Act on peace building using international human rights norms

SOUTH Africans know that promoting peace in contexts of deep social inequality is a complex task. The pursuit of social justice that would address underlying causes and sustain peace is often associated with increased tension and even violence.

We strive to build such peace using international human rights norms. But these are often abstract tools that can exacerbate tensions in local contexts. Their effectiveness is ultimately dependent on how they are interpreted and used by local stakeholders.

South Africa stands out as a country that has embraced international norms, in the constitution and in the form of social justice campaigns. These have, however, been deeply contentious paths to justice and peace.

In the past year, examples of such tensions have included challenges to local governments around the enforcement to the right to sanitation and the right to education. These conflicts have indicated that normative frameworks, at the local, national and international level, do not exist within a socio-political and economic vacuum – but rather exist at the interface between a legacy of deeply rooted historical injustices, a new constitution and the ratification of international human rights treaties.

In post-conflict environments, international actors typically approach peace building through the lens of international human rights norms to deal with the causes of conflict and lay the foundation for a more stable peace. Such approaches, however, may exacerbate tensions at national and local levels as newly mobilised groups confront deep-seated and often “illiberal” political, social and economic orders that resist change and protect the status quo.

International human rights norms often frame the conflict in a way that is ill-suited to addressing local conflict, the dynamics, or core causes of conflict. For example, it can frame the right to sanitation as simply part of the right to basic services such as water – de-linked from the right to land, dignity and bodily integrity.

In Khayelitsha, local actors have questioned the applicability of international norms to their context for the very reason that it does not address the sanitation crisis in as part of a broader struggle for adequate local government response and prioritisation of permanent infrastructure in informal settlements.

Similarly, while recognising the norm of the right to education in South Africa, a narrow conceptualisation of this right in relation to higher education in a context of deep structural inequality can serve to reproduce patterns of socio-economic exclusion. An example is when #FeesMustFall presents a challenge to the international normative framework which positions higher education as a “niceto-have” addition after basic education. The movement approaches higher education as part of a broader strategy to break patterns of structural violence and exclusion that include both economic and cultural legacies.

When we simply transfer “global” ways of dealing with conflict, new conflicts emerge or old conflicts are exacerbated because situations on the ground are rooted in complex local histories and deep social inequalities.

Local dynamics differ, and without the indigenisation of international norms, practitioners may be creating new obstacles for peace building.

It is not enough to have a regulatory framework that meets global standards – we must be able to reflect on the normative frameworks that exist within certain locations. The national governments use of terms like “batho pele” (people first) and the now over-used “ubuntu” reflect attempts at this type of indigenisation.

The Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation’s (CSVR) research has shown that while international norms have been incorporated extensively into the South African legal and policy framework, there are still considerable challenges around realising the delivery of these rights.

These challenges are in no small part due to the failures at the local government level where international norms and the policies that are intended to give them meaning are viewed as removed from local realities. While the better resourced and more developed metros are better able to deliver services, even they are unable to significantly reduce the social inequality where fault lines fall along contentious identity politics.

Take, for example, Khayelitsha. While the provision of sanitation and water has increased in comparison to rural areas, it has been done in a manner that is not equitable, dignified and safe.

These tensions around the minimum standards provided by international norms and the needs of local communities has contributed to exacerbated tensions. The result is that local actors have stepped into this space to contribute to sustainable peace through a range of strategies and mechanisms. This includes the re-politicisation of social development and socio-economic rights so that the continued disproportionate implementation of policies is highlighted as a class, race and gendered issue and not solely a developmental process.

Organisations are also using innovative ways of tapping into international norms and human rights to support their engagement with government.

They are seeking to localise these norms in a way that make communities feel their needs are recognised. In this context, activists use public protest as innovation to expedite state responses.

Activists are also linking different human rights, highlighting that the relationship between rights and realities is complex and fluid. Thus the right to sanitation, for example, is intimately linked to the right to land, to housing, to education, to dignity and bodily integrity. And violation of one arena of rights has negative effects on others in complex ways.

Finally, local activists are beginning to highlight to international actors that norms in and of themselves are not catalysts for change. Instead, these norms serve as tools that are only helpful when combined with a mobilised community and responsive institutions to appropriately ensure that local norms and values, such as “batho pele”, hold practical weight.

It is not enough to merely apply international standards to our complex problems. We must explore the complex interactions between global human rights frameworks and the patterns and effects of social mobilisation at national and sub-national levels in the global south.

In doing so we will be able to explore the tensions and opportunities provided by international human rights norms to address structural inequalities, and their relationship to conflict and violence.

Ndinga-Kanga is research manager at the CSVR and co-host of the recent Innovations in Peace Building workshop where this research was presented.