Resistance to Principles and Programmes

Political Resistance

Many practitioners described political resistance to the human rights elements of development practice.  When this resistance was strong or absolute, some country offices met this challenge by advocating incrementally.  By first advocating only for specific human rights principles or rhetoric, practitioners were able to engage more productively with government counterparts who were strongly resistant to human rights per se.  Once these initial elements had been introduced and specific concessions made, practitioners found it easier to advocate on additional principles and rhetoric that would have been clearly impossible before.  (See also Advocacy Strategies and Incrementalism.)  

Country offices reported mixed results from this strategy, however, and suggest that obtaining government support on a limited set of principles or rhetoric alone can in some instances be dangerous.  In some contexts, this exposed programmes to ‘hijacking’ by political actors who supported human rights rhetoric so actively that they took over programmes, or initiated their own programmes, without, however, implementing human rights principles or methodologies.  In one instance, a human rights based approach to development was widely and enthusiastically endorsed by government, but international technical assistance on human rights was firmly rejected, as it was viewed foreign interference. 

Some country offices noted that political resistance at the local level is often based less in principled politics, than it is based in the personal and political interest of individuals.  Political actors at the sub-national level often feel threatened by programming that entails a significant amount of international expertise, and which may offset established power-balances.  Country offices stressed the importance of including local political interests in decision-making processes from the very beginning, and recommended the use of ‘mixed teams’, in which local political authorities are well represented.  Practitioners also stressed the importance of clearly defining roles and divisions of labour in such mixed teams, so that they do not become arenas for political struggle. 

Other country offices point out that political resistance may also stem from a perceived threat to traditional development practice.  In this regard, and for resistance in general, practitioners have noted that quality programming is itself an effective tool.  Once programming with human rights elements has produced successful projects, and demonstrated that it does not threaten to displace established practices, local actors will be naturally less resistant to such programming.  This may be capitalized on by raising awareness among development practitioners on the successful completion of project phases.  

It is also important that government participation includes representatives of the senior officials whose political support will be necessary at the implementation phase.  One country office reported that after successfully drafting a human rights and MDG based development plan through participatory processes, and with the support of municipal officials, that plan was vetoed by the Mayor of the municipality, who had not been involved in the drafting process.  Several country offices have stressed that it is necessary to have political backing from senior management within UNDP country offices.

Cultural Resistance

Country offices have also reported cultural resistance to human rights norms and the MDGs, especially those related to gender equality, non-discrimination against people living with HIV/Aids, secularism and indigenous rights.  The responses of country offices and regional practitioners indicate that this resistance is often more problematic in workshops and local activities than it was at national and policy levels.  When addressing gender equality, all survey respondents stressed the importance of contextualization, and described varying success with the identification of corresponding norms in religious dogma.  Some practitioners validate all training kits and publicity tools with local groups before use, and report that this has improved reception, but has a tendency to water down content.  Some practitioners found that they needed to focus discussions on gender equity rather than equality (fairness rather than formal equality), and that in workshops settings, it is especially helpful to provide broad guidelines, but allow participants to discover and highlight issues themselves (for example, by providing statistical data and asking participants to “highlight their perceptions as to where gender discrimination is most prevalent;” i.e.: education, employment, etc.).    Other practitioners note that in terms of gender equality, women tend to be “desperate for rights” and that the key is thereby to target local leaders with specific strategies to gain permission to hold training sessions for women, taught by women, with the hope that this will introduce a sustainable grass roots demand. 

In regard to HIV/Aids, country offices have consistently noted the importance of scientific evidence and presentation when addressing cultural resistance to norms.

Passive Resistance

Several country offices reported “passive resistance” by government officials, who claimed to support programming efforts, but failed to take necessary steps to allocate resources or restructure decision-making processes, to give final approval, or to even act at all in implementation phases.  As with explicit political resistance, country offices often attributed this to both principled resistance and lack of knowledge regarding human rights.  Similarly, many country offices suggest that the best countermeasure to passive resistance is preventative action, and recommend the early and active engagement of government counterparts in programming.  Government involvement in early decision-making phases will allow programmers to detect points of conflict early, and address them before expending resources.  Country offices have also reported that merely involving government officials in cooperative planning processes with other stakeholders seems to make government officials more receptive to politically contentious programming elements.  Similarly, participation of government officials in capacity building exercises throughout programming will help to ensure that development plans are not ignored at the implementation phase due to lack of understanding. 

Country offices also responded to passive resistance by supporting grass roots advocacy efforts of local community groups and CSOs, and supporting grass roots capacity building that enables individuals to demand their rights.  It was acknowledge, however, that this was an incremental response, which would only yield long term results. 

Contents Capacity Gaps Resistance to Principles and Programmes National Institutional Failures Local Social Contexts Methodological Challenges Shortcuts Home | Country Examples | Common Features | Tools and Resources | News and Events | Email | Print Page | Comment Comment Your name: Your email: Please add any comments you have below: