HUMAN RIGHTS AND NGOS FROM A HUMAN SECURITY PERSPECTIVE Dharitri Dwivedy, PhD
Non Governmental Organisations (NGO) in their various manifestations are an expression of people’s need for organisation, self-improvement and change. Those that extend beyond their own community can reach places that governments and multilateral agencies have not often been able to – dealing directly with the poor and the marginalized. Using participatory techniques, they are often more effective and less expensive than traditional, top-down development efforts. They can be flexible and innovative; pioneer new ways of delivering services on human rights, health, education, environment, gender; and use appropriate technology, small enterprise and credit at their fullest utility. They have been acknowledged as an important element of civil society, promoting citizen awareness and participation in development. As part of a new approach to governmental accountability and transparency it is argued that NGOs try to make a difference in every single effort they initiate.
Moreover, security for “whom” is as salient as “what” security is all about; that security is divisible (individual, society and the state, as against the traditional absolutist notion of state security); that what is really threatened in not an abstraction like “the state” but the material well-being of the individuals; and that provision of human rights and security is a public good that is best accomplished in a framework of partnership rather than competition between the state and the NGOs. It is noteworthy that protection of human rights is an integral part of overall human security discourse.
As a concept, human security takes a comprehensive view of all threats to human survival, its life and dignity with an emphasis on the need for proper response mechanism by the state. It concerns with prescribing an effective state apparatus that keeps people’s security in focus as against states that are externally aggressive, internally repressive or too weak to govern. Violence, social strife and conflict, terrorism, deterioration in the living environment, atrocities and genocide, discriminations of all kinds are putting individual survival at a low thresh-hold. The threat perception has increased with globalization induced dilution of economic boundaries and increasing interdependence which is experiencing mutual if unequal vulnerability. Even though there have been no major wars after the Second World War, the technological advances and weapons proliferation have fraught the future warfare with mortal consequences beyond the manageable limits of the state alone. New dimensions have also been added to the threats to human life – civil wars between irregular forces with loose chains of commands fired by narrow considerations of ethnicity, religion or even regionalism. Once considered “collateral damage,” civilians are being thrown into the center of contemporary conflict situations.
As challenges to security have assumed transnational dimensions, coping strategies have come to rest on cooperation involving a number of actors– states, organizations and groups. The concern for safety and focus on security has also been extended beyond the traditional boundaries of citizenship. The emphasis has now been on integration of security policies with strategies that are people centered for promotion of human rights,security, democracy and development the world over.
There is thus a growing convergence of opinion in favor of human security in general with emphasis on social safety nets, poverty alleviation and the like. Moreover, the notion is assuming greater manifestation as the concept is coming to accept freedom from want along with of the traditional concept of just “freedom from fear.” The stress however, remains on “human needs” as means to sustainable development. In other words the focus of human security goes beyond the state and targets the entire society.
The state has an obligation to ensure the adequacy of such conditions for all its citizens. Provision of welfare is generally viewed as a positive obligation rather than an imperative right. Besides, given the volatility in international finance and crises of democracy all around, it needs to remain so. This makes a strong case for the state to retain its role in promoting human security. Here building state capacity is crucial to addressing issues such as poverty, environmental degradation and other threats associated with the human security paradigm. Neglecting the state or opposing state action can be a prescription for misery and anarchy.
But this does not in any way diminishes the role of NGOs. It is important to create a greater space for civil society which is crucial to developing human security. Empowering NGOs and increasing public participation will lead to greater influence on human and social agenda. In a crisis situation, which has become more real than apparent under conditions of intensive globalization, the priority usually is on state or national security with the expectation that improving the conditions for national security will lead to human security later. The emphasis therefore must be on improving self-sufficiency and community strengthening as measures to increasing human capacity as well as that of the society to cope with the crisis. This must be supplemented by a political system with more open political space allowing greater popular participation in decision making.
NGOs can play a crucial role to establish rule of law, accountable institutions and transparent and efficient processes. Increasing global interdependence has served to highlight the implications of the rise of civil society for governance. The 2000 Human Development Report acknowledged the crucial role played by civil society in demanding more open space with freedom of participation, expression and association and environment conducive to the advancement of human rights.
Thus, over the years NGO networks have been active as alternatives to or supplements of states’ approach over such issues as human rights and environmental and natural disasters, women empowerment etc. Human security draws attention to precisely the kind of issues, which the NGO community has traditionally campaigned for, including human rights, environment, poverty alleviation and social safety nets. Therefore, human security offers a suitable conceptual medium through which NGOs can claim entry into policy circles previously closed to them. A growing willingness on the part of governments and semi-government players to engage representatives from the NGO community is perhaps one of the most striking developments in security discourses in recent times.
Partnership and collective action by the voluntary agencies, government and other like-minded institutions and individuals have been the key to a meaningful thrust to human security concerns. The growing assertiveness of NGOs, especially on issues such as globalization, resources and the environment, poverty, social capital, civil society, open society, role of media, status of women are intended to create a more interactive and cooperative policy coordination channel involving governments and civil society initiatives. This also suggests how the traditional state-centric security debate is changing in ways conducive to the promotion of human security.
Unfortunately however there have also been partisan attempts to restrict the activities of non-governmental organizations through arbitrary application of various legal mechanisms. A case in point has been the India’s the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act of 1976 (FCRA) and restrictions on freedom of assembly and association. In many states and under a number of circumstances, NGOs face restrictions. The NGOs have decried the attempts as infringements of the fundamental rights to freedom of association and expression and against the most basic norms of fairness and due process of law. In the long term, these measures are bound to pose considerable threats to good governance and the fundamental rights of the people.
The NGOs representing various facets of the changing social movement cannot be kept distanced from social and political and public policy institutions. Mechanisms must be developed to ensure NGO participation, not just representation or accreditation, in the policy-making process. Civil society must continue to test the limits and the potentials of the state and ensure that it assures the security and dignity of its citizens. In this emerging role of being both guardian and advocate, civil society must be allowed to permeate and engage the state. Globalization moreover has opened windows of opportunity for NGOs to be a part of international initiatives like world poverty hearings, peasant associations, and truth and reconciliation commissions in post-conflict situations. Social activism has started to pay rich dividends the world over in preventing and reducing vulnerability of the individual and the society.
It is to expect that a proactive interaction between the state and the civil society can transform and enrich the process as well as the substance of policy. It is in this context that the NGO sector must evolve itself from implementation and watchdog functions to that of critic, conscience keeper, and partner even opponent of the state in the quest for a just and humane order. Moreover, NGOs could be a strong voice of the civil society that could bring positive social changes to contain violence and promote peace building, protect human rights thereby reducing or moderating the impact of human insecurity.
About the author: Dharitri Dwivedy is CEO, Women Education and Environment.
Email: dharitree@gmail.com
This article was written for Citizen’s Human Rights Clinic