SDGs require balanced power ties
Various power groups need to be more transparent and accountable. These include state pillars.
One of the heartening aspects of international relations in recent years was the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a global framework for action in 2015. The aim is to attain 17 goals in the fifteen year period by 2030. There has been a great “buy-in” in that states have committed to these goals without exception.
While that commitment is welcome, the realities are more challenging in relation to effective implementation. The SDGs underline five “P’s” — peace, people, planet , prosperity and partnership. What should be highlighted also is the sixth “P” which concerns “power” and the call for transparency, accountability and accessibility of various power groups in their interaction with other stakeholders. This is particularly linked with Goal 16 of the SDGs which aims to promote “peaceful and inclusive societies”, provide “access to justice for all” and build “inclusive institutions at all levels”.
This was one of the more sensitive goals in the discussions leading to the SDGs, precisely because it touched upon anti-violence, anticorruption, anti-discrimination, participatory decision-making, and rights and freedoms. In a manner, goal 16 is a euphemism for our aspiration to realise not only peace but also human rights, good governance and democracy.
Yet the SDGs tend to underline “what” to achieve rather than “who” is responsible “to whom” and “how” to implement effectively. This calls for an understanding of the power relations at play in the global-local settings and the need to establish more balanced relationships, as well as more checks and balances against abuse of power.
The “what” elements are simple enough, in principle. Goal 16 elaborates upon various sub-goals such as reduction of all forms of violence and related deaths, ending violence against children and promotion of the rule of law.
How then to balance the power relations between the “who” and “to whom”, and “how” to do it? In essence, there are various power groups which need to be more transparent and accountable. These include state pillars, particularly governments, including local governments, parliaments and the judiciary; international organisations; law enforcers, particularly the police, prosecutors, judges, and the armed forces; and the business sector.
“To whom” should there be more emphasis to ensure sustainable development? Key stakeholders include women; the poor, including slum communities; children, youth and families; non-nationals, including migrant workers; indigenous peoples, ethnic groups and minorities; refugees and displaced persons; the ageing population; and persons with disabilities. In the middle between the power groups and those stakeholders are the human rights defenders and related civil society members, such as non-governmental organisations, which often advocate for a sense of balance.
Most intriguing is the “how” to do it factor. There is a need to leverage for responsible and responsive leadership and administration by the power groups noted for more laws and local by-laws, policies and practices compliant with human rights and democracy, equitable collection and use of taxation, and peopleoriented investment (such as in small scale and now nano-industries).
There is the call for more integrated and inter-generational planning and implementation in view of the fact that in the next decades, some 60% of our population will live in urban areas, while not forgetting the needs of the rural population. There is an interface with the ageing factor, as well as the rise of a middle class which will test consumerism’s impact on the environment to the limit. Access to education, healthcare, shelter, and occupations are all dependent on fair opportunities, a reasonable allocation of resources, budgeting and disaggregated data.
How to build transparent settings and exemplary law enforcement? While it is relatively easy to call for more accession to treaties such as the UN Convention against Corruption and the mass of treaties on anti-crime and anti-terrorism, the equally difficult challenge is how to prevent crime and corruption before they happen and how to build good law enforcers with ethical conduct. Countries should look hard and fast at how the police, for example, are chosen, how much incentive they are given, and how they are monitored. If they are badly paid from the start, it is not surprising that some will err. A good practice from one country is to have ordinary people sit on boards which monitor police performance and act as a check and balance against erring elements, with due accountability.
As for the emphasis on the rule of law, it is generally recognised there are two versions of this. The “thinner” version is based on the claim that a country already has various laws and institutions to govern society, such as the presence of courts. The “thicker” version, however, expects much more. The rule of law should also mean respect for human rights, good governance and accountability, and this is already blessed by the presence of a UN General Assembly resolution to this effect. The criminal justice system also needs to be more psychologically attuned.
Nor can there be a substitute for the building of a mindset that is responsive to sustainable development. Education for democratic citizenship, and its permutations such as peace and human rights education, are essential from a young age to counter violence, discrimination and violations. A UN campaign against bullying at school, together with more programmes for positive discipline avoiding corporal punishment at school and at home, needs to be maximised.
Moreover, pro bono community work and cross-cultural activities, such as inter-youth programmes enhancing non-discrimination, and practical contribution to environmental protection are at the heart of how to nurture implementation of the SDGs — not only materially but also non-materially.