Delivering services through a faith-based NGO in Zimbabwe..." Credit: Walter Keller, third-eye-photography.jimdo.com
By Azza Karam
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 12 2019 (IPS)
Since 2008, a number of articles/opinions have been written, on the nexus between religion and development.
In chronological order, the articles first made the case for why ‘religion matters’ to the attainment of developmental objectives, noting how religious leaders are critical to changing social norms which can be in contradiction to human rights, and noting the extent to which faith-based organisations (FBOs) have anyway served as the original social service providers known to human kind.
Around 2014, the articles continued in the same vein, i.e. making the case that partnering with religious actors was an increasingly recognized necessity within the UN itself, but also for other governments and non-governmental development partners.
Except this time, the argument incorporated some of the political facets of religion. At the height of the ISIS/so-called Islamic State terrorism, the articles argued for recognition of the value of religious engagement, whether it was intervening in combatting Ebola or seeking to counter violent extremism.
In 2015 and 2016, the call was to acknowledge that increasing partnerships with religious NGOs, for health, education, nutrition and other aspects of development, was “the new normal” for development practitioners.
Azza Karam
Moreover, the argument was that such partnerships were in and of themselves, a means of countering the narratives of violence and extremism in communities.In 2017, however, another note crept into the analysis on the intersections between religion, development and foreign policy: a note of warning.
The caution noted the increasing preference, undertaken by certain governments, in promoting more direct partnerships with religious NGOs in other countries, rather than supporting multilaterals to scale up successful partnership initiatives for the SDGs/Agenda 2030.
The article noted that the interest on the part of some governments to circumvent multilateral partnerships and aim for direct support to specific religious NGOs abroad, carried a “…danger … that such efforts will be misconstrued as the new colonial enterprise in international development, playing into rising religious tensions globally.
History is replete with examples where mobilizing religious actors in other countries, no matter how well-intentioned, can create some rather unholy alliances”.
In fact, this was the beginning of a now ongoing concern wherein ‘religion’ and ‘religious engagement’, somehow delinked from people’s faith and/or beliefs, are increasingly perceived as an element in the toolbox of development and foreign policy praxis – i.e. a transactional commodity.
This can take many forms. Including an increasing convening of FBOs as ‘non traditional partners’ to be hosted and feted around policy tables, building new NGOs and INGOs around ‘religion’ and ‘religious engagement’, formulating business propositions around these themes, and now, increasingly, seeking to tap into the financial resource bases of some of these faith-based entities (largely Islamic ones).
A few of the most skeptical voices are now noting (mostly in private conversations) that ‘add religion and stir’ could be argued to be ‘the new flavor’ in the market of international development.
But being in the ‘toolbox of practices and approaches’, per se, is not unhelpful. On the contrary, development – writ large to include peace, security and human rights – is a series of learned processes.
By now it is even a cliché to say that there is no one-size fits all development intervention. By extension therefore, different ‘tools’ are needed to assess what or which intervention works, and what may not, in diverse contexts.
And there is a significant body of evidence built, which proves that FBOs are key actors in development, and that investing in partnerships with FBOs is cost-effective and socially transformative (see the Joint Learning Initiative on Faith and Local Communities – https://jliflc.com/
But when ‘religious engagement’ can be part of a transactional approach, are there guarantees that the link to people’s faith, and belief systems, will not be forgotten, overlooked, or worse still, appear to be abused?
The fact is, FBOs symbolize, and in some cases, epitomize and uphold, what many people actually believe in. That is also why many FBOs can draw upon the regular contributions of believers (e.g. donations and collections in churches and zakat contributions).
Many FBOs are pleased with the secular policy makers’ increased attentions, and eager for more as they see this as a vindication of their particular wisdom and unique value-added.
But some are beginning to voice an increasing skepticism, “[W]e feel as though we are treated, at best, as a rubber stamp… instrumentalised to serve already agreed upon agendas…” is not an uncommon refrain.
The increase in the number of meetings (mostly of the same groups of FBOs) is not necessarily accompanied by equivalent financial and/or political support to actual multi-faith collaboration or advocacy.
