understood as such, diversity can be enriching and even integrating at a higher level of unity. Universal human rights of women do not negate cultural diversity but sustain it. 10 See, Bringing International Human Rights Law Home: Judicial Colloquium on the Domestic Application of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations, 2000.

The Conference of International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) of the Council of Europe,

Declaration on genuine democracy adopted on 24 January 2013 CONF/PLE(2013)DEC1 The Conference of International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) of the Council of Europe, 1. As an active player in