Message to the MS in the South Annual Meetings 2001:

The Global Society

They say we live in a global village, because we communicate so easily. That might be true. But this is different from living in a global society, with globally binding rules and standards that nations as well citizens adhere to. Rules and standards that protect the right to development of the poor; protect our cultural diversity; and ensure a more equitable distribution of the resources between North and South. This is still not a reality, but MS has committed itself to such a global vision, and we hope our partners in the South will work together with us to make it a reality.

Christian Friis Bach/Chairman and Bjørn Førde/Secretary General

10. January 2001

1. A Global Society with Local Realities

Much time and energy has been spent on the issue of globalization in the last couple of years, culminating with the Solidarity 2000 conference taking place in Denmark in June 2000. We had set some very ambitious goals in an attempt to involve as many activists, members, organisations and partners as possible. It is fair to say that we did not succeed in all areas, but from the point of view of policy-making within MS, we are convinced that the event will have a major impact for years to come.

This is not least due to the fact that the document ’Globalization by People’ was finally adopted, after having been discussed heatedly for years. We consider this to be a major accomplishment! The process and the final result indicate that MS has the capacity to initiate a truly global and participatory dialogue on how civil society should position itself in order to try to utilize the potentially positive forces of globalization to improve the livelihoods of the poor and the marginalized of the world.

Although we have approved the document, we may not agree in detail on all the aspects. Many details still need to be discussed further. But we agree that a global society without globally binding rules will be a global society ruled by the economic, political and military strenght of the strongest nations and transnational companies. This could still be the case in a global society with globally binding rules, but at least the raw power of the strongest will then have to be exercised in a more transparent fashion, and it will be possible to hold the strong accountable for their deeds. Like it is possible in the village!

However, it is important to remember that we are not only arguing for globally binding rules in our response to the type of globalization being pursued by the strongest industrialised nations and major financial institutions. We are also calling for a strengthening of democracy at grass root level. Ordinary women and men need to be given a stronger voice in the decisions affecting them in their daily lives. Democratizing the decision-making of organisations like the WTO and the World Bank are important issues, indeed essential. But unless this is accompanied by a process of democratisation at village, district, provincial and national levels within each nation state, then it will not be possible to develop the necessary balance between global and local decision-making.

One of the dilemmas mentioned by some participants in the debate on democracy is what comes first: global or local democracy? Another difficult issue is that of conditionality: to what extent is it possible and reasonable to make development co-operation or debt relief conditional on the implementation of a certain type and form of democracy? Based on the experiences of the 90’ies it is certainly difficult to come up with clear-cut answers. MS has argued that we find it necessary for civil society in the North to support the struggles for democracy in countries like Nepal and Zimbabwe, even though we recognize that decision-making in a Northern dominated organisation like the WTO is highly undemocratic at present. We have also accepted that democracy is used as a conditionality in the cases of Kenya and Zimbabwe, because this is what our friends in civil society have asked us to do. But we have always made it very clear [as stated in our policy paper] that the issue of democracy should not be about the virtues of western type democracy.

 

2. Participating in the Global Arena

During the years to come, MS will use the ’Globalization by People’ document as a guide when we develop our positions on particular aspects of the development of the global society. In the immediate future, this will involve:

• Positions on the agenda for the Rio+10 conference: This is planned to take place in South Africa in 2002. MS is presently involved in a project with other Danish NGOs and NGOs in the South to develop a network, which will try to mobilise civil society in setting the agenda in such a way that poverty and environment are seen as interdependent.  
• Positions for a new round of WTO-negotiations: MS believes that a new round of neogotiations, based on an agenda that sees international trade as an important instrument in the struggle for poverty eradication, is crucial. We also believe that the struggle to reform the WTO in a pro-poor, pro-people and pro-South direction is necessary. A new round is likely to take place towards the end of 2001.  
• Positions on the Conference on Least Developed Countries: This will take place in Brussels in May 2001. It is the 3rd UN conference on the special problems confronting the 49 least developed countries. MS will participate in the official Danish preparations and will co-operate closely with the Eurostep network.  
• Positions on Financing for Development Conference: This will take place in New York at the beginning of 2002. Considering the shrinking level of official development assistance, the continued destructive impact of debt servicing, and the lack of private investment in the least developed countries, this will be a crucual conference. MS will work with others to get the idea of a Tobin-tax into the negotiations.  
• Positions on the follow-up to the Social Summit +5: The five year follow-up to the Social Summit in Copenhagen took place in Geneva in June 2000. MS participated actively, and representatives from all the MS programmes came to Copenhagen and Geneva, following national conferences in all countries. We are now looking into how best we can contribute to the monitoring of the programme of action agreed upon. 