Nor are these multiple convenings, leading to innovative governmental or intergovernmental support for broader, integrated civil society engagement for human rights, in an era of shrinking civic space globally.
Some of the smaller FBOs are slowly beginning to question the time they are devoting to answer the increasing meetings hosted by some governments and organisations.
Their presence at these increasing number of meetings, the FBOs argue, is likely contributing to enhance the appearance of the conveners’ image as ‘sensitive to religious sensibilities’; as being ‘concerned for freedom of religion or belief, or for religious minorities (often not in their own back yard but in other countries), and/or appearing to be savvy enough to address the ‘missing link’ in development and peacemaking interventions.
Yet other international FBOs, by now well-versed in engaging with certain policymakers, are taking the opportunity to stipulate thinly veiled conditionalities for their engagement. Peacemaking, environmental stewardship, protection of children and minorities, are all ‘good’.
But gender, gender equality, gender identity, comprehensive sexuality education, reproductive health, reproductive rights, sexual rights, and/or family planning, are all no-go areas for some of the well-established FBOs.
The price for engagement on one set of issues with these partners, therefore, may well be the forgoing – or silencing – of the human rights – and dignity – of others.
Other faith-based partners are viewing the governmental and intergovernmental interest in their methodologies, and now, increasingly, in their resourcing modalities (e.g. in Islamic financing) with more suspicion.
Barely accusatory questions such as “are you interested in partnering with us or in picking our brains?” and “why are you interested in our money all of a sudden?” are now heard in more than one meeting whether in Stockholm, New York, Cairo or Buenos Aires.
Certainly such questions can be dismissed as misunderstandings or lack of awareness, or shrugged off by those whose convictions are so strong that the right thing is being done. But would it be wise, perhaps, to pause and reflect on the root causes which may be inspiring such questions in the first place?
Are we honoring multi-religious civic collaboration for sustainable development, or are we possibly risking making religious engagement a transactional enterprise – and thereby forgoing some of the most difficult human rights?
The post Religion & Development: An Enhanced Approach or a Transaction? appeared first on Inter Press Service.
Excerpt:
Dr. Azza Karam is a Senior Advisor at the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), Coordinator of UN Interagency Task Force on Religion, and Professor on Religion and Development at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
The post Religion & Development: An Enhanced Approach or a Transaction? appeared first on Inter Press Service.
Credit: CIVICUS
By Lysa John
BELGRADE, Apr 11 2019 (IPS)
It is an incredible privilege to welcome you all to the ‘International Civil Society Week’. I am going to remind us of the reasons that make it so important for us to be here in Belgrade this week.
This is our 16th global convening of civil leaders and 4th edition of the International Civil Society Week in particular – following on from events held in South Africa, Colombia and Fiji.
Our first World Assembly, as it was known then, was held in Hungary in 1997, and this time we have gathered in the Balkans – and we are very grateful to our peers in Serbia for hosting us.
Serbia currently features on the CIVICUS Monitor’s “Watch List” which draws attention to countries where there are serious and ongoing threats to civic space.
By hosting ICSW 2019 in Serbia, we hope to shine a spotlight on the strengths and challenges of civil society in this region, and find ways to amplify and support their efforts.
Civic freedoms are currently under attack in 111 countries. In other words, over six billion people face serious challenges in the exercise of freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly which are essential to an empowered and enabled civil society.
There is a continuing crisis facing civil society organisations and activists across the world – a global civic space emergency. Our job is to find ways to ensure this does not become the ‘new normal’.
We cannot be the generation that lost the fight to protect civic freedoms and democratic values. We owe the citizens, civic leaders and communities of the future a significantly stronger basis to organise for and achieve their rights.
There aren’t many people in the world who can genuinely claim to wake up every morning thinking about how to make the world a more just, more honest and more compassionate place. And yet, we have close to 1,000 people in this very room who do just that.
With over 900 delegates from 100+ countries gathered here, you can safely expect to meet every major form of civil society that works to defend and promote human rights worldwide – ranging from community groups, social entrepreneurs, academic organizations, campaigning networks, think tanks and foundations — in one place over the next few days.
