Justice for all

A recent article in the New York Times about India’s Right to Information law made me incredibly happy, because the power of this law demonstrates how law can be used to empower poor and marginalized parts of the population.

Law is often vilified. By Americans, but also around the world. The common cartoon of a lawyer is this: a greedy corporate lawyer who preys on everyday citizens in order to get rich. The law is also the subject of much hatred; people feel like they are drowning in paperwork and penalized unnecessarily. But India’s right to information act is a testament to the fact that the law is not always bad - and that in fact, it can be a powerful force for good and for social change.

Because of this law, the Indian government is required to respond to requests for information from individuals from all classes and parts of society. Now, villagers can file requests to find out why they didn’t receive a grant they were eligible for, or why a road hasn’t been built in their town despite promises from the government. And often, it seems that the government doesn’t just respond to the request for information, but actually takes action to solve the problem. By filing a request, a villager can now get her grant or find that the long-promised road is finally being constructed in his community.

The NYT article argues that although the law is beginning to empower the poor to hold their government accountable, it isn’t especially effective in fighting corruption. While filing a request for information about a service that the government hasn’t delivered upon has caused the state to improve service delivery, it hasn’t truly addressed the root of the problem. Officials who steal or divert money from the state’s coffers into their own bank account, public servants who simply aren’t doing their job, and other government leaders are not being held accountable for their actions. Corruption continues because there are few consequences. The state is improving the provision of services, but hasn’t been able to reduce instances of corruption as they occur in the first place.

Ultimately, this law is a very promising first step, and seems to be a measure that can be implemented in other democratic developing countries (I say democratic because I suspect a large part of the law’s success in India is due to the thriving nature of the country’s democracy and the politically active populace, along with the government’s desire to actually serve its people - sadly absent in most dictatorships).

Yet, such right to information laws should be implemented alongside a strong focus on some punitive measures for corrupt officials - whether it is a large fine, removal from office, or even a term of imprisonment. Without consequences and the enforcement of such, corruption will continue to persist — but the ultimate sad irony is this: in a society where the state bureaucracy is known to be so corrupt, even enforcing the rule of law and clamping down on corruption becomes nearly impossible because of the inefficiencies endemic in the justice system as well. In such a climate of corruption, the implementation of the right to information law in India seems to be a triumph worth celebrating.

At my internship last summer, what I really took away was the importance of pioneering a new approach to human rights. The 20th century approach to human rights was in defining human rights standards - like the International Covenants on Civil & Political Rights, and Economic, Social, & Cultural rights. I’m sure you know how incredibly important these covenants were - they revolutionized the way of thinking about human rights, and they provide some benchmark through which to keep countries accountable. They provided NGOs with a guideline - what standards to follow, what rights to lobby for. They provide a pathway forward. The debate still continues about economic, social, and cultural rights: what obligation does this mean, exactly, for governments? Many people still argue about how exactly to implement these standards.

But this hasn’t been enough, and what we need now is a new and different approach. We need to shift away from a time of declaration and into the era of implementation.

What does this mean? It means we have many of the right laws on the books, particularly enshrined in international covenants and agreements, but we simply haven’t been able to implement these laws properly. Even though the current debate is about social & economic rights - in particular, the rights to things like health, education, credit, water, or even “development” - the older, more accepted civil and political rights are not guaranteed in most countries, either.

Organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch - the two most prominent human rights organizations of our time - are doing amazing work in terms of bringing to light the human rights abuses taking place around the globe. However, while Amnesty’s work might result in releasing individual political prisoners, this approach to human rights lobbying and petitioning does not result in systematic transformation. While Amnesty’s lobbying might get a few political prisoners out of jail, the original system that oppressed them and their rights remains. Some might be saved, but more and more will continue to be imprisoned, tortured, or threatened in other ways.

