Human Rights and the Emerging Concept of Good Governance

Paper presented at the Conference "Good Governance for Africa: Whose Governance?" organised by the University of Limburg and ECDPM
Maastricht, 23-24 November 1995

With the collapse of communism in the Eastern European countries some 5 years ago the international discourse on issues relating to democracy, human rights and development entered into a new stage. The goals of what was presented in the seventies as the implications of a New International Economic Order devaluated as political currency. The attention shifted from the claim of equity between nations to the need of equity within nations. The days are over that the UN General Assembly declared the realization of the new international economic order an essential element for the effective promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms and should be accorded priority. While the right to development retained its place on the international agenda as a preferred item of developing countries, industrialized countries wanted to carry on the development debate from a different perspective, in spite of the affirmation in the UN Declaration on the Right to Development that this right is a prerogative both of nations and of individuals who make up nations and in spite of its focus on the human person as the central subject of development and the beneficiary of the right to development. Thus, the tone and the content of the discourse changed and emphasis was put on the virtues of democracy, democratic government, the rule of law, and pluralism. Equally, the global economy made its entrance and reduced the role of the State as the protector of social welfare and of the rights of the vulnerable and the weak.

A striking example of the new approach, in the all-european context of the Conference (now Organisation) on Security and Cooperation in Europe but phrased in a language which radiated beyond European boundaries, is the Charter of Paris for a New Europe signed by the Heads of State or Government of the participating States on 21 November 1990. Under the heading of Economic Liberty and Responsibility, the High Dignitaries stated that "the free will of the individual, exercised in democracy and protected by the rule of law, forms the necessary basis for successful economic and social development. We will promote economic activity which respects and upholds human dignity." And the same High Representatives continued: "Freedom and political pluralism are necessary elements in our common objective of developing market economies towards sustainable economic growth, prosperity, social justice, expanding employment and efficient use of economic resources. The success of the transition to market economy by countries making efforts to this effect is important and in the interest of us all."

In its political outlook the Charter of Paris for a New Europe was an euphoric and almost a triumphalist document. Its rhetoric conveyed a spirit of confidence and of faith in a new future marked by presumed European values and virtues. The Leaders of Europe and North America stated: "Ours is a time for fulfilling the hopes and expectations our peoples have cherished for decades: steadfast commitment to democracy based on human rights and fundamental freedoms; prosperity through economic liberty and social justice; and equal security for all our countries." The prominent international lawyer Thomas Franck, in an article published early 1992 under the noteworthy title The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance, carried the same message far beyond the scope of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Franck wrote "..... people almost everywhere now demand that government be validated by western-style parliamentary, multiparty democratic process. ..... This almost-complete triumph of the democratic notions of Hume, Locke, Jefferson and Madison - in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe and, to a lesser extent, Asia - may well prove to be the most profound event of the twentieth century and, in all likelihood, the fulcrum on which the future development of global society will turn."

I have been quoting these passages from the Charter of Paris for a New Europe and from Thomas Franck's essay on the emerging right to democratic governance, because nowadays, with the former Yugoslavia and Chechnya in our mind and with the images of the Rwandian genocide fresh in our memory, any notion of euphoria and triumphalism appears utterly misplaced. Another reason for referring to these texts written some four or five years ago, is their contextual relevance to the notion of good governance which is the subject matter of this presentation. The notion of good governance is not explicitly mentioned in the Charter of Paris but it stems from the same time frame and forms the expression of the wish to see relationships between countries, in particular development cooperation relationships, not only based on principles of peaceful coexistence but also on sound domestic policies and on the pretended blessings of the market economy.

The policy framework

It is in the same conjuncture that the World Bank started to focus its attention on governance issues and identified as key dimensions of governance: accountability, a legal framework for development, and information and transparency. Senior staff members of the World Bank dealing with Africa stated that the minimum core characteristics of governance "derive from, or are related to, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights". In an analysis of the World Bank's standpoint on governance the New York based Lawyers Committee for Human Rights stated quite aptly - and I wish to underline this statement -: "the governance debate looks to human rights not for their intrinsic value but for their instrumental role in creating an environment in which effective and sustainable economic development can occur". In other words and to put it simply, good governance creates conditions which are auspicious for investment and may foster sound development.