We have the opportunity to connect lessons and inspirations while we are together here. Yet it is the changes that we will test and activate when we return to our personal and professional spaces that make being here worthwhile.
This could be refreshed strategies to challenge discrimination and exclusion or new ways to demonstrate innovation and accountability as a sector.
Our deliberations must reflect the urgency and intent required to make the changes we need to see in the real world – and in this gathering right here we have exactly the kind of determination and optimism needed to see this through. Thank you for being here – we wish you a truly inspired week!
I cannot end without thanking again our hosts in Serbia, Civic Initiatives and the Balkans Civil Society Network, for their warm and generous hospitality without which we wouldn’t be here.
A special mention is also due to the hosts of the previous ICSW held in Fiji – the Pacific Island NGO Forum – who are also here. Thank you for the lessons and achievements of our last gathering, which has enabled us to be more prepared and more ambitious this year.
The post Shining a Spotlight on the Strengths & Challenges of Civil Society in the Balkans appeared first on Inter Press Service.
Excerpt:
This article is part of a series on the current state of civil society organisations (CSOs), which is the focus of International Civil Society Week (ICSW), sponsored by CIVICUS, and scheduled to conclude in Belgrade, April 12.
Lysa John, Secretary-General of CIVICUS, in her opening address to the International Civil Society Week (ICSW)
The post Shining a Spotlight on the Strengths & Challenges of Civil Society in the Balkans appeared first on Inter Press Service.
Infringements of press freedom and the targeting of journalists is one of the topics being discussed at the International Civil Society Week (ICSW 2019) - an annual gathering of civil society leaders, activists and engaged citizens taking place in the Serbian capital Apr. 8-12. Courtesy: CIVICUS
By A. D. McKenzie
BELGRADE, Apr 11 2019 (IPS)
“Stay safe. There’s no story worth dying for.”
That’s the message to journalists from Nada Josimovic, programme coordinator of Amsterdam-based media rights organisation Free Press Unlimited.
Most journalists would agree with her. But beyond the threat of physical harm, women reporters and journalists of colour run another risk: being harassed online, with the spouting of sexist and racist venom.
This, of course, happens to rights defenders as well, all over the world. But in the case of women, the harassment is “sexualised … sometimes with threats of rape,” said Josimovic.
“How does one protect oneself?” she asked, during a panel discussion on press freedom at International Civil Society Week (ICSW 2019) – an annual gathering of civil society leaders, activists and engaged citizens taking place in the Serbian capital Apr. 8-12.
Co-hosted by the Johannesburg-based global civil society alliance CIVICUS, the meeting is focusing on a range of issues that include infringements of press freedom and the targeting of journalists.
As the event took place, news surrounding the deaths of media workers continued. On Apr. 11, the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Audrey Azoulay, issued a statement condemning the killing of a sports reporter in the north-western Mexican town of Salvador Alvarado on Mar. 24.
“I condemn the killing of Omar Iván Camacho Mascareño,” stated Azoulay. “I trust the investigation underway will enable the authorities to bring the perpetrator of this crime to justice.”
Mascareño, of local radio broadcaster Chavez Radiocast, was found dead with signs of severe head trauma and injuries indicating that he had been beaten to death, according to media reports.
UNESCO issues its “condemnations” on a regular basis, given the frequency of attacks.
The UN agency has the mandate to promote the safety of journalists and does so “through global awareness-raising, capacity building and a range of actions, notably the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity”, according to the organisation.
This includes a module on Combatting Online Abuse: When Journalists and Their Sources are Targeted, but Josimovic and others stress that enough isn’t being done to end the specific harassment of women journalists.
“I think that media outlets don’t have good support systems for this kind of attacks,” she told IPS. “The legal aspect is also complicated.”
Social media companies, for instance, will not reveal the address of the perpetrators when the targeted individual complains, she said. Additionally, there is sometimes a lack of solidarity from editors and colleagues who have never experienced the harassment.
