The Eradication of Extreme Poverty and Hunger; The Provision of Universal Primary Education; The Promotion of Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women; The Reduction of Child Mortality; The Improvement of Maternal Health; Augmented Efforts to Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases; The Promotion of Environmental Sustainability; Th Development of a Global Partnership for Development.
Ten years on, the success and implementation of these goals has been uneven resulting in some countries seeing far greater results than others.
But, why is this?
It would be easy to point our fingers and say that particular officials of Third World governments are to blame; some indeed are. It would also be too flippant to claim that there was a lack of resources; there is no doubt that in some areas, this may have been the case. One could go a step further and throw an uninformed curveball and assert that in some areas people simply aren't prepared for the changes that the MDGs propose; I would hesitate to doubt, in my ignorance, that surely somewhere this is the case. However, based on numerous Reports, some countries have seen great success and are, rightfully so, hailed by the UN as success stories that resulted from the progressive nature of the MDGs. With this in mind, it seems more or less conclusive that one MDG in particular was the key cause of all of the success which the MDG affected states have experienced; Universal Primary Education...or quite simply, equal access to quality Education itself in whatever guise.
Take a step back in time to the 1985 Nairobi Women's Conference where it was concluded that an international blueprint for women’s rights could not be devised (due to the incredible range of contrasting cultural differences) but rather, advocacy for specific issues could be the only way to realising a gradually augmenting set of internationally convergent gender rights norms. A prime example of this 'truth' and of the success/necessity of grass-roots action is perhaps best illustrated by Sadiqi and Ennaji (2006), whose study of the Moroccan Women’s rights movement documents highlighted that the foundation of L’Association Democratique des Femmes Marocaines sparked the emergence of dozens of small, local, often poorly funded but driven advocacy groups in protest to violence against women. They recognise that, while these groups were primarily funded by larger international organisations, the change itself came about by the Moroccan women realising in the 1980s that the key to change was by accepting that their prosperity would generate over time and would only be facilitated by diligence and education. It is only since the 1990s that the likes of the Mudawana (Moroccan Family Code) have taken place.
So what do we learn from this?
Firstly, while the likes of the MDGs are in some eyes, bland and too general to manifest change, they are this way for a reason; it enables those within affected societies to achieve the level of change they desire! It would be ignorant of us to expect that there should be an 'international standard' for cultural behaviour that all nations should heed to. In my 'Western' mind, it seems perfectly acceptable for people, especially women, in countries with differing cultural norms to my own, to seek gradual change rather than immediate reform. The reasons seem two-fold. Firstly, those with some education already realise that to bring about drastic change and reform could be devastating for both their state and more importantly their own well-being. This is because sudden and total reform could manifest catastrophic rebellion. Secondly, the people affected may themselves not be prepared for the freedoms they can potentially accrue from social change in bulk. With emancipation comes great responsibility and therefore to gradually recieve these freedoms allows for all sides to reaccustom and take stock of the change that surrounds them and in turn, these changes can be institutionalised in their social conscience.
Us 'Westerners' still have little grasp of how other cultures operate. We have been quite sheltered from the traditions of non-Christian/Western culture. We assume that our model is best as it seems that all those within our bubble are free and content. However, we must be more alert and realise that this is not the case. In reaffirming this, I take my cues from the example set by Queen Rania of Jordan, an internationally recognised and respected advocate for human rights, with a focus on the provision of quality education, who has championed this cause and is perhaps one of the most informed voices in the global debate surrounding the misconceptions us 'Westerners' have regarding Arab and Islamic culture.
We are first to point our fingers at alternative religious and cultural norms as the cause of the problems faced by people in developing countries. However, we fail to recognise that in some developing countries, some which we have instilled with a strong Western consciousness, their situation differs greatly from the Arab and Islamic states we are quick to condemn. If anything we need to check ourselves at the door and realise that the needs of people within these developing states transcends our preconceptions of religion and culture. We must also realise that in order for these people to see change in their lifetime, focus must be placed on allowing them to see where change can help, for themselves.
So, How do we do this?
The best way is evidently seen through a non-agenda based, egalitarian quality education forall. As I highlighted with the Moroccan example, change will not manifest if it is forced though social gates with heavy external interference. All we can do is provide the tools for change and enable the people themselves to use those tools. My only hanging question is whether or not quality education can be delivered in a egalitarian manner and without agenda.
It seems that previous efforts to try to bring quality education to developing states have been tampered with by both the institutions delivering it as well as some of the societies recieving it. This idea also applies to things such as Child Labour Policy and Gender Equality.
I recently asked the question regarding education "...is it plausible and can it be egalitarian?" to Queen Rania of Jordan via Twitter. To my surprise, I recieved an answer from her, which stated "Education for All is ABSOLUTELY plausible, & there’s nothing more egalitarian than equal access to quality education".
While I could not agree more with her response, I am not sure that quality education can be delivered in a egalitarian manner. My assertion is by no means a reflection upon the differing cultural and religious institutions within the states in need of quality education, but rather, a reflection on the needs of the people themselves. It seems that there is an often overlooked 'Catch 22' scenario that exists in some countries and societies. That is, while quality education is essential to bring about change; change takes second place to putting food on the table of one's family. In otherwords, if a child from an impoverished family has to work to provide for their family, education then does not matter. This is a sad reality that many face throughout the world and one which I feel needs to be addressed in tandem with quality education by advocats of human rights. As well as the issue of acquiring the basic tools for survival, another issue plagues those within developing communities, that is the chain of multi-national corporations that have the muscle to pressure communites and entire societies into maintaining unacceptable social norms in exchange for jobs. What role will, or have or do, these organisations play in the supplying of quality education in developing state?
It is difficult to literally gauge the impact that the MDGs can have and have had in developing nations however, we can assume that Universal Primary Education of substance is paramount in achieving the freedoms and luxuries that we so often take for granted. While the goals are indeed considered to be 'too humble' by some, to have reached for the sky during the Millennium Summit would have been doing those less fortunate a disservice. We can be cynical and create a divide between West and East or North and South but at the end of the day, this achieves nothing. I used the term "us Westerners" several times to emphasise the notion that the phrase itself matters not when we view the world as a whole. While we in the West enjoy certain freedoms and privileges, we lack the foresight to truly appreciate how those outside of our 'bubble' live and therefore we can often remain ignorant of that which doesn't effect us. By not understanding the way different parts of the world operate we enable stagnation through our misconceptions and demand for assimilation. As well as this, through our cynicism, we ultimately revoke our trust in communities to deal with their issues because we doubt their ability to think for themselves and manifest change. With this in toe, maybe it's fair to say that in order for those in needs of change in developng states to recieve it, we must first change the way we view the world, and perhaps be less contemptuous.
Saturday, February 20th, is World Day for Social Justice; How about this year, we take off our cynic caps and open our eyes and ears?