What is needed is systematic change. The systems need to change, themselves, in order for lasting change to occur. Like any other aid organization, the work done by Amnesty is simply like a band-aid on a gashing wound if the broader system and situation in the relevant country does not change. The goal is not just to save individual people, but to change the system and address the root of the problem such that in the future, more people do not undergo the same fate.

How can this be achieved? Systematic change mostly depends on democratization and good governance. It depends on instituting leaders who are accountable to their people and genuinely want to contribute to development and positive social change for people in their countries. In countries with dictators, extremely weak or collapsed governments, or perhaps worst, genocidal governments and leaders, the efforts of human rights organizations simply cannot have a lasting effect. Both an overly strong state/dictatorship and an extremely weak, failed government are both recipes for chaos and violations of civil and political rights.

And at the local level, everyday people are being tortured, denied access to lawyers, and suffer for years in jails without ever going to trial. Prison conditions in many developing countries are terrible. I’ve written about this before. How does systematic transformation work here? Building up domestic legal systems: putting in place more legal aid lawyers, trained judges, prosecutors, paralegals, and other stakeholders who are desperately needed to end legal abuse and human rights violations. Police forces have to be trained in non-coercive interrogation methods.

We need more systematic approaches to addressing civil & political rights by changing the system, and by implementing rights standards on a local level - especially in the latter area (improving legal systems). Why is there so much focus on the former, individualized approach and less focus on systematic reform? It’s a lot harder, a lot more complex, and a lot less straightforward, that’s for sure. But it’s needed if we are to progress in systematic change in the human rights arena.

It’s a widely believed theory that the Internet, social media and other online tools and technologies can serve to undermine authoritarian regimes and help to spread democracies. As I wrote before, technology represents the ‘democratization of information’ - by which regimes no longer have a monopoly on knowledge. By reaching people who might never have known of other possibilities, the Internet and technology is opening people’s eyes and putting power in the hands of the people via the dissemination of knowledge. For sure, this is a powerful theory. But even beyond this more ‘general’ effect, we’ve heard stories of how Twitter has facilitated protests and organization by the people against the state - in places like Iran and Moldova. Twitter is truly revolutionary - in more ways than one.

Yet, these success stories are - perhaps - isolated incidents, and most of the authoritarian countries of the world are much less amenable to the spread of social media. A brilliant article by Foreign Policy claims that Twitter barely exists in most autocracies - many of these countries have their own versions of microblogging or have their own social networks. In many parts of the world, Orkut is far more popular. More likely, Internet in these countries is not widespread enough nor fast enough for people to be constantly logged on to Twitter. Moreover, Twitter is likely to be used by people with knowledge of English and some international exposure - it doesn’t necessarily reach wide swathes of the population, many of whom may be poor and non-English speaking. It mostly reaches the educated and the elite.

Another problem described in the article relates to the lack of anonymity on Twitter - incidents in the past have shown that individuals can easily be tracked down by government forces for their actions on Twitter. This isn’t exactly conducive to starting a revolution. If I were living in an authoritarian country, I doubt I’d use Twitter, a public medium, to voice my criticisms of the regime or to publicize protests I was a part of - it seems too easy to get caught!

Twitter is also prone to misinformation. After all, how much detail can you put in a 140 character tweet? During the swine flu outbreak, there was certainly misinformation all around - sometimes certain issues or breaking news stories spread like wildfire, and just as likely these stories can cause mass hysteria. Twitter simply isn’t a tool meant for informing people completely, and it becomes even less useful when we begin dealing with complex political situations. That’s just not something you can easily break down on Twitter, and such sensitive information is prone to misunderstanding.

Ultimately, Twitter’s an excellent tool for many of us - it helps us keep up to date with the latest issues and debates, generates fantastic conversation, and helps drive traffic to our sites. It’s gaining a cultish following by some who understand it’s true power - it helps us create a network, an audience far greater than what we’d have otherwise. Some people claim that Twitter is stupid — I’ll be honest and say that it makes me smarter. And you know why? It’s because I follow smart people. There is intellectualism to be found on Twitter, and those who find it are hooked.

