SUMMARY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2004hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr_2004_summary_en.pdf · SUMMARY: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2004 5 OVERVIEW Cultural liberty in today’s diverse

SUMMARYHUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2004

Cultural libertyin today’sdiverse world

Publishedfor the United NationsDevelopment Programme(UNDP)

hdr04 summary ENG 051204.qxd 5/25/04 6:02 PM Page 1

Core teamCarla De Gregorio, Haishan Fu (Chief of Statistics), RicardoFuentes, Arunabha Ghosh, Claes Johansson, ChristopherKuonqui, Santosh Mehrotra, Tanni Mukhopadhyay, StefanoPettinato, David Stewart and Emily White

Statistical adviser: Tom Griffin

Editors: Cait Murphy and Bruce Ross-Larson

Cover and layout design: Gerald QuinnInformation design: Grundy & Northedge

Principal consultantsAmartya Sen (Chapter 1), Lourdes Arizpe, Robert Bach, RajeevBhargava, Elie Cohen, Emmanuel de Kadt, Nicholas Dirks,K.S. Jomo, Will Kymlicka, Valentine Moghadam, JoyMoncrieffe, Sam Moyo, Brendan O’Leary, Kwesi Kwaa Prah,Barnett R. Rubin, Daniel Sabbagh, D.L. Sheth, RodolfoStavenhagen, Alfred Stepan, Deborah Yashar and AristideZolberg

Copyright ©2004by the United Nations Development Programme1 UN Plaza, New York, New York, 10017, USA

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,without prior permission.

Printed by Hoechstetter Printing Co. on chlorine-free paper with vegetable inks and produced by means of environmentally compatible technology.

Cover and design: Gerald Quinn, Quinn Information Design, Cabin John, MarylandInformation design: Grundy & Northedge, LondonEditing, desktop composition and production management: Communications Development Incorporated, Washington, DC

TEAM FOR THE PREPARATION OFHuman Development Report 2004

Director and Lead AuthorSakiko Fukuda-Parr

HDRO colleaguesThe team expresses its sincere gratitude for the invaluable support and contributions from their colleagues in the Human DevelopmentReport Office (HDRO). Administrative support for the Report’s preparation was provided by Oscar Bernal, Renuka Corea-Lloyd andMamaye Gebretsadik. Outreach and promotional work for the Report were provided by Nena Terrell with Maria Kristina Dominguezand Anne-Louise Winsløv. HDRO operations were managed by Yves Sassenrath with Marie Suzanne Ndaw. And the team collaboratedwith members of the National Human Development Report (NHDR) Unit including: Sarah Burd-Sharps (Deputy Director HDRO andChief NHDR Unit), Marcia de Castro, Sharmila Kurukulasuriya, Juan Pablo Mejia and Mary Ann Mwangi.


SUMMARY: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2004 3

At a time when the notion of a global “clash ofcultures” is resonating so powerfully—andworryingly—around the world, finding answersto the old questions of how best to manage andmitigate conflict over language, religion, cultureand ethnicity has taken on renewed importance.For development practitioners this is not an ab-stract question. If the world is to reach the Mil-lennium Development Goals and ultimatelyeradicate poverty, it must first successfully con-front the challenge of how to build inclusive,culturally diverse societies. Not just because doingso successfully is a precondition for countries tofocus properly on other priorities of economicgrowth, health and education for all citizens. Butbecause allowing people full cultural expressionis an important development end in itself.

Human development is first and foremostabout allowing people to lead the kind of life theychoose—and providing them with the tools andopportunities to make those choices. In recentyears Human Development Report has arguedstrongly that this is as much a question of poli-tics as economics—from protecting human rightsto deepening democracy. Unless people whoare poor and marginalized—who more oftenthan not are members of religious or ethnic mi-norities or migrants—can influence political ac-tion at local and national levels, they are unlikelyto get equitable access to jobs, schools, hospi-tals, justice, security and other basic services.

This year’s Report builds on that analysis,by carefully examining—and rejecting—claimsthat cultural differences necessarily lead to so-cial, economic and political conflict or that in-herent cultural rights should supersede politicaland economic ones. Instead, it provides a pow-erful argument for finding ways to “delight inour differences”, as Archbishop Desmond Tutuhas put it. It also offers some concrete ideas onwhat it means in practice to build and manage

the politics of identity and culture in a mannerconsistent with the bedrock principles of humandevelopment.

