Post-2015 Development Agenda: Goals, Targets and Indicators
Candidate Goal 9: Empowering People to Realize their Civil and Political Rights Guarantees of civil and political rights are enshrined in the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which recognizes that, “In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights” (UN, 1966). This provided the basis for the Millennium Declaration and, in turn, the MDGs. Several existing goals align with the nine core international treaties on human rights and include goals addressing economic, social and cultural rights, but none of the current MDGs highlight civil and political rights. In our regional consultations, participants raised concerns about the logic of singling out political and civil rights, while omitting economic, social and cultural rights. Instead of taking a “rights-based approach” mainstreamed across all goals, we presumed that civil and political rights are the cornerstones of empowerment. The goal on civil and political rights focuses on people’s ability to participate in, negotiate with, influence, control and hold accountable the institutions that affect their lives. There is a view that people are the prime agents of development and should influence decision-making processes. As the UNDP has argued, “Statistical indicators are a powerful tool in the struggle for human rights. They make it possible for people and organizations — from grassroots activists and civil society to governments and the United Nations — to identify important actors and hold them accountable for their actions”(UNDP, 2010). In June 2008, the UN Office of the High Council of Human Rights released the Report on Indicators for Promoting and Monitoring the Implementation of Human Rights (UN, 2008). The report undertook an extensive survey of the use of quantitative information in monitoring human rights, assessing the literature and prevalent practices among national and international organizations. Lists of illustrative indicators were elaborated for both civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. Three types of human rights indicators were identified: structural, process and outcome. Structural indicators track the ratification and adoption of international treaties, their incorporation into domestic legislation and the existence of basic institutional mechanisms for realization of the rights; process indicators show states’ policy instruments and efforts to implement human rights; and outcome indicators measure the result of states’ efforts, the efficiency and
effectiveness of their policies and the enjoyment of rights by their peoples. Ideally, the emphasis should be on outcome indicators that monitor the results of governments’ and institutions’ efforts, but it is important to note that they are more difficult to measure. Furthermore, success measured by structural and process indicators such as human rights treaties, norms and policies do not necessarily translate into practice. There are considerable challenges with data. Several indicators are quantifiable and can be obtained from administrative data, while others are qualitative and can be derived only from surveys or subjective expert assessments. Accountability data should come from sources external to the government to ensure it is reliable and unbiased (but most MDG statistics come from national statistics agencies). There is no incentive for governments to provide information that reflects poorly on themselves. The number of reported violations may be misleading — the most oppressive regimes can have the worst reporting mechanisms. Civil and political rights are inherently a quality issue; thus selecting indicators that provide a reliable measure on any of these dimensions will be difficult. One approach is to develop international surveys. Although perception-based data can be problematic, good practice can provide useful data. An excellent example is the Strategy for the Harmonization of Statistics in Africa (SHaSA).16 It is intended to build on the UN Statistical Commission’s commitment in 2002 to investigate statistics on democracy, governance and human rights17 and the values laid out in the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) Declaration. The Afrobarometer is another source of inspiration, as is the Mo Ibrahim Index and its data providers.18 The UNDP Oslo Governance Centre works with developing countries to produce indicators to monitor democratic governance reform.19 Of course, proponents of surveys must take care in crafting value-laden questions20 and presenting results in one-
16 For details, see www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/ Documents/Publications/AfDB,%20SHaSA_web.pdf. 17 The commitment was prompted by the 2000 Montreux Conference on Measuring Democracy, Governance and Human Rights. See www. paris21.org/sites/default/files/2806.pdf. 18 See www.afrobarometer.org and www.moibrahimfoundation. org/en/section/the-ibrahim-index/methodology. 19 See www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/ democraticgovernance/oslo_governance_centre/governance_ assessments/. 20 See “Yes Minister” on leading questions in opinion polls: www. youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA.
Potential Indicators and Targets for Candidate Goals
23