How the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can engage with religion

(This blog is based on the report ‘CAFOD workshops on Laudato Si’: Contribution to a global dialogue on progress’; and a paper presented at the 2016 UK Development Studies Association conference entitled ‘Engaging development and religion: Conceptual and methodological groundings’. It was originally posted at LSE Religion and Public Sphere)

By Séverine Deneulin and Augusto Zampini-Davies

One year ago, the world state leaders gathered in New York to adopt the Sustainable Development GoalsIndicators to measure progress towards achieving the goals have now been agreed. The SDGs, in contrast to the Millennium Development Goals, are underpinned by a holistic understanding of development, and are the results of global participatory processes which reflect people’s values. With 84% of the world’s population estimated to be affiliated to a religion, international and local institutions are increasingly acknowledging the importance of religion in their work. DFIDUNICEFUNFPAUNDP, to name a few, have established clear partnership guidelines with faith communities. However, what engaging development and religion means, and how it should be done, remains unclear. Continue reading

Advertisements

SYSTEMS IN FLUX: CONSTITUTION-MAKING, PATRONAGE AND POST-WAR POLITICS IN NEPAL AND SRI LANKA

(This blog was originally posted at Borderlands Asia)

By Jonathan Goodhand and Oliver Walton

Sri Lanka and Nepal may have turned their backs on protracted and bloody conflicts, but the fault lines that fuelled these wars have not gone away.  Instead they continually resurface and shape contentious politics in the two countries.  The crucial challenge facing political elites now is that of constitutional reform. What is the basis of power sharing?  To what extent should power and finance be decentralised? Where should new administrative boundaries be drawn?  How can minority rights be protected?  And how can majority community buy in be assured?

Turbulent post-war politics and constitution building

In Sri Lanka, President Rajapaksa’s ten years in office came to a sudden end last year with a defeat in Presidential and parliamentary elections. In Nepal, Prime Minister Oli’s CPN (UML)-led government was forced out in May 2016 and replaced by the Maoist leader Prachanda, who heads a new coalition with the Nepali Congress and Madhesi parties from the Madhesi plains on the southern border with India. These newly elected governments are struggling to craft new constitutional agreements. In Nepal, Prachanda is seeking to amend the 2015 constitution to appease Madhesi demands. In Sri Lanka, the government is hurriedly drawing up a new constitution, which it plans to finalise before the end of the year and put to a public vote in 2017.

This is a high stakes game, with the future character of the state and its administrative arrangements up for grabs.  At one level this is a struggle involving elected politicians and lawyers, to ensure a fair and legal division of powers and representation.  At the same time, below the formal structures and official debates is a multi-layered struggle involving networks of actors animated by the drive to capture, control, and distribute power and resources. Whilst some see this as a battle for a new kind of politics, others view it as a very old game in which new political elites jostle with older established elites in order to gain access to power and resources – in other words it is as much to do with extending patronage networks as democratizing the state.

Patronage and new forms of claim-making

These tensions have a strong spatial dimension, as claim making from the periphery intersects with patronage politics at the centre. For the political parties that emerged from the states’ peripheries and were part of, or aligned with, the Maoists or LTTE, entering mainstream party politics at the centre  has been a disorientating experience; the clear cut narratives and friend-foe distinctions of ‘justice-seeking rebels’, are replaced by the murky worlds of political coalitions, alliance making and ‘dirty’ patronage politics. Maoists and ex LTTE-aligned nationalists, have found that by renouncing violence and entering ostensibly high-minded debates on constitutional reforms, they have unavoidably been sucked into ‘normal politics’ and deal making.

This new cartography of power is much harder to navigate than the old war-time landscape.  The new politics involves indeterminacies, blurred zones, surprising alliances, and hybrid institutional arrangements – all of which creates a promising environment for middle-men or brokers, who are able to navigate, find new pathways and make new connections, during periods of rupture or flux. These fixers can jump the synapses between political networks and parties leading to surprising alliances and policy positions. Muslim politicians in Eastern Sri Lanka, for example, have sought to balance the demands of their constituents in the periphery against the need to form coalitions with and extract resources from the centre. Madhesi political leaders in Nepal have both engaged with and challenged the central government, tapping into state power by joining mainstream parties then switching allegiances and orchestrating violent protests at the border.

New patterns of claim-making are emerging from the margins. In Nepal, since the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2006, marginalised tribal groups (the janajati) and Madhesi parties have played a decisive role in politics at the centre. In Eastern Sri Lanka, the leading Muslim party – the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) – is being confronted by a more assertive regional identity movement called ‘the Rise of the East’. In Northern Sri Lanka, new groups such as the Tamil People’s Council (TPC) are drawing attention to a range of issues they feel are neglected in public debate about the new constitution such as ongoing state-sponsored ‘colonisation’ of the North, war crimes, and the need for a federal solution.

 

Continue reading

Stateless refugees and avoiding a future ‘crisis of statelessness’ in Europe

By Jason Tucker

Over the last decade, slow and steady progress has been made in Europe towards the goal of preventing and addressing statelessness. However, the failure of states and regional and international organisations to respond to the rise in the number of stateless refugees entering Europe threatens to derail these efforts. Most European states do not have the legal or policy frameworks in place to identify, prevent or address statelessness. For this reason, many states already had several thousand stateless people residing in their territory before the current migration crisis, some of whom were born in these states. Continue reading

How do social movements present evidence for policy change? Insights from Kenya, Bangladesh and Latin America.

This is a blog on a session from ‘Evidence and the Politics of Policymaking: Where next?’, a Symposium from the Institute for Policy Research and Centre for Development Studies (CDS) at the University of Bath, September 14-15 2016. Highlights and recordings from the Symposium can be found here.

By Silvia Storchi

A panel of the recent CDS/IPR Symposium on “Evidence and the politics of policy making: where next?” addressed the role of social movements in influencing policy change by bringing together very different experiences of this process.

Continue reading

Social protection and extreme poverty- thinking about evidence and influence

This is a blog on a session from ‘Evidence and the Politics of Policymaking: Where next?’, a Symposium from the Institute for Policy Research and Centre for Development Studies (CDS) at the University of Bath, September 14-15 2016. Highlights and recordings from the Symposium can be found here.

By Daniel Wroe

Social protection programmes have been one of the policy arenas in which randomised control trials have been extensively used to present evidence of impact. The Social Protection and Extreme Poverty panel at the recent Symposium, “Evidence and the Politics of Policymaking: what next?” at the University of Bath questioned the role this evidence plays in policy change. Continue reading