Sometimes, that is relatively easy—for ex-ample, a girl’s right to an education will alwaystrump her father’s claim to a cultural right toforbid her schooling for religious or other rea-sons. But the question can get much more com-plicated. Take education in the mother tongue.There is persuasive evidence that young childrenare more successful learning in their own lan-guage. However, what is an advantage at onepoint in life—and indeed may remain an in-dispensable bedrock of identity throughoutlife—can turn into a disadvantage in other wayswhen lack of proficiency in more widely usednational or international languages can severelyhandicap employment opportunities. As theReport makes clear, from affirmative action tothe role of the media, there are no easy—orone size fits all—rules for how best to buildworking multicultural societies.

Even so, one overarching lesson is clear:succeeding is not simply a question of legisla-tive and policy changes, necessary though theybe. Constitutions and legislation that provideprotections and guarantees for minorities, in-digenous people and other groups are a criti-cal foundation for broader freedoms. But unlessthe political culture also changes—unless citi-zens come to think, feel and act in ways that gen-uinely accommodate the needs and aspirationsof others—real change will not happen.

When the political culture does not change,the consequences are disturbingly clear. From dis-affected indigenous groups across Latin America,to unhappy minorities in Africa and Asia, to newimmigrants across the developed world, failing toaddress the grievances of marginalized groupsdoes not just create injustice. It builds real prob-lems for the future: unemployed, disaffected

Foreword


4 SUMMARY: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2004

youth, angry with the status quo and demandingchange, often violently.

That is the challenge. But there are also realopportunities. The overarching message of theReport is to highlight the vast potential ofbuilding a more peaceful, prosperous world bybringing issues of culture to the mainstream ofdevelopment thinking and practice. Not tosubstitute for more traditional priorities thatwill remain our bread and butter—but to com-plement and strengthen them. The flip side ofthe development divide is that developingcountries are often able to draw on richer,more diverse cultural traditions—whether cap-tured in language, art, music or other forms—than their wealthier counterparts in the North.The globalization of mass culture—from booksto films to television—clearly poses some sig-nificant threats to these traditional cultures. Butit also opens up opportunities, from the nar-row sense of disadvantaged groups like Aus-tralian Aborigines or Arctic Inuit tapping

global art markets, to the broader one of cre-ating more vibrant, creative, exciting societies.

Like all Human Development Reports,this is an independent study intended to stim-ulate debate and discussion around an im-portant issue, not a statement of UnitedNations or UNDP policy. However, by takingup an issue often neglected by developmenteconomists and putting it firmly within thespectrum of priorities in building better, morefulfilled lives, it presents important argumentsfor UNDP and its partners to consider and acton in their broader work. This year, I wouldalso like to pay particular tribute to SakikoFukuda-Parr, who is stepping down after 10successful years leading our Human Devel-opment Report Office. I would also like toextend special thanks to Amartya Sen, one ofthe godfathers of human development, who hasnot only contributed the first chapter but beenan enormous influence in shaping our think-ing on this important issue.

The analysis and policy recommendations of the Report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Development Pro-

gramme, its Executive Board or its Member States. The Report is an independent publication commissioned by UNDP. It is the fruit of

a collaborative effort by a team of eminent consultants and advisers and the Human Development Report team. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr,

Director of the Human Development Report Office, led the effort.

Mark Malloch BrownAdministrator, UNDP



OVERVIEW Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world 1

CHAPTER 1 Cultural liberty and human development 13Participation and recognition 14Freedoms, human rights and the role of diversity 15Identity, community and freedom 16Globalization, asymmetry and democracy 19Conclusions 22

CHAPTER 2 Challenges for cultural liberty 27Cultural liberty—an uncharted dimension of human development 28Promoting cultural liberty requires recognizing differences in identity 36Three myths surrounding cultural liberty and development 38Today’s challenges for cultural liberty 44

CHAPTER 3 Building multicultural democracies 47Resolving state dilemmas in recognizing cultural difference 47Policies for ensuring the political participation of diverse cultural groups 50Policies on religion and religious practice 54Policies on customary law and legal pluralism 57Policies on the use of multiple languages 60Policies for redressing socio-economic exclusion 65