But the major thrust of our engagement will continue to be what we do at grass root level in the South, together with our partners. With activities that intend to improve the livelihoods of poor and marginalised people; activities that can make a difference in the struggle to eradicate poverty; and activities that will make it possible for the poor and the marginalized themselves to make their voices and wishes heard in the struggle for a just global society.

 

3. Campaigning for the Kamaiyas in Nepal

We are very well aware of the limitations of what MS itself can do in the fight against poverty, oppression and injustice. Whatever we can do must be done in close co-operation with our partners. Even then the results are dependent on how the strong social, cultural, economic and political forces we are up against react, forces trying to maintain the status quo. However, during 2000 we have seen several examples of successful pro-poor interventions in the MS programmes.

Without the intention of minimizing other examples from our programmes, we would like to highlight the Nepali and the Zimbabwean experiences.

MS has worked in Nepal since 1990, and during that period Nepal has experienced significant progress towards democratisation of the political life. Civil society has grown stronger and plays a more visible and vocal role than ever. But for many Nepali, daily life is still characterised by deep material poverty, unequal access to resources, lack of dignity, lack of rights, extreme vulnerability and isolation from mainstream society. These aspects of ’poverty’ have also characterised the Kamaiyas of far-western Nepal. The story of what happened to them in mid-2000 is therefore significant.

Raj Kumar is 24 years old and lives with his family in Kailali district in far-western Nepal. They had rushed to district headquarters in mid-July as soon as they heard that the government had declared all the Kamaiyas, the bonded laborers, free. Raj Kumar was astonished to know that he would not have to pay his debt of nearly 20,000 rupees that he inherited from his grandfather. But he did not know what to do next. Within a couple of days, his landlord approached him and ordered him to vacate his mud-thatched hut immediately. "Otherwise the police will put you behind bars," said his master. He even abused the government for waiving the debt that his ‘Kamaiya’ owed to him, and he forced Raj Kumar to pay a couple of hundred rupees that he had with him at the moment.

The Kumar-family belong to the 300-350.000 people in Nepal who live as bonded labourers, of whom 50-100.000 are part of the oppressive Kamaiya-system. This system means that these people can be bought and sold among landlords, without any say whatsoever of the people themselves. Most of them belong to the more than one million Tharu-people, who are being strongly discriminated.

Backward Society Education [BASE] is an NGO that has worked to strengthen and conscientize the Tharus and the Kamaiyas. BASE is probably the largest democratic membership organisation in Nepal, with more than 30.000 paying members, and BASE has played a central and critical role in the struggle to free the Kamaiyas. Since 1993 MS has had several Danish DW’s posted with BASE, and since 1997 we have had a partnership agreement. The MS programme in Nepal has participated in the Kamaiya Concern Group, which has brought together several Nepali and international organisations around the common objective of developing a campaign that could force the government to bring an end to the oppressive and dehumanising system of bonded labour. It was a well planned and effectively implemented campaign, in which BASE played an important role. And it was a successful campaign in the sense that the government finally gave in to the demands.

However, you should also know that although the Kamaiya-system has been abolished, poverty and powerlessness is still very much a fact of life for these people, as for millions of other people in Nepal. People need land, because agriculture is the only way of survival in this part of the country. It has therefore been necessary to start a new campaign to force the government to provide the people freed from bondage with land, and to enforce minimum wages and other regulations that can protect the landless against the landowners.

We have presented this example at some lenght because we feel it illustrates a number of issues of principle importance:

• First: The fact that today Nepal formally speaking is a democracy does not change the equally important fact that the livelihoods of the majority of the population are characterised by poverty, including powerlessness, marginalisation, oppression and discrimination.  
• Second: Unless the formal political system is constantly put under pressure by organisations within civil society, it is highly unlikely that formal democracy will be able to deliver fundamental changes in the livelihoods of poor people.  
• Third: Northern NGO’s working in the South must realize that while activities involving the delivery of certain social goods are important, at times indeed vital, it is equally and increasingly important that advocacy is an integrated part of these activities.

Finally this is a very good example of how global rules and principles – in this case in the area of human rights – can be used to support a struggle taking place at grassroot level. It is an example of how the global and the local levels can support each other.

 

4. Protecting rights in Zimbabwe

Developments in Zimbabwe during 2000 is an equally vivid example of the need for civil society to mobilise to protect the rights of the poor, including the right to vote without been harrassed, persecuted and intimidated. Although a democracy on paper, developments during 2000 clearly indicated a serious unwillingness of the ruling party and the government to play by the rules of a genuinely democratic society. Zimbabweans went to the polls to elect a new parliament following months of violence and confrontation between the old ruling party and a new opposition party. Many lost their lives. Thousands were affected by threats, beatings and rape. To hold free and fair elections under these conditions of fear was not possible.

Following the elections, which were won only narrowly by the ruling party, the situation in Zimbabwe has worsened. The illegal and violent invasions of white owned commercial farms have continued; the economic crises continues to worsen; the engagement in the war in Congo continues; the president of the country continues to defy the rules of a democratic society. In this situation, international donors have decided to withdraw or freeze resources for development co-operation. This is also the case with Denmark. MS has supported the move of the Danish government, based on our understanding of the position of the political opposition and groupings within civil society. And we have continued to argue for the following changes to take place in Zimbabwe:

• Re-establishment of the rule of law: The rule of law has entirely broken down, following the government-supported land invasions. Court orders have been openly defied, and in some instances, murders of government opponents have not been investigated.  
• Countering corruption: Numerous cases of large scale, high-level corruption have been revealed. As a result, corruption now threatens the viability of the national economy. Effective measures must be taken to investigate and bring to justice those who have committed crimes.  
• Need for land redistribution: Land redistribution remains a key problem which needs to be redressed. Only a transparent process of land redistribution based on a clear set of legally-enshrined rules, aimed at directly assisting the poor and landless, and involving all key national stakeholders, will adequately address the land problem in Zimbabwe today.  
• Building greater space for civil society: The government has failed to engage civil society interests in an open manner. Rather, it has labelled them as "opposition" sympathisers aiming to overthrow the government. Despite this hostility, in the past ten years civil society has managed to develop better organisational capacity, and now serves a useful representative function. Civic organisations must therefore be given the opportunity and space to engage actively.

You may argue that it is an even greater challenge to pursue such broad national objectives in Zimbabwe than to campaign for the freeing of bonded labour in Nepal. You may also argue that it is fundamentally outside the scope of influence of MS. Our response to this is very simply that strategies for poverty reduction at the local level need to be embedded in a conducive environment at the national level. If interventions by NGO’s and other civil society organisations at the local level are to be effective and lasting, they must be seen in a broader national perspective – based on global principles of peoples rights.

 

5. Poverty reduction in the MSiS strategy

This thinking is also clearly reflected in the draft proposal for the new MS in the South 2001 policy document, which is distributed seperately for discussion at the Annual Meetings. What is important in this context is that rather than just defining the symptoms of poverty as the primary target for our work, we define the objective as follows: to challenge the causes of poverty and to increase poor people’s ability to control their own destiny and to make use of political and economic opportunities.

Poverty is furthermore defined as being multi-dimensional, covering economic, political, social and cultural issues. The significance of these dimensions depends much upon the context. Thus, there is no universal, single definition, which can capture the phenomenon of poverty. But the following elements are crucial, because poor people:

• Poor people are unable to cover their basic material needs, and they often suffer from despair and lack of dignity producing apathy;  
• Poor people are insecure and vulnerable to risks and crises, and they have little access to relevant and vital knowledge and information;  
• Poor people are denied their rights and excluded from access to productive resources and to influencing the political environment.

But poor women, men, and children are, however, far from being passive victims of their situation. Coping strategies and a strong desire to change their conditions are part of their life, and poor people often take a critical look at their situation and try out new opportunities accordingly. Poor people are actors, not recipients of development. Poverty reduction in a given country thus requires a thorough, specific understanding as the causes of poverty are numerous and depend on the context.

However, despite the complexity of the matter, there are strong arguments for seeing the fight against poverty as basically a political one. In the contemporary world with its incredible amounts of wealth and resources, keeping people in poverty is an outright insult and the result of narrow political interests.

MS is clearly not able to address all causes. Given its history and outlook, MS wishes to challenge political causes of poverty. This should not be done in isolation. Advocacy and political lobbying will often be linked to specific activities such as, say, the possibilities for peasants to market their products. Moreover, MS may usefully co-operate with other organisations – be they Danish, international or local – in fighting poverty and thereby contribute to a more coherent and sustained challenge.

 

6. Priorities for poverty reduction

The partnership approach is a vital part of MSiS’ identity, and MS wants to further develop it in relation to poverty reduction. The parties can jointly analyse the situation and develop initiatives to address these. A broad and participatory dialogue will enable poor people to influence the work. And flexibility is important. Thus there will be no blue-print to be applied with every partner in any situation. But the following types of intervention will be given priority:

• Support to poor people’s own activities: The poor know their problems best. MS accordingly wishes to support poor people’s own activities as well as their ability to further analyse their conditions.  
• Poverty-focused capacity building: MS wants to direct this activity towards issues of poverty reduction in order for partners to become better able to address poverty and its causes.  
• Advocacy and lobbying: Decision-makers and elites often disregard the conditions of poor people. Advocacy and lobbying are crucial in order to put poverty reduction and the causes of poverty on the agenda.  
• South-South co-operation: Isolation and marginalisation are clearly visible dimensions of poverty. To bring different groups of poor people together will in itself reduce these dimensions and can initiate action to address the causes of poverty.  
• South-North co-operation: Isolation and marginalisation can be counteracted through links between South and North. Besides a contact that is a value in itself, the co-operation can initiate effective advocacy and lobbying for the poor at the global level. 

