Peris Sean Jones

When ‘development’ devastates: donor discourses, access to hiv/aids treatment in Africa and rethinking the landscape of development

If globalisation is the mighty tremor shaking the landscape of the ‘project of development’, then, in certain regions of the world, hiv/aids is surely its epicentre. Nonetheless, for all the burden of the disease, Western donor policy on hiv/aids still remains largely silent about the provision of anti-retroviral treatment. This paper seeks explanations for this pervasive medical neglect and donor preference for prevention programmes over treatment. The postcolonial approach taken in the paper is to regard donor policy on hiv/aids—as illustrated by the UKs Department for International Development and the Norwegian Agency for Development Co-operation—as cultural and political exchanges framed by prevailing representations of Africa. The different ‘logics’ which skew policies towards prevention are identified. For donors and African states alike, hiv/aids policies—like development interventions more generally—would benefit immensely by foregrounding the human right to health, including, critically, promoting treatment within a genuine ‘prevention–care–treatment’ policy continuum.

Powering up the people? The politics of indigenous rights implementation: International Labour Organisation Convention 169 and hydroelectric power in Nepal

The article looks at the role of International Labour Organisation Convention 169 (ILO 169) in struggles for indigenous rights. Nepal is a particularly apposite example, where ILO 169 is currently being invoked and contested in a process of political and state restructuring. The article focuses upon one sector, namely, water resources pertaining to hydroelectric power (HEP) development, with data based upon interviews with key stakeholders at both capital and district and local level, and also visits to three HEP project sites. Two main lessons are imparted primarily about rights-based approaches in general and indigenous rights more specifically. First, while ILO standards can be used to identify a country-level political and institutional vacuum and to promote procedural and substantive standards, implementation is hostage to entrenched political patronage and political culture. Second, rights-based approaches have their own effects particularly when claims are interpreted as absolute group rights, especially in highly diverse societies. An overall dilemma remains for Nepal: while significant political gains have emerged from indigenous rights movement mobilisation there is still a striking absence of (new) constitutional provisions, concrete institutional mechanisms, policy guidelines and delivery of tangible local benefits and with indications of high caste and other groups backlash.

Between Demos and Ethnos: The Nepal Constitution and Indigenous Rights

This article examines the contested reception of the Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (“ILO Convention 169”) in Nepal, particularly in the context of current constitutional reform and post-conflict economic development. Compelling evidence suggests that exclusionary political institutions, laws and structures have been the major cause of exclusion in contemporary Nepal. While Nepal is home to a range of different ethnic, language, religious and caste-based groups, the Adivasi Janajati (around 37 per cent of the population) consider themselves indigenous peoples. With such a sizeable minority, Nepal was the first and so far only Asian country to ratify the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 169, which has considerable significance in a context of state restructuring and the accommodation of indigenous rights. The form of recognition of indigenous rights in the constitutional drafting process has created much heat, particularly over questions of autonomy and federalism, control over natural resources and land and quotas for political representation, but with less light concerning political consensus. The ILO Convention 169 has figured prominently in this process with various interpretations by different actors. Reconciling international meanings of this treaty with national interpretations used for political purposes in Nepal foregrounds a paradox existing between liberalism (in the form of rights and freedoms) and equality (democracy). Through a range of disciplinary methods, this article analyses the background to indigenous demands, the political and legal contestation over the interpretation of ILO 169 and the specific case of natural resources.

‘Only the people can defend this struggle’: the politics of the everyday, extrajudicial executions and civil society in Mathare, Kenya

ABSTRACT Though a perennial problem in postcolonial Kenya, extrajudicial executions (EJE) show few signs of ending and in recent years are even accelerating amongst young men in informal settlements. Avenues for legal, institutional and civil society redress, nominally expanded in recent years, display an ongoing tendency towards disconnection from the grassroots. A case study from Mathare, Nairobi, seeks explanations for the lack of urgency in addressing EJE and also the limited effectiveness of responses to them that are rooted in the political economy of interests of civil society actors, which tends to perpetuate these ‘excluded spaces’ of the slum. The authors do so, however, by exploring one particular struggle to show how frustration with civil society is being used by social justice activists to articulate ideas of ‘everyday’ violence to mobilise for change that disrupts the apparent normalisation of EJE.

‘What kind of hell is this!’ Understanding the Mungiki movement's power of mobilisation

Abstract There is a flourishing of collective actors such as vigilante groups, militias and gangs that could be termed ‘uncivil society’. These actors often have a ‘Janus faced’ nature and slide between roles as legitimate providers of social services and oppressors of communities. A potent channel for the articulation of grievances of underprivileged youths in particular, due to their illegality or militancy these actors are often disqualified from participation in formal political arenas. A case in point is the Mungiki movement in Kenya. How exactly Mungiki attains its capacity to mobilise thousands, if not millions, of members requires more nuanced explanations for why young men in particular are attracted to the movement and what effect this has on their lives. A ‘framing-based’ analysis from social movement studies is used to interpret empirical findings that draw on in-depth interviews with grassroots members. The article finds mobilisation a response to both social and personal crisis but with attendant programmatic responses that empower members.

Governance Matters for AIDS: But what about the politics? Lessons from South Africa and Uganda

‘Governance’ is ordained in contemporary debate and policy as decisive for overcoming the persistent problems of international development. The Commission for Africa, for example, in its identification of governance as laying no less than ‘at the core of all of Africa’s problems’ (Commission for Africa 2005: 23–5) reconfirms something of a zeitgeist. Similarly, a host of development agencies appear to embrace the concept as integral to their work and objectives. The World Bank, for instance, has regarded ‘good’ governance for a number of years as being closely connected to securing economic development. The UNDP relates it to fostering human development placing greater emphasis upon democratic governance. Somewhere in between these poles sits the aforementioned Commission for Africa. Closer to Africa itself, ‘democracy and good governance’ are identified by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development as key to eradicating poverty and promoting socio-economic development (UNDP 2002; Commission for Africa 2005; NEPAD 2002). With so many competing interpretations it would appear reasonable to enquire why governance has become so popular. In short, what exactly do we want it to do: enhance neo-liberalism, and/or secure fundamental democratic freedoms, and/or, enable efficient outcomes in policy implementation?