CHAPTER 4 Confronting movements for cultural domination 73Movements for cultural domination—today’s challenges 74Dilemmas for democracies—restrictive or accommodative measures? 77

CHAPTER 5 Globalization and cultural choice 85Globalization and multiculturalism 88Flows of investment and knowledge—including indigenous people in a globally integrated world 91Flows of cultural goods—widening choices through creativity and diversity 96Flows of people—multiple identities for global citizens 99

Notes 107Bibliographic note 110Bibliography 112

Contents of Human Development Report 2004



SPECIAL CONTRIBUTIONSHuman rights embody the fundamental values of human civilizations Shirin Ebadi 23Diversity—from divisive to inclusive Nelson Mandela 43Recognition of linguistic diversity in Afghanistan’s Constitution Hamid Karzai 64Difference is not a threat but a source of strength John Hume 82Indigenous peoples and development Ole Henrik Magga 91

BOXES2.1 Two aspects of cultural exclusion 272.2 Defining cultural rights lags behind defining civil, political, economic and social rights—why? 282.3 Measuring cultural liberty 312.4 The human development index: capturing inequalities across groups 362.5 Cultural policies—protecting cultural heritage and promoting cultural liberty 382.6 Inequalities between groups can fuel conflict and tension 412.7 Solomon Islands’ ethnic difference not the cause of conflict 423.1 A rough guide to federalism 503.2 The challenge of federalism: Nigeria’s troubled political trajectory and prospects 523.3 Proportional representation or winner takes all? New Zealand makes a switch 553.4 The many forms of secular and non-secular states and their effects on religious freedom 563.5 Hindu and Muslim personal law: the ongoing debate over a uniform civil code 573.6 Access to justice and cultural recognition in Guatemala 593.7 Multilingual education in Papua New Guinea 613.8 How many languages are there in Africa? 85% of Africans speak 15 core languages 633.9 Land rights in the Philippines 683.10 Experiences with affirmative action in Malaysia and South Africa 704.1 Leadership, ideological manipulation and recruiting supporters 774.2 Central Asia—the danger in restricting political and cultural liberties 784.3 Egypt—distinguishing between moderates and extremists 804.4 Algeria—discontent, democraticization and violence 814.5 United States—targeting intolerance and hatred 835.1 Culture—paradigm shift in anthropology 895.2 Sources of global ethics 905.3 Private companies and indigenous people can work together for development 945.4 Using intellectual property rights to protect traditional knowledge 955.5 The debate on cultural goods and the Multilateral Agreement on Investments fiasco 965.6 France’s successful support of domestic cultural industries 995.7 The headscarf dilemma in France 1015.8 Temporary contracts—welcoming workers but not people does not work 1035.9 How Berlin promotes respect for cultural difference 104

TABLES2.1 Political representation of ethnic minorities in selected OECD parliaments 352.2 Integrating multicultural policies into human development strategies 37



3.1 Indicators of internal output and costs of conventional and bilingual schools in Burkina Faso 624.1 Casualties resulting from sectarian violence in Pakistan, 1989–2003 755.1 Indigenous population in Latin America 925.2 Policy choices for the promotion of the domestic film and audiovisual industry—market and industry size matter 985.3 Top 10 cities by share of foreign born population, 2000/01 99

FIGURES2.1 Most countries are culturally diverse 282.2 Indigenous people can expect a shorter life 292.3 Europe’s non-European migrant population has increased significantly . . . and migrants are

coming from more places 302.4 Many lack access to primary education in their mother tongue 342.5 National holidays are important ways to recognize—or ignore—cultural identities 353.1 Indigenous people are more likely than non-indigenous people to be poor in Latin America 673.2 Non-whites benefit less than whites from public health spending in South Africa 673.3 Group inequalities have declined in Malaysia, but personal inequalities have not 713.4 The record of affirmative action in the United States is mixed 714.1 Movements for cultural domination—not the same as all fundamentalist or all violent movements 734.2 Some European extreme right parties have won steadily increasing vote shares 744.3 Democratic participation can expose the fringe appeal of extreme right parties 825.1 Top-grossing films of all time at the international (non-US) box office were US films, April 2004 975.2 Unprecedented growth in international migration to Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, but

refugees remain a small proportion, 1990–2000 1005.3 More and more governments (rich and poor) want to control immigration, 1976–2001 100