“Because it’s not happening in the real world, people kind of minimise the effect,” she added. “But women in general face more harassment on-line. In every sector, it’s there.”
Anyone who has doubts about this has only to look at some of the reports via the International Women’s Media Foundation, she said.
Rights activists say that broad coalitions were needed to promote the protection of rights and that journalists and human rights advocates need to work together. Courtesy: CIVICUS
Because of the similarity in methods used to attack rights defenders globally, press freedom groups and civil society organisations should increase ways of working together, said some delegates at the ICSW meeting.
Vukasin Petrovic, senior director for programme strategy at Washington DC-based rights monitoring organisation Freedom House, said that broad coalitions were needed to promote the protection of rights.
“Journalists and human rights advocates are the centrepiece of any strategy,” he told IPS. “The protection of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are in the interests of both.”
Responding to a question about required journalistic “distance” and impartiality, he acknowledged that sometimes the relationship between the media and civil society can become too close.
“We do need transparency and accountability on all sides,” he said. “But building coalitions can make advocacy more powerful.”
For Dragan Sekulovski, executive director of the Association of Journalists of Macedonia – a country that’s “a champion when it comes to wiretapping” – part of the defence of media needs to come from the sector itself.
That includes promoting quality journalism and “leaving this to the audience to judge”, he said. In this way, public opinion may swing in favour of the media, helping to deter attacks and harassment.
“Quality” journalism requires resources, however, and as various media groups point out, the sector has been ravaged over the past years by job losses, low pay, copyright abuses and other ills.
This is compounded by declining public trust – because of a range of factors, including smear campaigns, accusations of purveying “fake news”, journalists’ own behaviour, and, of course, calling media “the enemy of the people” as American President Donald Trump has done.
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, many of Trump’s tweets so far as president has “insulted or criticised journalists and outlets, or condemned and denigrated the news media as a whole”.
It has thus become an uphill battle to get some sections of the public to see the importance of journalists’ work, and to engage actively in protecting media freedom, said activists at the ICSW meeting.
“Media organisations need to engage with citizens to make them understand why (citizens) need them,” said Josimovic.
Whether this would stop the attacks and harassment, especially of women journalists, is anyone’s guess. The issue will no doubt be raised again during discussions May 1-3, when the “main celebration” of UNESCO’s World Press Freedom Day takes place in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Related ArticlesThe post No Story Worth Dying For appeared first on Inter Press Service.
Excerpt:
This article is part of a series on the current state of civil society organisations (CSOs), which will be the focus of International Civil Society Week (ICSW), sponsored by CIVICUS, and scheduled to take place in Belgrade, April 8-12.
The post No Story Worth Dying For appeared first on Inter Press Service.
By Ulysses Dorotheo
BANGKOK, Thailand, Apr 11 2019 (IPS)
The image of a smoking toddler from Indonesia horrified the world but did little to motivate local policy makers to enact measures to protect children and youth from the harms of tobacco use. Indonesia has one of the world’s highest smoking rates where two out of three men and about 40 percent of adolescent boys smoke.
Cigarette prices in Indonesia are among the cheapest in the region, where a pack of Marlboros is sold for as little as US$ 1.70, while local brands or loose sticks are dirt cheap ($ 0.05 per stick), easily affordable to the nation’s 65 million smokers.
Indonesia has a complex tobacco taxation structure of 12-tiers, dividing between machine-made white cigarettes, machine-made Kretek cigarettes, hand-rolled cigarettes, size of manufacturing factories, and more. Annual increases in tobacco tax are small, having little impact on cigarette prices to reduce consumption, especially among the poor, who form the bulk of smokers.
In 2017, the Ministry of Finance issued a Regulation on Tobacco Excise Tax to increase tax for 2018 and at the same time stipulated a roadmap for the simplification of tax tiers, reducing from 12 tiers to 5 tiers by 2021.
The tier simplification roadmap was viewed as a win for public health, as fewer tiers will close the tax and price gaps and reduce the incentive for smokers to switch to cheaper cigarettes. However, a year later, in November 2018, the simplification roadmap was suddenly revoked thereby cancelling the tax increase and tier reduction.