One of the most elaborate policy statements in support of good governance was included in a resolution on human rights, democracy and development adopted under Netherlands presidency on 28 November 1991 by the Council and Member States of the European Community (now European Union). The resolution established a framework for concertation and coordination of ways in which progress in the democracy and human rights fields can be taken into account in bilateral aid policies and in the Community's policy on cooperation with the developing countries. The resolution stressed the importance of good governance. In this connection the resolution spelled out at some length what should be understood by the policy notion of good governance:

The resolution further stated that the Community and Member States will support the efforts of developing countries to advance good governance and that these principles will be central in their existing or new development cooperation relationships. The resolution also indicated that the Community would support initiatives in developing countries aiming at the promotion of respect for human rights and the encouragement of democracy and good governance by expanding resources for these purposes within the overall allocations available for development. From later reports of the Commission of the European Community on the implementation of this resolution it transpires that the principle of good governance is regarded in connection with transparancy in the management of public affairs and that consequently support should be given as a matter of priority to all substantive reforms (decentralization, effective supervisory bodies, tax reform, etc.) which will make it possible to establish, on solid foundations, plans for transparent, open public administration.

Given the role of the Netherlands Minister for Development Cooperation in the preparation and the framing of the European Community resolution on human rights, democracy and development, it is no surprise that many components of that resolution also found their way in the policy memorandum of the Minister which he published in September 1993 under the title A World in Conflict: the limits of development cooperation explored. In the paragraph on good governance, the Netherlands Minister acknowledges that many developing countries regard this new focus on good governance with a good deal of distrust, in particular in view of the fact that the same donor countries who insist on good governance often disregarded in the recent past practices of bad government for reasons of political expediency. He also warns against the automatic transfer of western models of government to other parts of the world. Nevertheless, he discerns a growing consensus that positive measures in the form of support for good governance should be the general rule and negative measures by way of conditionalities the exception.

The principle of mutuality

Good governance is now widely introduced by development agencies, donor institutions and donor governments as a policy guideline in their relationships with developing countries. The latter, as developing countries, may count on favourable consideration by donors to the extent - to use the terms of the European Community resolution - they adhere to a number of general principles of government, notably sensible economic and social policies, democratic decision-making, adequate governmental transparency and financial accountability, creation of market-friendly environment for development, measures to combat corruption, as well as respect for the rule of law, human rights, and freedom of the press and expression. I do not quarrel with this emphasis on good governance as a means to promote equitable and sustainable development in developing countries. However, I believe that efforts to that effect would only gain strength and credibility if also donor countries and donor institutions would declare themselves ready to apply to themselves the same principles of government and undertake on their part political commitments in the sense of mutual obligations.

In fact, the principle of reciprocity is an important rule in international law and international relations. There are certain exceptions to this principle, for instance when basic humanitarian and human rights interests are at stake which should not be made conditional on the reciprocal stand of any other parties, but as far as good governance requirements are concerned I would like to see them accepted more clearly and more explicitly both on the part of donors and of recipients. I will now dwell on some implications which in my view flow from the requirement of mutuality in matters of good governance. They pertain to such areas as spending for basic social programmes, reduction of military spending, transparency in the management of public affairs, and combating corruption. These four aspects are presented by way of illustration and could certainly be expanded to other areas.

A challenging model for commitment on the basis of reciprocity is the 20/20 initiative promoted jointly by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO). In order to ensure universal access to basic social services, developing countries would need to increase expenditures for basic social services from the current average of 13 percent of government spending to 20 percent and donor countries would need to increase their aid allocations in this sector to 20 percent of their total aid budgets from the current level of about 10 percent. The 20/20 initiative is not about money alone. Central to 20/20 is a review of international and national plans and priorities by developing and donor countries alike, to encourage global partnerships in shaping sustainable development strategies. At the recent World Summit for Social Development held in Copenhagen in March of this year the Netherlands Prime Minister expressed strong support of the Netherlands for the 20/20 compact and announced that the Netherlands is fully prepared to implement such compact. The Netherlands worked very hard to have the 20/20 plan endorsed by the World Social Summit and succeeded in having it included in the Programme of Action of the final document of the Copenhagen Summit in the following terms: "Agreeing on a mutual commitment between interested developed and developing country partners to allocate, on average, 20 percent of ODA (Official Development Aid) and 20 percent of the national budget, respectively, to basic social programmes". Although the wording "interested developed and developing country partners" suggests the optional nature of the 20/20 operation, I wish to emphasize the words "mutual commitment" as a good governance undertaking on a reciprocal basis.