MAPS2.1 Guatemala exhibits substantial overlap between linguistic communities and social exclusion 375.1 Much extractive and infrastructural activity in developing countries is in areas where indigenous people live 92

FEATURES2.1 The Minorities at Risk data set—quantifying cultural exclusion 32

Figure 1 Discrimination and disadvantage of culturally identified groups can be cultural, political and economic—with considerable overlap 32

Figure 2 Political and economic exclusion have different causes 323.1 State unity or ethnocultural identity? Not an inevitable choice 48

Figure 1 Multiple and complementary identities 48Figure 2 Trust, support and identification: poor and diverse countries can do well with multicultural policies 49

5.1 What’s new about globalization’s implications for identity politics? 86Table 1 Top 10 countries by share of migrant population, 2000 87Figure 1 Rapid increases in investments in extractive industries in developing countries, 1988–97 86Figure 2 Fewer domestic films, more US films: evolving film attendance, 1984–2001 87

Statistical feature 1 The state of human development 127Table 1 HDI, HPI-1, HPI-2, GDI—same components, different measurements 127Table 2 Eliminating poverty: massive deprivation remains, 2000 129



Table 3 Progress and setbacks: child mortality 132Table 4 Progress and setbacks: primary education 132Table 5 Progress and setbacks: income poverty 132Table 6 Countries experiencing a drop in the human development index, 1980s and 1990s 132Figure 1 Same HDI, different income 128Figure 2 Same income, different HDI 128Figure 3 Not enough progress toward the Millennium Development Goals 130Figure 4 Timeline: when will the Millennium Development Goals be achieved if progress does not accelerate? 133Figure 5 Global disparities in HDI 134Figure 6 Top and high priority countries 134Index to Millennium Development Goal indicators in the indicator tables 135

Statistical feature 2 Note to table 1: About this year’s human development index 137

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDICATORSMONITORING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: ENLARGING PEOPLE’S CHOICES. . . 1 Human development index 1392 Human development index trends 1433 Human and income poverty: developing countries 1474 Human and income poverty: OECD, Central & Eastern Europe & CIS 150

. . . TO LEAD A LONG AND HEALTHY LIFE. . .5 Demographic trends 1526 Commitment to health: resources, access and services 1567 Water, sanitation and nutritional status 1608 Leading global health crises and risks 1649 Survival: progress and setbacks 168

. . . TO ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE . . .10 Commitment to education: public spending 17211 Literacy and enrolment 17612 Technology: diffusion and creation 180

. . . TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE RESOURCES NEEDED FOR A DECENT STANDARD OF LIVING. . .13 Economic performance 18414 Inequality in income or consumption 18815 Structure of trade 19216 Rich country responsibilities: aid 19617 Rich country responsibilities: debt relief and trade 19718 Flows of aid, private capital and debt 19819 Priorities in public spending 20220 Unemployment in OECD countries 206

. . . WHILE PRESERVING IT FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS . . .21 Energy and the environment 207



. . . PROTECTING PERSONAL SECURITY . . .22 Refugees and armaments 21123 Victims of crime 215

. . . AND ACHIEVING EQUALITY FOR ALL WOMEN AND MEN

24 Gender-related development index 21725 Gender empowerment measure 22126 Gender inequality in education 22527 Gender inequality in economic activity 22928 Gender, work burden and time allocation 23329 Women’s political participation 234

HUMAN AND LABOUR RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS

30 Status of major international human rights instruments 23831 Status of fundamental labour rights conventions 242

32 Human development indices: a regional perspective 24633 Basic indicators for other UN member countries 250

Note on statistics in the Human Development Report 251

Technical notes1 Calculating the human development indices 2582 Identifying top priority and high priority countries for the Millennium Development Goals 265

Definitions of statistical terms 268Statistical references 277Classification of countries 279Index to indicators 283



How will the new constitution of Iraq satisfy de-mands for fair representation for Shiites andKurds? Which—and how many—of the lan-guages spoken in Afghanistan should the newconstitution recognize as the official language ofthe state? How will the Nigerian federal courtdeal with a Sharia law ruling to punish adulteryby death? Will the French legislature approvethe proposal to ban headscarves and other re-ligious symbols in public schools? Do Hispan-ics in the United States resist assimilation intothe mainstream American culture? Will there bea peace accord to end fighting in Côte d’Ivoire?Will the President of Bolivia resign after mount-ing protests by indigenous people? Will thepeace talks to end the Tamil-Sinhala conflict inSri Lanka ever conclude? These are just someheadlines from the past few months. Managingcultural diversity is one of the central challengesof our time.