In his review of hundreds of news articles, Mouhamad Bigwanto, a public health researcher from the University of Muhammadiyah Prof. Dr. HAMKA, saw pro-tobacco industry groups unfold a systematic, tactical plan that led to the defeat of the tobacco tax increase and tiers simplification.
Documented in Tobacco Industry Interference Undermined Tobacco Tax Policies in Indonesia, released by the Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA), his findings illustrate the tobacco industry’s plan to present the industry as being crucial to the economy, while simultaneously undermining and derailing the tobacco excise policy through a coordinated multi-pronged strategy.
In mid-2018, the Coordinating Ministry of Economic Affairs released a new Tobacco Roadmap on the importance of the industry. This Tobacco Roadmap was the product of Independent Research and Advisory Indonesia (IRAI), a think-tank that the Ministry engaged, whose founder and head was the former CEO of Sampoerna Foundation, the charity arm of PT HM Sampoerna, which is owned by one of the world’s biggest cigarette manufacturers. IRAI lists Sampoerna Strategic, a tobacco-related entity, as one of its clients.
The pro-industry Tobacco Roadmap rationalizes the importance of the tobacco industry to the economy and argues for its protection and growth until 2045, rehashing past arguments used by the industry to oppose tobacco control.
It formed the basis to initiate and support measures to reject tobacco tax increase and simplification. The Roadmap was introduced and explained to various government departments including with the Ministry of Health.
Various pro-tobacco industry front groups were mobilized to build support and create public pressure. These groups vocalized a consistent main message that increasing tax will ruin the industry that employs 6 million workers, resulting in massive unemployment and reduction in government revenue.
The messages of these groups were all well-aligned, echoed, and re-echoed to reinforce one another. Media coverage of their messages reached a crescendo at the appropriate time. On cue, academics and research institutes generated and released evidence that rejected tax increase and tiers simplification.
A prominent religious organization which has a powerful voice in the Muslim majority country issued a clear message that the government must revoke the excise simplification plan. Champions from relevant government ministries, such as Labor and Industry, made pro-industry statements that influenced the decision-making process up to the highest executive level (President’s level).
In contrast, voices from health groups supporting tax increase and simplification were less in frequency and magnitude compared to the pro-tobacco industry voices, such that at the end of 2018, following strong pressure from various pro-tobacco industry groups and institutions and systematic interference from the tobacco industry, the Government announced it will not increase the excise tax in 2019 and revoked the simplification roadmap.
The cancellation of the tax increase and annulment of the simplification roadmap show both the might of the tobacco industry in influencing policy makers and the vulnerability of the Government to industry interference.
While the tobacco industry’s strategy to defeat tax increase may not be new or novel, the willingness of policy makers to respond positively to the industry is astounding when juxtaposed against current global awareness on the harms of tobacco use.
Across the globe countries are setting target dates to become tobacco-free, but the Indonesian government is moving purposefully in the opposite direction to protect the tobacco industry for the next two decades, unmindful that about 230,000 Indonesians are killed annually by tobacco-related diseases.
Paradoxically, at high level meetings, Indonesia has committed to implement the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which include a target to achieve health for all by reducing tobacco use.
Clearly other measures are needed to protect public health policy from being undermined by commercial interests. These include:
*SEATCA is a multi-sectoral non-governmental alliance promoting health and saving lives by assisting ASEAN countries to accelerate and effectively implement the evidence-based tobacco control measures contained in the WHO FCTC. Acknowledged by governments, academic institutions, and civil society for its advancement of tobacco control movements in Southeast Asia, the WHO bestowed on SEATCA the World No Tobacco Day Award in 2004 and the WHO Director-General’s Special Recognition Award in 2014.
The post Revealed — A Roadmap to Defeat Tobacco Tax & Keep Indonesians Addicted appeared first on Inter Press Service.
Excerpt:
Dr. Ulysses Dorotheo is Executive Director of the Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA)*
The post Revealed — A Roadmap to Defeat Tobacco Tax & Keep Indonesians Addicted appeared first on Inter Press Service.