CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS
Thank you for the opportunity to reflect on the links between cultural diversity and human development. The overall theme of this seminar, as well as the themes of its constituent sessions – culture and development, human rights and human development, cultural indicators of human development – are all, of course, linked to each other. One of the useful purposes of a gathering like this is to make sense of how they are linked, and to devise theoretical premises and practical strategies to address all of these, not simply as independent sites of struggle in their own right, but as an integrated whole in order to realise a more just world order in which the optimum conditions prevail for holistic human development and a decent quality of life for all.
The 2003 Human Development Report of the UNDP picks up on the statement of Mahbub al Huq, the former Pakistani Minister of finance who apparently suggested the idea of a Human Development Report. He said that “the basic purpose of development is to enlarge people’s choices.” One of the principal goals of cultural diversity also is to ensure that people have choices, and that these choices are enlarged.
But other than through overlapping statements of intent, what are the links between cultural diversity and human development indicators?
One cannot really speak about cultural diversity, human development, democracy, human rights and related themes without locating these in the context of globalisation. Globalisation – which is essentially about the increasing integration of national economies through the removal of barriers to free trade – has resulted in people in different parts of the world being connected to each other like never before. What happens to people in one part of the world has direct consequences for others in a completely different part, and the decisions by and the interests of some in one country, may impact on the lives of many in other countries
Globalisation – like technology – is not an intrinsically bad thing. The increasing interconnectedness of human beings across the globe has the potential to bring increased freedom and an improved quality of life for all. However, depending on whose vision defines it, whose interests it serves, who controls it and how it is managed in practice, globalisation can also lead to increasing exploitation, greater gaps between the rich and the poor (globally and within nation states), and less freedom for individuals and communities to act in their respective interests.
Under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) signed in 1994 and now overseen by the World Trade Organisation, local economies are to be opened up to competition from foreign firms in accordance with the philosophy of the global “free market” and with less state protection for local companies and industries. In terms of GATS, cultural industries producing films, television programmes, books, magazines and music would no longer be able to enjoy regulatory protection from international competition, and, despite the initial “cultural exemption” clauses, neither would governments be able to provide subsidies to support their competitiveness in the global market. Subsidies are regarded as distortions within the global “free market”, giving unfair advantage to the subsidised companies.
The problem with this understanding is that it assumes that everyone starts on an equal base, and is therefore as free as everyone else to compete in this global market. The reality is completely different where a few countries, many of which grew wealthy from their colonial exploits, are able to compete much more effectively than poorer countries, many of which are still struggling to overcome their colonial pasts.
On the cultural front, this means, for example, that the more resourced film and television industries of the USA will have even greater access to local markets without any restrictions such as local content quotas. With local film industries no longer able to enjoy subsidies from government, they will simply cease to exist resulting in a loss of work for local screenwriters, directors and actors. Furthermore, it is cheaper for developing countries to import cultural products from abroad rather than invest in their own cultural industries, so that – spurred on by free-trade agreements - the dominance of foreign cultural products carrying aesthetic models, worldviews, moral values and ideas from the originating country will be even greater. There is the fear that this will lead to increasing homogenisation in which people in countries throughout the world will begin to develop similar values, worldviews and tastes given the influence of these cultural products. Democracy and choice are thus placed under threat as there will be fewer alternatives with respect to ideas and worldviews and fewer products from which people may select.
Within this broader context of the global free market and the increasing privatisation of public services and institutions, with more and more emphasis being placed on “the market” as the ultimate arbiter of the value of anything, governments are inclined to decrease subsidies to the arts and support for the creativity of individual artists is in decline. This has huge and adverse implications for the practice of freedom of expression and the exercise of human rights as governments abdicate responsibility for the creation of the optimum conditions for the practise of human freedoms in favour of the dictates of “the free market”. In reality then, it is those with access to resources or who are independently wealthy whose voices will most be heard, who will most be able to create and distribute their art.