Despite all the hype, Twitter isn’t going to be spreading democracy anytime soon. Sure, it may facilitate protests in certain areas, but there are still many obstacles stopping Twitter from being embraced within authoritarian regimes, especially poor ones.

But I’ll still be holding on to some hope. And in the meantime, I’ll be tweeting.

Picture credit: here

Today, President Obama spoke to Africans in his speech to the Ghanaian Parliament. Before reading, I was kept in anticipation, exciting to hear the new vision of our President with regards to Africa. I was excited, especially, after the revelations in his Cairo speech - and I hoped that he would bring a fresh perspective to America’s foreign policy to Africa in his remarks.

Certainly, I was inspired. But, I have to agree with Texas in Africa, who states:

The speech was not surprising and not particularly interesting in that it contained nothing new beyond the reflections of an American president who has a Kenyan father. Obama’s speech presented the same line that American leaders have been delivering to African states since the end of the Cold War: be democratic, stop being corrupt, embrace market capitalism, stop fighting with one another, and we’ll help you deal with disease.

Unfortunately, this is true. Obama spoke about things we all know by now about Africa; he focused on democracy, economic growth, public health, and conflict. But here’s the thing: most people know the challenges facing Africa right now. The media tells the American people over and over again about the HIV/AIDS epidemic, about the genocide in Darfur, about the lack of economic growth and business opportunities in Africa, about poverty, and about dictatorship. He talks about Zimbabwe, pirates in Somalia, Kenya and post-election violence, and South Africa. We’ve heard of these conflicts and problems a million times. What about countries he didn’t mention? There is the conflict in northern Uganda and DRC and CAR, the intervention of the ICC in various countries, and countless other countries with their own stories to tell. But, he doesn’t mention these. Perhaps it’s too much to mention in one speech, but I still think there is more to be said.

Obama didn’t do much to go beyond these common conceptions of Africa. There was nothing new in terms of US relations with African countries, and nothing much said about the new way forward. What is America going to do, other than provide foreign aid? Obama does allude to these facts - that the West is not wholly responsible for the problems in Africa although often blamed for drawing inappropriate colonial boundaries - that Africans must step up and take charge of their continent’s future - and that we will support innovation and technology for African farmers. This is good, but I wish there was a greater redefinition of America’s attitude towards African countries. There was not enough said about what we can do to help.

One thing I did like was his focus on corruption. Corruption, certainly, is a serious problem and I feel that Obama is right in acknowledging this. Corruption is an enormous problem that often isn’t emphasized by the international community. But the reality is this: according to the World Bank - a conservative estimate of bribes paid worldwide (including developed and developing countries) - the “cost of corruption” is essentially 1 trillion US dollars. Not a measly sum by any measures.

As a result, one of my favorite parts of the speech was when he emphasized good governance and rule of law - and the need to end corruption - from state heads and CEOs to the everyday police officer:

This is about more than just holding elections. It’s also about what happens between elections. Repression can take many forms, and too many nations, even those that have elections, are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves or if police — if police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top or the head of the Port Authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there. And now is the time for that style of governance to end.

This, I have to say, was truly inspring. Perhaps it’s especially because this summer, I’m working for an organization working to end torture and corruption by prison officials and police through appropriate training. It’s inspiring to me to see one component of our work - which I believe to be so important - to be pointed out by Obama. Along with just mentioning the cost of corruption, I hope Obama implements policies and supports initiatives working to stop this.

At the very least, I hope his speech touched thousands of Ghanaians and inspired people around the world. I hope it educated those who know less about the problems facing Africa. Though I’m not one to criticize, I do at the same time hope that our President will take more prompt action to change things and implement more concrete initatives to benefit the continent. What are your thoughts?

