Khil Raj Regmi must go to the UN General Assembly with a bold new vision of development that is people-centred and pro-poor
Several commentators in the media have rightfully questioned the value of Chairman of the Council of Ministers Khil Raj Regmi’s attendance at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) at a time when the country is in such a difficult position and urgently needs to prepare for elections.
The UNGA, the main decision making body of the UN, is undoubtedly important. In an era of globalisation, decisions made outside of our country have enormous impact on us locally—economically, environmentally and socially. No doubt, at this General Assembly, the war in Syria will be the main topic of discussion with tensions between Russia and the US particularly high. But the UNGA is also focusing on key development issues of enormous importance to Nepal—the future global development agenda. It is critical that we take part in these global discussions. But will the presence of Chairman Regmi in New York ensure a strong, people-centred and pro-poor position?
It has been recognised that our world is more unequal than ever before. Our current model of development, mainly based on increasing opportunities for profit making, particularly for multi-national corporations, is benefiting one percent of the world’s population. Rich countries are getting richer at the expense of poorer countries, rich people are getting richer at the expense of the poor and women are bearing more and more of the burden of globalisation, as well as patriarchy.
At the UNGA, Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, will table his report, “A life of dignity for all: accelerating progress towards the Millennium Development Goals and advancing the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015”. This report is important because it will lay the foundation for the creation of sustainable development goals and give direction to proceeding discussions and programmes that will frame future development strategies.
So what is Nepal’s vision for a new development agenda? How should the global economy be re-framed to benefit the poor, women and the most marginalised? How should development address endemic problems like violence against women, trafficking and forced migration? I have seen little evidence of these questions being discussed in Nepal. If Regmi is to go to the UNGA, he needs to go with a mandate from the people, with a vision that is shared by the people, particularly the most marginalised amongst us. We should be shaping the global development agenda in a way that is truly people centered.
There may well be signs that Nepal has made progress in achieving some existing development goals. But did this progress reach everyone? Who has benefited from growth and ‘development’? The existing goals failed to consider inequalities amongst populations and between countries and failed to address the urgent issues of climate change and over-consumption. Discussions on the post-2015 agenda provides space for countries to analyse shortcomings, incorporate lessons learned during implementation of the MDGs and firmly demand transformations that fulfill the aspirations of people and enable them to lead dignified lives. To do this, governments need to proactively and meaningfully engage constituents. Otherwise, their participation in the UNGA simply becomes an expensive ritual.
The Secretary General’s report draws from other reports, some of which involved consultations with some civil society groups. I congratulate the Secretary General on the report, which will provide a good starting point to debate global visions for development. The Secretary General identifies five transformative shifts for the new development framework (i) leave no one behind; (ii) put sustainable development at the core; (iii) transform economies for jobs and inclusive growth; (iv) build peace and effective, open and accountable institutions for all; and (v) forge new global partnerships. These priorities will play a major role in shaping the post-2015 development agenda.
As a woman from a developing country like Nepal, I am concerned that the report doesn’t go far enough in genuinely transforming existing approaches to development. While the report does mention gender equality, it does so in vague and generalised ways. Women’s rights will not be realised unless entire frameworks are transformed. Gender equality will not be realised simply by encouraging more women to work
when we know the work available to them is most often the lowest paid, least secure and most exploited. Gender equality will not be realised simply by insisting that women have equal property rights when we know that very few communities living in poverty have control over their land and that increasing amounts of land are forcibly taken from subsistence farmers.
In a country where there are, on average, two rapes per day and women are burnt alive as witches or murdered in the name of dowry, we know that development is meaningless without freedom of movement, bodily integrity and an end to patriarchal assumptions that allow men to act with impunity.
So will our government have the courage and political will to go to the UN and demand a genuinely transformative agenda—one that is not driven by the World Bank or by multi-national corporations but by people? We should send representatives to the UN with a different vision, a vision of development justice, which requires five transformative shifts—(1) redistribute wealth, resources and power; (2) create just and sustainable economies where labour is valued and economies work for people, not for speculative profit; (3) ensures social
justice, gender justice and genuine human rights enjoyment where all human life is equally valued; (4) creates environmental justice where polluters pay and a new sustainable public sphere is prioritised; and (5) includes real, democratic accountability to the people, particularly those who have had their voices silenced.
Within this framework, we will need specific goals, targets and indicators. Will our government demand a gender goal that requires governments to
prioritise the elimination of violence against women? Will it demand a
goal to end wealth and resource inequalities between countries, between rich and poor and between men and women? Will it demand goals for universal social protection, for living wages, for new global tax systems that create revenue for the transformation needed here in Nepal?
There are governments who are championing the rights of the poor in this agenda. Latin American governments including Bolivia, Uruguay, Nicaragua and Brazil are leading calls for a transformed global framework. But we also have some governments in Asia who are demanding more just global policies. At a recent regional ministerial meeting I attended, Bangladesh was a leading voice for a transformative agenda that expressly includes climate change, migration, inequalities, food security and accountabilities. In my experience, Nepal is far less vocal, even though it has a mandate to bring the voice of the people, of the marginalised, of the poor.
If Regmi is going to spend any time away from Nepal at this critical period, we must make sure that it is in the interests of our people. Let us insist that our government lead this debate and offer a bold new vision of development.
Rajbhandari is Chairperson of the National Alliance of Women Human Rights Defenders
Published in The Katmandu Post, 2013-09-16 09:12
http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2013/09/15/oped/travel-matters/253657.html