Long thought to be divisive threats to socialharmony, choices like these—about recognizingand accommodating diverse ethnicities, reli-gions, languages and values—are an inescapablefeature of the landscape of politics in the 21stcentury. Political leaders and political theoristsof all persuasions have argued against explicitrecognition of cultural identities—ethnic, reli-gious, linguistic, racial. The result, more oftenthan not, has been that cultural identities havebeen suppressed, sometimes brutally, as statepolicy—through religious persecutions and eth-nic cleansings, but also through everyday ex-clusion and economic, social and politicaldiscrimination.

New today is the rise of identity politics. Invastly different contexts and in different ways—from indigenous people in Latin America toreligious minorities in South Asia to ethnic mi-norities in the Balkans and Africa to immigrantsin Western Europe—people are mobilizinganew around old grievances along ethnic,

religious, racial and cultural lines, demandingthat their identities be acknowledged, appreci-ated and accommodated by wider society. Suf-fering discrimination and marginalization fromsocial, economic and political opportunities,they are also demanding social justice. Also newtoday is the rise of coercive movements thatthreaten cultural liberty. And, in this era ofglobalization, a new class of political claims anddemands has emerged from individuals, com-munities and countries feeling that their local cul-tures are being swept away. They want to keeptheir diversity in a globalized world.

Why these movements today? They are notisolated. They are part of a historic process ofsocial change, of struggles for cultural freedom,of new frontiers in the advance of human free-doms and democracy. They are propelled andshaped by the spread of democracy, which is giv-ing movements more political space for protest,and the advance of globalization, which is cre-ating new networks of alliances and presentingnew challenges.

Cultural liberty is a vital part of human de-velopment because being able to choose one’sidentity—who one is—without losing the re-spect of others or being excluded from otherchoices is important in leading a full life. Peoplewant the freedom to practice their religion openly,to speak their language, to celebrate their ethnicor religious heritage without fear of ridicule orpunishment or diminished opportunity. Peoplewant the freedom to participate in society with-out having to slip off their chosen cultural moor-ings. It is a simple idea, but profoundly unsettling.

States face an urgent challenge in respond-ing to these demands. If handled well, greaterrecognition of identities will bring greater cul-tural diversity in society, enriching people’slives. But there is also a great risk.

These struggles over cultural identity, if leftunmanaged or managed poorly, can quickly

Cultural liberty in today’sdiverse world

OVERVIEW

Cultural liberty is a vital

part of human

development because

being able to choose one’s

identity is important in

leading a full life



become one of the greatest sources of instabil-ity within states and between them—and in sodoing trigger conflict that takes developmentbackwards. Identity politics that polarize peo-ple and groups are creating fault lines between“us” and “them”. Growing distrust and hatredthreaten peace, development and human free-doms. Just in the last year ethnic violence de-stroyed hundreds of homes and mosques inKosovo and Serbia. Terrorist train bombings inSpain killed nearly 200. Sectarian violence killedthousands of Muslims and drove thousandsmore from their homes in Gujarat and else-where in India, a champion of cultural accom-modation. A spate of hate crimes againstimmigrants shattered Norwegians’ belief in theirunshakable commitment to tolerance.

Struggles over identity can also lead to re-gressive and xenophobic policies that retardhuman development. They can encourage a re-treat to conservatism and a rejection of change,closing off the infusion of ideas and of peoplewho bring cosmopolitan values and the know-ledge and skills that advance development.

Managing diversity and respecting culturalidentities are not just challenges for a few “multi-ethnic states”. Almost no country is entirelyhomogeneous. The world’s nearly 200 coun-tries contain some 5,000 ethnic groups. Two-thirds have at least one substantial minority—an

ethnic or religious group that makes up at least10% of the population.