For some partners, the obvious response to a specific challenge will be to establish different types of South-South co-operation, maybe combined with elements of South-North co-operation. For others this will be a later phase, after support has been given to people’s own initiatives and the partner has developed a certain level of capacity. So within a MS country programme, the whole scale of possibilities are likely to be present, and in the total lifetime of a partnership, it is also likely that several of the different types of intervention will be utilised. How successful this approach will be, will very much depend on the ability of the partner – and MS – to analyse, dialogue and reflect openly, critically and realistically on the needs and possibilities.

 

7. Meeting people not only in cyberspace

Life in the traditional local village is characterised by the possibility of knowing most of the people in the village personally. This is not possible in the global village, but ever since the founding of MS in 1944, it has been an important objective of our work to contribute to making it possible for people with different cultural, social and national backgrounds to meet. Because we believe this meeting in itself has value, and because we believe it can contribute to establish joint co-operation for the creation of a more equitable world order. The objective of intercultural co-operation is therefore maintained as a seperate objective in the draft for new MS in the South principles.

Concrete contact among people secures a development work that is sensitive to the specific context. The relationship is markedly dominated by mutual, experiential learning. Both parties contribute and gain. But once again it is important to emphasize that there is no blue-print approach to this dimension in our work. Various options are available:

• South–South: In the context in which MS works, most partners are isolated and their work is narrowly issue based. Links to others working in different or similar contexts provide an opportunity to share and exchange ideas.  
• Fora for people’s interaction: MSiS wants to provide fora where Southern partners can interact with each other, with northern development practitioners, and other actors in development. The interaction will facilitate linkages, networking, and alliances.  
• Posting of DW’s: Facilitating opportunities for people to work together in new settings enables mutual inspiration and learning. Such experiences can be obtained through goal-oriented and carefully prepared postings of northern development workers in the South and southern development workers in the North.  
• Engaging young people: It is important to provide opportunities for young people to experience the intercultural meeting and to contribute to development. In that way, they become aware of the richness of cultural diversity and of global inequalities. At the same time, young people can provide rich resources and alternative perspectives.

By developing this part of our programme further in the years to come, we can hopefully prove to the world that life outside cyperspace is even more fascinating than the life inside cyperspace!

 

8. Civil society in the new Danish strategy

The review of the present MS in the South programme and the drafting of the new principles have taken place parallel to the debate on a new strategy for Danish development co-operation in general called Partnership 2000. Part of this debate has focused on the development of a civil society strategy of Danida, for the first time ever.

Partnership 2000 has recently been adopted by Parliament. The new strategy clearly states that the role of civil society must be recognized as part and parcel of all the official activities, to the extent that civil society is seen as a legitimate partner in official co-operation. And it is stated that NGO activities increasingly should focus on advocacy rather than on social delivery. A conclusion which follows the results of the 1999 Impact Study, which were presented in some detail in our Message for the Annual Meetings in 2000.

MS has participated actively in this process, and we believe that the thinking of the Danida strategy is very much in line with our MSiS thinking. We also believe that this means that we are now entering a period where development co-operation is being re-politisized. We are increasingly recognising that development co-operation is more than a technical fix! It is a deliberate intervention intended to change the distribution of power, resources, opportunities, etc. between various groups in a society. This is true for what Danida is doing, and it is certainly also true for what MS is intending to do.

 

9. Global Action 2001: Peace & Reconciliation

MS was founded in 1944 by people who believed strongly in the need for ordinary citizens to make an effort, individually as well as together, to prevent nations from solving their differences through violent conflict and war. They believed that the inter-personal and inter-cultural meeting could develop the understanding and solidarity among ordinary people that would be needed to prevent politicians from using military means of conflict resolution.

We know of course that much more than that is needed. We have experienced hundreds of wars and violent conflicts since the end of World War II, and most of the programme countries of MS have experienced one or more conflicts since independence. There is certainly an important role for global society to play in preparing for the peaceful settlement of conflicts, and for reconciliation after conflicts, and this role needs to be carried by the UN in particular. But there is also an important role for all of us who operate at local levels.

Let us combine our efforts and show the world that local experiences can contribute to a peaceful world!