Introduction
The literature on human and peoples’ rights is extensive and transcends one discipline. It cuts across several knowledge domains in law, political studies, sociology, public administration, economics, international relations, defense, security and the murky world of intelligence. The annual reports of government departments and rights advocacy organizations indicate that the violation of human and peoples’ rights is an international problem.
The difference in the country reports is in the nature and magnitude of the violation. Hence it is important to note that rights stated in constitutions, civil codes and international conventions are human aspirations towards which the collective efforts of individuals, groups and governments need to be directed to. Consequently, a serious discourse on human rights and “civil society” must unavoidably start by examining the ontological realities of the region under consideration.
In the Horn of Africa, where Afro Asian and Middle Eastern cultures meet, and important geopolitical interests exist, the region is marred by complex forms of conflicts that have national, regional and international dimensions. The conflicts have resulted in a humanitarian crisis of one form or another.
In this chaos, a new independent but fragile state (the State of Eritrea) has been created, and the potential for other new independent states in the region does not seem to be a far fetched idea. Financial globalization, the competition for natural resources by major powers and the post 9/11 world order appears to exacerbate the conflict. Africa does not have the capacity to reverse the trend. The African Peace and Security Council (PSC) is too new and too weak to resolve the security and humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa.
Hence, the analysis of human and peoples’ rights in the region needs to be contextualized. Conflict analysis however requires a separate work and is therefore beyond the scope of this paper. Notwithstanding this, the conflict in the Horn of Africa is in part attributable to the absence of a sound governance system that takes the value systems of the inhabitants of the region. Hence, the routine violations of rights (of individuals and groups), which in itself is a result of bad governance, exacerbates the tensions that exist between the many cultural “fault lines” and therefore fuels the conflict.
As Sen (2006:105) observed, culture and identity contrast cannot explain the failure of governance and public policy. The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), although progressing very slowly, is confirming Sen’s observation. The problems of governance cut across cultures and States. The APRM has four substantive nodes. They are:
1. Democracy and political governance
2. Economic governance and management
3. Corporate governance and
4. Socio economic development
Several aspects of the democracy and political governance node are linked to the key provisions of the International Covenant on:
- Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
- The African (Banjul) Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (of 1981)
- The Protocols of the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights (of 1995) and
- The African Court on Human and Peoples (of 1998).
These governance paradigms and instruments transcend culture and identity. In this paper, I extend the microeconomic theory of agency to public governance and attempt to develop a scorecard that can be used for monitoring the violation of human and peoples’ rights.
Performance scorecards, which were first developed in the management accounting and engineering literatures, have been used to improve efficiency and effectiveness not only in corporations but also in the public sector (Lapsley and Wright, 2004).
Following this trend, Negash (2005) extended the balanced scorecard to the APRM setting. In a follow up work, the concept of accountability was re-defined in the context of Africa’s collectivist, power distanced, masculine dominated cultures and traditional polity (Negash 2007).
The paper argues that the mere existence of constitutions and ratified conventions are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for minimizing the rate of violations of human and peoples’ rights. It further argues that Bembe’s “post colony”, or Herbert’s “failed” or Muchie’s “diseased” or Clapham’s “dysfunctional” states of Africa are not short of written constitutions and civil codes. The “post colony” states have had seemingly sound founding constitutions, often adopted through popular referendums.
Hence, to get legal instruments on the statute books is one thing but interpretations of statutes and enforcement of the rights enshrined in the constitution are sets of different matters. This problem is not uniquely Ethiopian. The central question therefore should be:
1. What can be done to advance human and peoples’ rights in each of the countries of the Horn of Africa?
2. What are the stumbling blocks for the implementation of the key provisions of the constitutions, the civil codes and international rights conventions?
3. How can one create harmonious working relationship between rights advocacy organizations, governments and law enforcement agencies?
4. What are the limitations of rights advocacy organizations?
5. What better monitoring mechanism can be created to prevent major human and peoples’ rights violations, such as genocides?
6. How can one link the works of rights advocacy groups with the works of the African Peace and Security Council?
7. How can rights advocacy groups be missionaries of peace and unity amongst the peoples of the Horn of Africa?
8. How can the works of rights advocacy groups be connected to the works of the Pan African Parliament (PAP)?
9. Where do international rights advocacy organizations fit into this picture?
These are important issues. In the remaining sections, the paper attempts to answer some of the issues raised here. Accounting for Human and Peoples’ Rights As noted earlier conflict prevention and sound governance are the corner stones of minimizing the violations of human and peoples’ rights. The failure of constitutions in defending human and peoples’ rights in the Horn of Africa is now evident, and therefore the problem requires a new solution.
The solution however does not lie in separation and advancing culture based politics. Hence, unfortunately there is little reason to expect reduction in the rate of violation of rights in the Horn of Africa countries unless fundamental changes are made in the governance and security system in the region.
The cultural similarity of the inhabitants of the region, the APRM and the human rights protocols all provide cross cutting useful instruments for changing the disturbing state of affairs in the region. For this to be achieved, governments, “civil societies” and rights advocacy organizations need to work together. One way of working together is agreeing to gradually introduce the trias politica doctrine based system of governance in the region, in the context of the Union Government of Africa, and monitor progress periodically.
With regard to the accounting and monitoring device, one can proceed in a typical business style, and prepare a scorecard. One can establish a rating process. The rating process however needs to clearly define its objectives and indicate what it wants to measure. The scorecard can be used as a planning and monitoring tool. It can also be used a monitoring device for assessing the effectiveness of rights advocacy groups and government affiliated rights commissions. The validity of criticisms against right advocacy organization and also government sponsored rights commissions will also be evaluated.
Concluding Remarks
This paper has attempted to link the issue of the violation of human and peoples’ rights to conflict and governance. As indicated at the beginning, conflict analysis and resolution requires a separate work. Notwithstanding this, the link between conflict and governance became apparent. Hence, good governance as defined in the trias politica doctrine needed to be contextualized with the cultural realties of the region.
The APRM, the Union Government of Africa and the African Charter on Human and Peoples rights are useful opportunities and instruments that cut across the fictions and realities of the cultural and political walls found in the Horn of Africa. Hence, without sounding an integrationist, the available instruments, provide both the opportunity and the challenge for the formation of an overarching regional constitution, in the context of the Union Government of Africa. There are no cultural reasons that make the Union Government of the Horn of Africa infeasible. Similarly there are no human and peoples’ rights related reasons that are obstacles to the formation of the Union Government of the Horn of Africa.
The obstacles lie in the domains of governance and security. The role of rights advocacy groups should thus be re-directed. The scope of their activity needs to be increased to include conflict prevention and enabling the APRM process to take roots. Establishing a working relationship with various government departments, human rights commissions, the top brass of law enforcement agencies, political movements, and more importantly with Pan African institutions, requires a new culture of engagement. The annual scorecard can be a useful tool for engagement with a country’s government/regional administrative organ and has the potential to address some of the severe criticisms that are directed at rights advocacy groups.
By Minga Negash
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
No comments:
Post a Comment