At the same time the pace of internationalmigration has quickened, with startling effectson some countries and cities. Nearly half thepopulation of Toronto was born outside ofCanada. And many more foreign-born peoplemaintain close ties with their countries of ori-gin than did immigrants of the last century.One way or another every country is a multi-cultural society today, containing ethnic, reli-gious or linguistic groups that have commonbonds to their own heritage, culture, values andway of life.

Cultural diversity is here to stay—and togrow. States need to find ways of forging nationalunity amid this diversity. The world, ever moreinterdependent economically, cannot functionunless people respect diversity and build unitythrough common bonds of humanity. In thisage of globalization the demands for culturalrecognition can no longer be ignored by anystate or by the international community. And con-frontations over culture and identity are likely togrow—the ease of communications and travelhave shrunk the world and changed the landscapeof cultural diversity, and the spread of democ-racy, human rights and new global networkshave given people greater means to mobilizearound a cause, insist on a response and get it.

People are different, and so are their cultures.

People live in different ways, and civilizationsalso differ.

People speak in a variety of languages.

People are guided by different religions.

People are born different colours, and manytraditions influence their lives with varyingcolours and shades.

People dress differently and adapt to their en-vironment in different ways.

People express themselves differently. Music,literature and art reflect different styles as well.

But despite these differences, all people have onesingle common attribute: they are all humanbeings—nothing more, nothing less.

And however different they may be, all culturesembrace certain common principles:

No culture tolerates the exploitation of humanbeings.

No religion allows the killing of the innocent.

No civilization accepts violence or terror.

Torture is abhorrent to the human conscience.

Brutality and cruelty are appalling in everytradition.

In short, these common principles, which areshared by all civilizations, reflect our funda-mental human rights. These rights are treasuredand cherished by everyone, everywhere.

So cultural relativity should never be used asa pretext to violate human rights, since these

rights embody the most fundamental values ofhuman civilizations. The Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights is needed universally, applicableto both East and West. It is compatible withevery faith and religion. Failing to respect ourhuman rights only undermines our humanity.

Let us not destroy this fundamental truth;if we do, the weak will have nowhere to turn.

Shirin Ebadi2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner

Human rights embody the fundamental values of human civilizations

SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION



Five myths debunked. Policies recognizingcultural identities and encouraging diversityto flourish do not result in fragmentation,conflict, weak development or authoritarianrule. Such policies are both viable, and nec-essary, for it is often the suppression of cul-turally identified groups that leads to tensions.

The Report makes a case for respecting diver-sity and building more inclusive societies byadopting policies that explicitly recognize cul-tural differences—multicultural policies. Butwhy have many cultural identities been sup-pressed or ignored for so long? One reason isthat many people believe that allowing diversityto flourish may be desirable in the abstract butin practice can weaken the state, lead to conflictand retard development. The best approach todiversity, in this view, is assimilation around asingle national standard, which can lead to thesuppression of cultural identities. However, theReport argues that these are not premises—they are myths. Indeed, it argues that a multi-cultural policy approach is not just desirable butalso viable and necessary. Without such an ap-proach the imagined problems of diversity canbecome self-fulfilling prophecies.

Myth 1. People’s ethnic identities competewith their attachment to the state, so there isa trade-off between recognizing diversity andunifying the state.

Not so. Individuals can and do have multipleidentities that are complementary—ethnicity,language, religion and race as well as citizenship.Nor is identity a zero sum game. There is no in-evitable need to choose between state unity andrecognition of cultural differences.

A sense of identity and belonging to a groupwith shared values and other bonds of cultureis important for individuals. But each individ-ual can identify with many different groups. In-dividuals have identity of citizenship (forexample, being French), gender (being awoman), race (being of West African origin), lan-guage (being fluent in Thai, Chinese and Eng-lish), politics (having left-wing views) andreligion (being Buddhist).

Identity also has an element of choice: withinthese memberships individuals can choose whatpriority to give to one membership over an-other in different contexts. Mexican Americansmay cheer for the Mexican soccer team butserve in the U.S. Army. Many white SouthAfricans chose to fight apartheid as SouthAfricans. Sociologists tell us that people haveboundaries of identity that separate “us” from“them”, but these boundaries shift and blur toincorporate broader groups of people.

