Submitted by crinadmin on
I would like to share some concerns about the priorities the MDGs have thrust to the forefront of the global development agenda.
I believe the MDGs suffer from a chronic balance disorder. This is evident both in their insistence on prioritising some groups of rights over others and on promoting numbers and targets over quality and sustainability.
I raise these concerns because I fear the outcome of such an agenda can be presaged in another development project that went badly wrong: that of the Soviet Union, where I spent the first 30 years of my life.
The MDG Review presents an important opportunity to rethink what we mean by development and to make some strategic corrections before this comes to pass.
While I fully understand that there are other lessons that we need to learn from other regions, for example, excessive neo-liberal policies in some places have also resulted in destructive relations between States and their citizens, I will share views from my personal experience.
Wrong priorities
From the standpoint of the UN Committee, I am well aware of and realistic about the challenges of promoting and protecting children's rights across the world. One of the recommendations we consistently make in our Concluding Observations to States Parties to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in order to overcome these challenges is to treat all rights as indivisible and inter-dependent and refrain from prioritising some rights over others.
And yet, we continue to witness a hierarchy of rights set out both in State Party reports and alternative reports from NGOs.
The MDGs are fuelling this trend. The eight key goals set out in the UN Millennium Declaration have driven national policies in many countries to reflect a narrow understanding of development - as if achieving the MDGs were the ultimate goal.
This is to some extent a reflection of the "full belly" hypothesis: the idea that societies first need to realise social and economic rights before they are capable of taking on civil rights and freedoms. But the sad effect of such prioritising is that the "after" may never happen. Paradoxically, the biggest systemic obstacle for successfully achieving the MDGs in many countries is the lack of transparency and critical self-reflection about national policies, including child protection policies, and this is related to the weakness of civil society and social capital. Transparency and a vibrant civil society are crucial foundations for enabling people to claim their rights to social and economic development.
The MDGs' focus on child survival exemplifies this problem. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and other UN treaties are unique instruments which promote the equal treatment of all human rights. Article 6 of the CRC, for example, emphasises the indivisibility of the right to survival and the right to development. And yet, the MDGs encourage a focus on improving survival rights for under-fives to the extent that other issues, including the survival and development of older children, are consigned to a "waiting list".
I believe we must proactively address adolescents' issues as well, and a good start would be to take their views seriously into account, particularly given that trends in adolescents' views and what we understand as the problems of "troubled youth", reflect more than individual situations – they are usually an indication of the challenges facing human beings in general, such as the lack of mutual trust and respect.
After all, what would happen next if we were to achieve, with some magical tool, the survival of all children under-five?
I can take a guess based on my own experiences.
Déjà vu
Interestingly, most of the problems which are now reflected in the MDGs were solved by the Soviet system decades ago. This system achieved universal immunisation, school enrolment and literacy rates, fairly low infant mortality rates, as well as impressive advancements for women; it became, for example, the only region in the world where more women than men graduated from university.
But all these achievements were made at the expense of civil and political rights.
The message from State authorities to their people was loud and clear: you will enjoy minimum standards of social security, you can expect a stable economic future, and your children can expect the same. But all on the condition that you forget about civil rights and freedoms and switch off your ability to think critically.
At the height of the Cold War, when the international community denounced the Soviet Union for systematically violating human rights, the Soviet Union retorted that its people were happy, enjoyed their rights (i.e. economic and social rights), and that everyone had a job and a home - unlike in the West, and that children were the “the only privileged class” in the Soviet Union.
The cost of this one-sided understanding of human rights has now become plain for all to see. The painful process of transition in 30 new democracies in Eastern and Central Europe reveals the fragility of societies which have been trapped in a system for some 50-70 years which takes care of its people's physical and material needs on the one hand; and stifles their civil rights and freedoms on the other. We could call it “a comfortable prison”.
The effects of that historic experiment have undermined - and continue to undermine - many aspects of human development in a region of 400 million people. Children's rights find themselves on the list of casualties, particularly in light of child protection systems which continue to rely on abusive institutional care. Other collateral damage includes a weak civil society, a population which lacks the skills to take control of their own lives, unprecedented rates of mortality and morbidity resulting from endemic substance misuse, suicide and other forms of destructive behaviour. Both populations and governments in the region (with a few exceptions) still lack coping mechanisms for responding in an appropriate and reflective way to the challenges of societal change.
Amid this chaos, many people have begun to feel nostalgia for a totalitarian past in recognition that it is not so easy to exercise freedom in a responsible way. This experience can serve as a lesson to us all: that you cannot pick and choose which human rights to fulfil – otherwise even the best intentions may lead to tragedy.
The numbers game
Another problem with the MDGs is their over-reliance on statistics and on quantitative approaches to monitoring the goals we are all striving towards. This leads to more energy being invested in the quantity of services and of people accessing them over the quality of development. In education, for example, the quality of teaching and how children's rights are respected in schools are just as important as school enrolment rates.
If a message is sent out that numbers are valued above all else, incentives are created - because of imperfections of human nature - to bias the process and use artificial ways of reaching those quantitatively defined goals.
This is not meant to say that the need for measurable outcomes are not necessary, but to serve as a reminder that a qualitative approach to assessing the context of children's rights is equally important and can significantly add to the holistic promotion of all aspects of children's rights. Qualitative analysis is especially valuable for independent monitoring of civil rights and freedoms as well as de facto discrimination and as assessing levels of tolerance towards vulnerable groups. These are all critically important issues in our attempts to develop societies which are healthier and more respectful of children's rights.
Keep moving
We need to analyse everyone's stories – whether positive or negative; and we need to keep moving forward. The same is true of the MDGs. As 2015 draws near, we must take on board positive aspects of this process and evaluate shortcomings, so that the next stage reflects a more comprehensive and holistic approach to development.
As Albert Einstein said: "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving".
I think that this applies not only to the lives of human beings, but to communities and societies, including international communities, committed to good ideas. We, those who are committed to human rights and children's rights, need to strike a balance and we need to keep moving – exactly like riding a bicycle.
I believe this means that we need to rethink MDGs and – if not now, then by 2015 forge a new consensus on new development goals based entirely on human rights and children's rights, which reflects their universality and indivisibility.
Last but not least, we need to be proactive, not reactive, in designing strategies for human development. These should address root causes, not consequences, and invest in powerful protective factors hidden in children, parents, families and communities.
Owner: Dainius Puras, Member of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, has written this piece for CRIN in a personal capacity.