In colonial and apartheid times, foreign governments or local minorities with their roots in colonial powers ran our countries, and imposed their cultures (language, artistic forms, media services) as integrated and integral components of the colonial project. Now, in our post-colonial, post-apartheid, post-Cold War world, it is much the same with the wealthy located in countries beyond our borders, but still influencing greatly our economic and political policies, still impacting significantly on our cultural practices and still affecting the nature of democracy and the exercise of human rights in our countries.
What is “cultural diversity”?
Cultural diversity could mean different things depending on the context in which it is used. In Africa for example, it could conjure up notions of the divide-and-rule strategies on the basis of ethnicity employed by colonial and apartheid regimes, and with all the attendant human rights abuses. In some parts of post-colonial Africa, cultural diversity has been a source of oppression and even genocide, where ethnic loyalties and cultural identity have been the basis for accessing and maintaining power and privilege, and denying these to others. Cultural diversity in post-apartheid South Africa raises the spectre of neo-apartheid as cultural groups, like Afrikaners, demand separate space in the name of cultural diversity. In more developed countries facing influxes of immigrants, cultural diversity is about multiculturalism, respecting and integrating minority cultures into the cultural mainstream.
However, in the context of globalisation and free-trade agreements, cultural diversity refers particularly to the potentially negative effects of regarding culture or cultural goods simply in the same way as toothpaste or cars or T-shirts. If this is the case, then markets would be open, and products from the US would flood local markets even more. Promoting cultural diversity in this context means ensuring that local cultural industries and products are not wiped out, that local artists and creative industries are protected, and that people are given the choice of a range of cultural products. It also means that they are given access to a greater range of ideas, worldviews, moral values and aesthetic tastes, and it is about affirming local languages, values, cultural practices and ideas.
It is no accident that we communicate with each other in Africa in English, Portuguese and French. The imposition of foreign languages as official languages was part of the colonial project, as were the spread of Christianity, the control and use of the media, the suppression of traditional cultural practices and the elevation of foreign art forms as the ultimate standards of civilisation. Globalisation and free trade in cultural products have a potentially similar effect: to assert the moral, aesthetic and ideological hegemony of wealthy elites, and so – in Gramscian terms – the rest of us come to be ruled by our own consent in that we have internalised the values, ideas and perspectives spread through these cultural products and media services. Cultural diversity then, is also about ensuring ideological, aesthetic and moral pluralism.
The 2003 Human Development Report of the UNDP indicates that the of the 34 countries reflecting the lowest human development, 30 of them are African countries, of which 25 occupy the bottom spots of the list of 175 countries. Life expectancy for sub-Saharan Africa is listed at an average of 46,5 years, compared with the 77 years of countries reflecting high human development and 67 years for those with medium human development. The adult literacy rate is an average of 62%, the combined enrolment at education institutions is an average of 44% and the GDP per capita is $1 831, nearly 13 times less than that for countries rated high on the Human Development Index.
Clearly, there are huge disparities in the quality of life for people across the globe, disparities which have deep roots in colonialism, and which now have to be tackled within a global economic system that in fact favours and serves the interests of the already rich.
And so the vicious cycle continues. Developing countries with the primary human development needs, have to conform to the dictates of those who control the resources they need. Institutions such as the World Economic Forum (WEF), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) play major roles in imposing and sustaining the global economic system by demanding developing countries to adhere to “free market” economic policies in exchange for loans, investment, development funds, renegotiation of debt repayments and the like. In line with these policies, many developing countries are now selling off public enterprises to private sector companies so that transport, water, health, sanitation and the provision of numerous other basic public services are now driven by profit for shareholders rather than the broader interests of society. Human development now means less than market share and short-to-medium returns on investments.
The proponents of the global free market economy argue that by stimulating the economy and allowing the market to have maximum freedom, jobs will be generated, people will earn more, and ultimately, people’s lives will improve. This has come to be the prevailing wisdom that also informs the primary models of development. Yet, globalisation in its current form and practice – driven as it is by the inexorable need of multinationals to increase profits by having unfettered access to cross-boundary markets and relatively cheap labour - simply exacerbates the disparities between rich and poor countries. It is difficult to see how those countries at the bottom end of the human development index are ever going to be able to provide the optimal conditions for human development when they have to find the resources to do so in a global economy that structurally prejudices them.