“Nation building” has been a dominant ob-jective of the 20th century, and most states haveaimed to build culturally homogeneous stateswith singular identities. Sometimes they suc-ceeded but at the cost of repression and perse-cution. If the history of the 20th century showedanything, it is that the attempt either to exter-minate cultural groups or to wish them away elic-its a stubborn resilience. By contrast, recognizingcultural identities has resolved never-endingtensions. For both practical and moral reasons,then, it is far better to accommodate culturalgroups than to try to eliminate them or to pre-tend that they do not exist.

Countries do not have to choose between na-tional unity and cultural diversity. Surveys showthat the two can and often do coexist. In Bel-gium citizens overwhelmingly replied whenasked that they felt both Belgian and Flemish orWalloon and in Spain, that they felt Spanish aswell as Catalan or Basque.

These countries and others have workedhard to accommodate diverse cultures. Theyhave also worked hard to build unity by fosteringrespect for identities and trust in state institu-tions. The states have held together. Immigrantsneed not deny their commitment to their fam-ilies in their countries of origin when they de-velop loyalties to their new countries. Fears thatif immigrants do not “assimilate”, they will frag-ment the country are unfounded. Assimilationwithout choice is no longer a viable—or anecessary—model of integration.

There is no trade-off between diversity andstate unity. Multicultural policies are a way tobuild diverse and unified states.

Myth 2. Ethnic groups are prone to violentconflict with each other in clashes of values,

The Report makes a case

for respecting diversity

and building more

inclusive societies by

adopting policies that

explicitly recognize

cultural differences—

multicultural policies



so there is a trade-off between respecting di-versity and sustaining peace.

No. There is little empirical evidence that cul-tural differences and clashes over values are inthemselves a cause of violent conflict.

It is true, particularly since the end of thecold war, that violent conflicts have arisen notso much between states but within them be-tween ethnic groups. But on their causes, thereis wide agreement in recent research by schol-ars that cultural differences by themselves arenot the relevant factor. Some even argue that cul-tural diversity reduces the risk of conflict by mak-ing group mobilization more difficult.

Studies offer several explanations for thesewars: economic inequalities between the groupsas well as struggles over political power, land andother economic assets. In Fiji indigenous Fijiansinitiated a coup against the Indian-dominatedgovernment because they feared that land mightbe confiscated. In Sri Lanka the Sinhalese ma-jority gained political power, but the Tamil mi-nority had access to more economic resources,

triggering decades of civil conflict. In Burundi andRwanda, at different points in time, Tutsis andHutus were each excluded from economic op-portunities and political participation.

Cultural identity does have a role in theseconflicts—not as a cause but as a driver for po-litical mobilization. Leaders invoke a singleidentity, its symbols and its history of griev-ances, to “rally the troops”. And a lack of cul-tural recognition can trigger violent mobilization.Underlying inequalities in South Africa wereat the root of the Soweto riots in 1976, but theywere triggered by attempts to impose Afrikaanson black schools.

While the coexistence of culturally distinctgroups is not, in itself, a cause of violent con-flict, it is dangerous to allow economic andpolitical inequality to deepen between thesegroups or to suppress cultural differences, be-cause cultural groups are easily mobilized tocontest these disparities as injustice.

There is no trade-off between peace andrespect for diversity, but identity politics needto be managed so that they do not turn violent.

A sense of identity and

belonging to a group with

shared values and other

bonds of culture is

important for all

individuals. But each

individual can identify

with many different

groups

Most societies in the world today include morethan one culture, one community or one tradi-tion. All too often in such a situation one elementmay seek to dominate the society as a whole.That approach can generate tension and con-flict. It is in the interests of all to work togetherto build a society beneficial to all its members.

Northern Ireland and the European Unionare particularly strong examples of how the ex-istence of more than one culture can prove to bepositive in the building and development of so-ciety through a process of conflict resolution.

It is now almost four decades since the be-ginnings of the civil rights movement in North-ern Ireland, which has sought by peaceful meansthe same rights and opportunities for all the peo-ple living in Northern Ireland, irrespective oftheir background or religion. Throughout thoseyears I have maintained that, when you have a di-vided people, violence has absolutely no role toplay in healing the division or in solving theproblems—it only deepens the division. Theproblem can be resolved only through peace,stability, agreement, consensus and partnership.There cannot be victory for one side or the other.

So long as the legitimate rights of each com-munity in Northern Ireland were not accommo-dated together in a new political frameworkacceptable to all, the situation would continue togive rise to conflict and instability. There neededto be agreement.

