June 1999, Vol. 3, No 2



by Carola Donner-Reichle

In the aftermath of the Cold War, the World Summit for Social Development was held at a critical time in world history, a time of transition and hope. The Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action reflected important shifts in the international consensus on security and poverty. One major success of Copenhagen was the interlinkage between poverty, unemployment and social exclusion worldwide. The concept of poverty was enlarged to include lack of access to basic services, lack of access to resources, exclusion from participation and lack of decision-making power. Another major success was the recognition of the role of civil society in national and international policy, in both the planning and implementation process.


     The standards set in Copenhagen were high yet the question remained how governments and the international community would fulfill their obligations for human development.

     Consequently, the first UN Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the Special Session of the General Assembly on the Implementation of the Outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and Further Initiatives was held in May 1999 in New York. The task was to look into the preliminary review and appraisal of the Implementation of the Outcome of WSSD as well as further Actions and Initiatives to Implement the Commitments made at the WSSD for the Special Session of the General Assembly, to be held in Geneva, June 26-30, 2000. However, at 4 a.m. on Saturday, May 20, 1999, PrepCom I ended with no agreed draft texts on further actions and initiatives. Why was it not possible to reach consensus? In order to illustrate the different views, I highlight two areas of contention.


The role of civil society

     In the Programme of Action, the participatory role of civil society, including NGOs, was agreed upon in order to enable them to “participate constructively in policy-making, implementation and evaluation”. The European Union (EU) under the German Presidency, led by the Ministry of Economic Co-operation and Development, reaffirmed this aim and asked for the widest possible NGO participation in the Special Session. The EU wished to follow the examples of other follow-up processes of UN Conferences, e.g. Cairo plus 5. It was stated that NGOs should have the opportunity to address the plenary and the Committee of the Whole of the Special Session as had been the case in Copenhagen. One suggestion was to have roundtables at the Special Session for intensive dialogue between government delegates and representatives of NGOs. Some members of the Group of 77 (G77) could not agree to those proposals. In their position paper and speeches, the G77 qualified their references to civil society with “as appropriate” or “in accordance with national legislation”.

     Many advocates of social reform and progress are found in organisations of civil society. Many of them have an ethical or religious foundation which defines their understanding of their work. Newer organisations have been founded to be active in lobbying and questioning the relevance and effectiveness of political processes to contribute as “watchdogs” and critical partners of governments. Often they bring in their experience from their work at the grassroot level, giving voice to the voiceless. Therefore, they can be an actor for positive social change and governments should use their potential in reaching the goals of Copenhagen. Experience has shown that development can only take place with the participation of civil society.


Social Policy at the national/international level

     During the PrepCom, many different views arose on social and economic development at the national and international level. The G77 emphasised the importance of international macroeconomic policy approaches (e.g. finance for development, far-reaching institutional reforms of Bretton Woods, more debt relief efforts, measures to control international financial speculations), while the EU argued that many of the suggested topics be addressed in ongoing parallel negotiation processes. The EU emphasised sustainable reforms at the national level, political reforms (democratisation, human rights, good governance), development /or further action of social protection systems and social dialogue. The HIPC (Highly Indebted Poor Countries) initiative was seen as one important step for the least developed countries to support social development. Official development assistance to stop the downward trend was another important issue as the recent World Bank proposal to reaffirm the leading role of the UN on establishing principles and good practice in social policy. However, some suggestions were perceived as a possible new conditionality and as the EU could not agree on some proposals of the G77, the negotiations stopped short of consensus.

     Thus, the upcoming intersessional meeting in New York, August 30-September 3, 1999, will have to find new ways to reach the understanding of common goals.

Dr. Carola Donner-Reichle is Senior Advisor, International Social Development, in the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Fax: 49-228-535-3755.
Email: donner@bmz.bund.de



by Rudy Collins

“Achieving Social Development for all in a Globalized Work” is the basic theme of the follow-up to the World Summit for Social Development, scheduled to be held in Geneva in the year 2000. It is a title which promises so much but reveals little about the dynamic, on-going process of international and national social reform that quietly but inexorably has been forcing itself on the consciousness and conscience, of mankind.


     Copenhagen was a milestone in this seemingly irreversible process. But it was an important milestone in that for the first time the world’s leaders, collectively, gave formal recognition to a number of developments that could no longer be ignored. Among these was the recognition that alternative development paradigms ought to be more closely examined since the traditional one which focussed on the acquisition of wealth as the principal contributor to a process of sustainable national development was still proving to be an illusory concept. They also recognised that the gap between the rich and the poor continued to widen even in situations of sustained economic growth. Above all they gave formal recognition to the importance of people as individuals and as groups, as marginalized entities and as minorities, and in all their other manifestations – for whom the process of development was intended to benefit but whose rights were often subordinated to the overriding process of wealth accumulation.