I have no indications that the Netherlands or any other arms producing and arms exporting countries would be very eager to enter into mutual commitments with developing countries in order to reduce military spending. Military spending totals nearly US $ 770 billion in 1994 worldwide, including nearly US $ 118 billion by developing countries. In this sensitive area the good governance requirement is apparently exclusively or at least mainly addressed to developing countries. In the resolution of the European Community quoted several times before, very great importance was attached to the question of military spending. The resolution stated quite correctly that excessive military expenditure not only reduces the funds available for other purposes, but can also contribute to increased regional tensions and violations of international law and is often being used for purposes of internal repression and denial of universally recognized human rights. Furthermore, in the same resolution the Community and its Member States announced that they will consider adopting concrete measures in their development cooperation in order to encourage developing countries to reduce their military expenditure, which is often excessive in relation to their legitimate security needs, and simultaneously to implement development projects of an economic and social nature, with particular emphasis on the education and health sectors. With reference to the developed countries - Member States of the European Community - the resolution merely recognized the need for restraint and transparency in the transfer of conventional weapons to developing countries. I have no information to what extent the European Union and its Member States are giving concrete meaning to the objective of reducing military spending in favour of human development efforts. I only refer in this connection to a report, dated 29 May 1991, of the Netherlands Advisory Committee on Human Rights and Foreign Policy on the subject of Human Rights and International Economic Relations. This independent body which serves the Minister of Foreign Affairs in an advisory capacity, questioned the Government's attitude towards the Dutch defence industry. The Advisory Committee stated that since the defence industry is dependent on exports for its survival, this dependence not only constitutes an autonomous factor in fostering the international arms trade but also impedes strict enforcement of the political conditions for arms export industry. One may wonder whether we are not facing a clear contradiction here. To what extent are developed countries, when quite correctly admonishing developing countries about the negative effects of excessive military spending on the development process as an exigence of good governance, taking corresponding measures to control and reduce their own arms exports? Again, good governance is a matter of reciprocal requirements and mutual undertakings.

Transparency and democratic decision-making are for very good reasons listed as ingredients of good governance. In this regard one can raise the question to what extent the structure and the policies of such organizations as the European Union and the World Bank comply with these requirements of good governance. Furthermore, combating corruption is an imperative demand of good governance; a demand that should be addressed to developing and developed countries alike. The UN Commission on Human Rights, in its resolution 1992/50 of 3 March 1992, pointed to the responsibility of the North in connection with the fraudulent enrichment taking place in the South, and raised the question, still unclear in international law, of the restitution to despoiled peoples, for reinvestment in local economic, social and cultural development, of the funds which their rulers have extorted from them, often with the complicity of foreign banks. The role and responsibility of western economy and of western banks in matters of fraudulent enrichment of top State officials was also highlighted in a press release of 8 September 1993 of the International Commission of Jurists:

Concluding remarks

The recent report of the Commission on Global Governance, published under the title Our global Neighbourhood stresses the need for a Global Civil Ethic which should be based on common rights and shared responsibilities - to be embodied in an international document: a Global Charter of Civil Society -, which furthermore should be instrumental in combating corruption and foster democratic and accountable institutions and the rule of law. At the threshold of the 21st century the report carries forward the good governance debate and comes up with a good many proposals for strengthening the role of international law. The report sets out a catalogue of what it calls neighbourhood values with a strong human rights quality: respect for human life, liberty, justice and equity, mutual respect, caring, integrity. It is clear that all national and international actors who carry responsibility and exercise authority have to respect the same values as a mutual undertaking. I have tried to make the point that the requirements of good governance should not be addressed to one side in a relationship but rather be a shared commitment based on mutuality. I want also to stress that in development policy discussions good governance, although definitely related to human rights, does not have the dignity and worth of the human being as its central focus, but rather the creation of conditions which are favourable to the efficient use of resources. Obviously there is nothing wrong in this particular focus, but we are well advised not to equate the fashionable concept of good governance with the more holistic notion of human rights.