A few days ago, I had the privilege of attending a lecture at LSE by Professor Paul Collier, author of The Bottom Billion. He talked about the topics in his new book: Wars, Guns, and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places. I haven’t read it yet, but am itching to get my hands on a copy as soon as possible - especially after hearing his amazing lecture.

In his talk, he spoke about the rampant poverty and instability of the “bottom billion” countries, and the links between this economic stagnation and political conflict. Essentially, he believes that governance in Africa is one of the main obstacles to economic development, and if Africa is to develop anytime soon we have to focus on helping African countries develop stable democracies elected through regular, free, and fair elections. This is political science 101: economic development and political stability are deeply intertwined.

He started off by stating the two essential functions of the state: to provide security and to be accountable to the people. These are essential public goods that foster economic growth and are necessary for the development of any society. In Europe, states emerged first as a solution to the problem of security. And due to the constant external warfare amongst countries, European states needed more money to fund war, and thus turend to taxation as a means of getting this money. Taxation leads to representation: these states had to become more accountable to the people in order to gain their tax money and support. Thus, war became a rallying point for accountability and national unity. The reason African states are in such dire condition right now, Collier asserts, is because they developed via a very different process that did not allow for security and accountability. African states didn’t emerge autonomously. Their boundaries were drawn arbitrarily by the colonial powers, and there was no sense of common national identity. Some states were too large to maintain internal unity, while some were too small to be effective. There was no external warfare, but lots of fighting amongst various groups within individual states. The countries had no way to mobilize taxation. Most African countries do not have truly free and fair elections, and even if they do the presidents are often overthrown by military coups. So these countries have ended up not providing security nor accountability to their people.

So what can we actually do about this? The way forward, he says, is to work towards both these things: security and accountability. There are regional solutions: African countries can come together to provide security for one another. This hasn’t really worked in the past, though, because many countries may have illegitimate interests and may use these opportunities to exploit one another. In addition, the regional effort for accountability has not been successful — even if many African leaders say they want to unite, they would never give up or share sovereignty themselves. For example, recently Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi has called for a pan-African state and a single African government. But if he had to do so, he would likely never actually give up power in favor of a federal solution. Thus, regional efforts are not likely to make much progress.

And so, Collier turns to international solutions, which he believes are most effective. For security, he cites that post-conflict peacekeeping is highly effective in reducing recurrence of conflict in a particular country; sure, we have to continue aid, but we definitely have to dedicate more resources to ramping up peacekeeping in many post-conflict situations. Collier also supports more robust budget systems with increased governance conditionalities imposed by donors. I certainly see the merit in these suggestions.

But perhaps his most controversial suggestion is international intervention to ensure the accountability of African governments. He proposes the establishment of an international standard for free and fair elections. If a government holds a free and fair election fulfilling these standards, then the resulting winner should be guaranteed “protection” against any coup by powerful international actors, like the US. So essentially, an African president who is elected through free and fair elections, and then continue to rule in a democratic manner with good governance, then the US would help them to stay in power against any party who might try to overthrow him. This would give an incentive for an African leader to help establish free and fair elections with the hope that he would be granted protection, and this would also discourage coups because the threat of US intervention would be too great for any party to attempt a coup.

Although the idea is appealing, I have to say I’m not completely convinced. Is the only solution to stability, economic development, and democracy in Africa related to military intervention? There have to be ways in which economic development and bottom-up approaches can also help these societies: it seems pessimistic to assume that international intervention is the only solution to these problems - even in the long run. Where do NGOs and businesses come into play? And how would this work out politically - what happens if the US guarantees against a coup but then has to actually intervene? Would the US, UK, UN, etc actually agree to such a plan? Sure, his solution might work out, but suggesting politically unfeasible solutions isn’t all that effective.

Overall, I have some reservations, but still hope to read the book because I am sure it’ll provide valuable insights into the state of democracy and governance in Africa. What do you think: is military intervention a good idea to ensure security and accountability in the countries of the bottom billion?