The International Labour Organisation recently released its report on globalisation entitled “A Fair Globalisation: Creating Opportunities for All” in which it states that an “urgent rethink” is necessary regarding current policies and institutions of global governance. The report states that “There are deep-seated and persistent imbalances in the current workings of the global economy which are ethically unacceptable and politically unsustainable….Seen through the eyes of the vast majority of men and women, globalisation has not met their simple and legitimate aspirations for decent jobs and a better future for their children.”
With the decline of the Soviet Union and its allies with their highly regulated, state-managed economies, the primary vision and economic model driving globalisation is that of the “free market”. State-run economies were generally associated with a lack of human freedoms and the absence of democracy, so that in the post-Cold War era, regulation of the economy is increasingly viewed as anti-freedom, political interference. For some then, the extent of the “freedom of the market”, is regarded as a significant political indicator of human freedom and of democracy within a society.
On the other hand, often the developing world allies of the US, the main proponent of free-trade and the global free market system, have undemocratic political systems and repressive practices that blatantly disrespect human rights.
However, little pressure is placed on such countries to change their systems, because they serve and protect the interests of multinational companies or the strategic military interests of the US.
In exchange for the loans or investment funds required by developing countries, they are often required to reduce state expenditure, decrease the social welfare net and create more attractive and stable conditions for foreign companies that often result in job losses and increased hardship for local communities. Any opposition from such communities is then dealt with in fairly brutal fashion by governments who need to protect the interests of the multinationals “investing” in their countries, and the interests of their local elite counterparts.
Foreign companies work through local companies and individuals who gain massive financial advantage from such service. Rather than expand democracy and human freedoms, such private sector companies play an increasingly important role in funding the election campaigns of parties and individuals to look after their interests with those who make political and economic policies. While people may vote at elections, it is ultimately the wealthy and their interests that impact most on the outcome of elections and more importantly, on decisions made by governments between elections. The global “free market” has thus become a vehicle not for the advancement of humankind, but for neo-colonialism in which the interests of wealthy countries and their surrogate elites in developing countries benefit mainly.
The points that may be distilled from this are the following:
a. there is no necessary correlation between the expansion of the free-market and the growth of democracy and respect for human rights; in fact, there is evidence of the contrary i.e. that repressive practices grow when the free-market oriented interests of the wealthy are threatened
b. there is no necessary correlation between the absence of democracy and human freedoms and the decline in human development; in fact, countries with less democracy and respect for human rights, often score well in most of the human development indicators
c. there is no necessary correlation between the growth of the free-market in a country, and a positive effect on the human development indices; in fact, often, people in countries that are already low down on the Human Development Index suffer even more when their governments conform to the free-market dictates of institutions like the World Bank, IMF and wealthier trade partners, and the trend is towards a continuous downward spiral rather a necessary period of hardship before an economic and humanising upturn takes effect
d. it is not enough for human development indicators such as life expectancy, literacy, GDP per capita, school attendance and others to determine whether countries are creating the optimum conditions for human beings to realise and practice their fundamental rights and freedoms as articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; there need to be democracy and human rights indicators too.
e. the primary current drivers of the global economy and of development are located within, and arise out of particular cultural contexts, and reflect the values, the worldviews, the intellectual ideas of those contexts, and which may continue to be completely antithetical to the conditions and cultures of those who are to be the supposed beneficiaries of development and of free-trade
f. while even developed countries like France, Canada and Australia are engaged in the battle for cultural diversity as they legitimately fear the adverse impact of free-trade on their creative industries and on their cultural identities and practices, it is developing countries – particularly those at the bottom end of the Human Development Index, and let me remind you that 30 of those are from sub-Saharan Africa – that are also the most vulnerable to potential cultural homogenisation. At the mercy of those who control the resources they need to improve the quality of lives of their inhabitants, such countries will embrace free trade, open up their economies and become increasing dumping grounds for Hollywood cultural products, and for their own creative and media industries to be owned by and reflect the interests, values and worldviews of foreign companies.