     It is important therefore to understand that the Social Summit along with its Commitments was not a mere intellectual exercise. It is unfortunately true that most of us who deal with the prescriptions of the Summit are ourselves divorced from the misery and unhappiness that are the daily companions of the majority of the world’s peoples. What many of us, who are not yet touched by this misery should at least take due note of, is that the Social Summit was the formal manifestation of an ongoing movement that is revolutionary both in its character and on its impact on all of our lives. We may be approaching a situation of national and international crisis.

     The fact is that long before Copenhagen there was growing awareness that despite all the economic prescriptions, despite all the indications of economic growth, despite the statistical evidence that people were better off, the reality was that the gap between the rich and poor was constantly widening, the unemployment and underemployment figures were progressively rising and that everywhere there were subtle indications that the social fabric that holds our society together was slowly disintegrating.

     Again the fact is that long before Copenhagen, there were emerging grassroots organizations, which from their perspective were witnessing at first hand these non-social developments. They were among the first to question the conventional wisdom that development has to be driven by economic factors if it is to have sustainable results and benefits. Their concerns are in large measure shared by the Group of 77 and China whose membership comprise the majority of the world’s poor and which has a vested interest in the practical achievements of the Summit.
The Special Session in the year 2000 will be another milestone in a process that does not depend on summitry for its ultimate realization. Such Summits are necessary however. They serve to focus attention on the impending crisis in our societies, to examine how to mitigate it and to consider how to address its fundamental causes and remedy them. They provide opportunities for the collective wisdom to create that climate of global understanding which in turn will recognise that there are fundamental social implications as a consequence of the globalization process for example.

     Copenhagen was a positive step forward in this direction. It specified a number of actions that needed to be taken at the national and international levels to stave off this impending crisis. The Special Session in Geneva will re-examine the concepts of Copenhagen, assess what progress has been achieved and determine what further steps need to be taken to achieve the stated goals. The more cynical among us will posit that a Social Summit twenty (20) years hence, will be doing the same thing. By that time however the crisis would already have been upon us.

     The industrial revolution was a slow process and the social dislocations which accompanied it had time to adjust to the changes in the name of progress which industrialization occasioned. We are in another period of revolutionary change brought about by the technological advances that are taking pace at almost lightning speed. Accompanying it, insidious in its silence but cataclysmic in its potential for social upheaval is the demand by the world’s poor, marginalized, and disadvantaged, for a better quality of life in a situation in which they daily experience the consequences of the widening gap.

     A few years ago the leaders of the Caribbean Community brought into effect a Charter of Civil Society intended to reflect the hopes and aspirations of the people of this sub-region, their rights and responsibilities, and the role of the Governments and the elements of civil society, including NGOs in ensuring the creation of a just stable society collectively involved in a process of sustainable development. The interesting aspect is that the Charter was produced without the full consultative process that ought to have been an integral input into such an important document. Yet the Charter of Civil Society is quite reflective of the mores of the Community. This certainly indicates that Governments, at least some of them, are not unaware of the revolutionary social process that is taking place. The gap in this case is between idealism and reality. The Social Summit – and perhaps the Special Session in Geneva as well – reflected the same awareness and dichotomy of idealism and reality. The real issue before us is about closing the gap between the ideals of the Summit’s Declarations and Commitments on the one hand and the experience of the world’s peoples as they live the reality of unfulfilled commitments.

     The Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) and the work which all of us should be doing in the months and years ahead should be focused on seizing what opportunities that exist and searching for new ones, all in the interest of addressing these social ills. During the PrepCom it was asserted that what was needed to close the gap was essentially the political will to do so. This certainly is an important motivating factor. It certainly suggests that an answer, hopefully not the only one, lies in the will of the people being nurtured, educated and focussed by the many elements that comprise our Civil Society. In civil society rests our best hope now for turning crisis into opportunity. The numerous organisations covering every aspect of our societies and particularly the views of the marginalized, youth, women and children, the elderly, migrants, the disabled, minorities, the rural poor – are really the representatives of the victims of our society, who feel the brunt of economic recessions and the impact of structural adjustment programmes. The views and solutions proposed by the poor and the marginalized are relevant to our consideration of their future.

     The poor are less wedded to time honoured traditions and have less to lose by challenging their own value systems. Their mindset, although shared with the rest of society, can be more readily opened to pronounce, with greater authority, on matters that are in their best interest. They are, in fact, the “political will” which a caring government must seek to interpret and to address.

     This leads to the final point in this commentary which revolves around an elaboration of Commitment I of the Social Summit – an Enabling Environment, but which permeates all of the Ten Commitments. Good Governance in the exercise of that political will is essential to this entire process of social reform. Without it all of our prescriptions will be to little or no avail. But for it to succeed, Good Governance with all the appropriate adherence to democratic practices, transparency, the rule of law and so on must also be wedded to a firm acknowledgement of the concept that Government is about people, that development is about people and that in the final analysis good governance is one which has as its fundamental rationale the progressive and sustainable improvement in the quality of life of all citizens.



Ambassador Collins is a retired Officer of the Guyana Foreign Service and served as Assistant Secretary General for Human and Social Development of the Caribbean Community. Permanent Mission of Guyana to UN, Fax: 1-212-527-3232.