In short then, the struggle for human development is integral to the struggle for economic justice which is integral to the struggle for a sustainable environment
which is integral to the struggle for democracy which is integral to the struggle for human rights which is integral to the struggle for cultural diversity which is integral to the struggle for cultural rights which is integral to the struggle for development that respects culture
If this is the context for human development, how do we proceed? And how do we measure progress? What indicators do we use? What do we mean by cultural indicators? Would these include indicators of cultural diversity? And how would we know which cultural indicators are linked to development, and which are linked to globalised trade? For globalisation has even greater potential to impact on culture than traditional models of development. And how do we link cultural and cultural diversity indicators to human rights and democratic indicators? And what of democracy itself? Is it not itself a cultural construct, based on particular ideological assumptions and propagating particular values? And if it is a desirable departure from traditional cultures where kings or chiefs hold sway, who decides? When do we venerate culture and when do we actively seek to transform it, for example, those that in our view, might be oppressive of women? Who decides? And are there standard cultural indicators that can be used for all cultural contexts when the progressive goal of cultural diversity might imply that a value in one culture might carry a completely different value in another? And might the pursuit of cultural indicator standards not itself militate against cultural diversity and promote homogenisation? Are there African versions of democracy? And African practices of human rights? Are there African cultural indicators of human development? Indeed, is Africa homogenous, with a common or dominant set of values? Which Africa? Traditional or contemporary? Rural or urban? Central or Western?
However we answer these questions, and some of them are deliberately put to stimulate the excellent minds gathered here, there are practical ways in which at least cultural diversity can be pursued.
First, UNESCO’s decision to create a Convention on Cultural Diversity that will govern the exchange of cultural products as opposed to this being done at the WTO by finance and trade and industry ministers is a very positive move.
Second – and this will raise the same debates as the Technology fund – but it would make sense to create a global fund to support cultural industries, particularly in the developing world, as there would be little point in having an international convention to protect local cultural industries and cultural diversity, if countries did not have the means to create and distribute the cultural products that would give real local content to cultural diversity.
Thirdly, if it is true that development is a cultural process and that culture and development are integral to each other as promoted by UNESCO for decades, perhaps a percentage of all development funds, or a percentage of all budgets for development projects need to be allocated to culture, whether in the form of a cultural impact assessment, an evaluation of the cultural impact of the project on its completion, or simply to employ artists in certain aspects of the project.
Fourthly, and this is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I’ll say it anyway, perhaps we could establish a new universal indicator of human rights, democracy, cultural rights and human development using the artist as such an indicator. In most societies – even developed ones – artists are among the most vulnerable workers. In recognition of this, UNESCO adopted its Recommendation on the Status of the Artist in 1980 and has established an Observatory to monitor the implementation of this Recommendation among member states. The status of artists and their rights with regard to the practice of freedom of expression, their education and training, their right to form trade unions, to participate in policy processes that affect their lives, their working conditions with regard to safety and minimum wages, their social welfare with respect to pensions, medical care and taxation, their freedom and ability to create and distribute their art, will, I believe, be good indicators of the level of democracy, of respect for human rights, of the promotion of cultural diversity and of human development.
Finally though, I’d like to end with what was articulated yesterday by some: ultimately, it is about organising people to advance, protect and defend their interests. Democracy is not going to be guaranteed by politicians or even by constitutions and constitutional courts. It is when people come together and take action to monitor what is being done, and to take action when appropriate, to pressurise their governments who in turn will pursue these interests locally and in multilateral forums, that democracy is promoted and has any real effect. UNESCO can create the tools such as Conventions, treaties and reports, but it is up to artists and cultural communities to organise themselves nationally and globally to articulate and lobby for their interests to their respective governments and in international forums that deal with issues pertaining to their livelihood and the exercise of their rights. It is not just about working at the levels of government, experts, intellectuals and at multilateral continental agencies.
Human development, cultural diversity, democracy, human rights – these are for the people. And it is up to the people to make sure that they enjoy these.
Mike van Graan March 2004