That is the purpose of the 1998 Belfast Agree-ment. It represents an accommodation that pro-tects and promotes the identities and rights of allpolitical traditions, groups and individuals. No oneis asked to yield cherished convictions or beliefs.Everyone is asked to respect the views and rightsof others as equal to his or her own.

I also believe that the European Union is thebest example of conflict prevention and conflictresolution in international history. It is importantthat we maintain and build on that record. Eu-ropean visionaries demonstrated that difference—whether of race, religion or nationality—is not athreat, but is natural, positive and a source ofstrength. It should never be the source of hatredor conflict. A fundamental principle of peace isrespect for diversity.

I entered the European Parliament in 1979 onthe occasion of the first direct election to the

parliament by the voters of its then nine memberstates. I will soon be stepping down from electedpublic life, delighted in the knowledge that inthose 25 years the European Union has progressedto the point that it will by then have expanded toinclude 25 member states. This will end the arti-ficial division of our continent created after the Sec-ond World War and reunite our European family.

The European Parliament’s location is in Stras-bourg, on the River Rhine, on the border betweenFrance and Germany. When I first visited Stras-bourg I walked across the bridge from Strasbourgin France to Kehl in Germany and reflected on thetens of millions of people who had been killed inthe numerous wars waged for control of territory.The European Union has replaced those conflictswith co-operation between its people. It has trans-formed its wide range of traditions from a sourceof conflict into a source of unifying strength.

John Hume, MP MEP1998 Nobel Peace Prize Winner

Difference is not a threat but a source of strength




Myth 3. Cultural liberty requires defendingtraditional practices, so there could be a trade-off between recognizing cultural diversityand other human development priorities suchas progress in development, democracy andhuman rights.

No. Cultural liberty is about expanding indi-vidual choices, not about preserving values andpractices as an end in itself with blind allegianceto tradition.

Culture is not a frozen set of values and prac-tices. It is constantly recreated as people ques-tion, adapt and redefine their values and practicesto changing realities and exchanges of ideas.

Some argue that multiculturalism is a pol-icy of conserving cultures, even practices that vi-olate human rights, and that movements forcultural recognition are not governed democ-ratically. But neither cultural freedom nor respectfor diversity should be confused with the defenceof tradition. Cultural liberty is the capability ofpeople to live and be what they choose, with ad-equate opportunity to consider other options.

“Culture”, “tradition”, and “authenticity”are not the same as “cultural liberty”. They arenot acceptable reasons for allowing practices thatdeny individuals equality of opportunity and vi-olate their human rights—such as denyingwomen equal rights to education.

Interest groups led by self-appointed lead-ers may not reflect the views of the membershipat large. It is not rare for groups to be dominatedby people who have an interest in maintainingthe status quo under the justification of “tradi-tion” and who act as gatekeepers of tradition-alism to freeze their cultures. Those makingdemands for cultural accommodation shouldalso abide by democratic principles and the ob-jectives of human freedom and human rights.One good model is the Sami people in Finland,who enjoy autonomy in a parliament that has de-mocratic structures and follows democratic pro-cedures but is part of the Finnish state.

There does not need to be any trade-off be-tween respect for cultural difference and humanrights and development. But the process of de-velopment involves active participation of peo-ple in fighting for human rights and shifts invalues.

Myth 4. Ethnically diverse countries are lessable to develop, so there is a trade-off be-tween respecting diversity and promotingdevelopment.

No. There is no evidence of a clear relationship,good or bad, between cultural diversity and de-velopment.

Some argue, however, that diversity hasbeen an obstacle to development. But while itis undeniably true that many diverse societieshave low levels of income and human develop-ment, there is no evidence that this is related tocultural diversity. One study argues that diver-sity has been a source of poor economic per-formance in Africa—but this is related topolitical decision-making that follows ethnicrather than national interests, not to diversity it-self. Just as there are multi-ethnic countries thathave stagnated, there are others that were spec-tacularly successful. Malaysia, with 62% of itspeople Malays and other indigenous groups,30% Chinese and 8% Indian, was the world’s10th fastest growing economy during 1970–90,years when it also implemented affirmative ac-tion policies. Mauritius ranks 64 in the humandevelopment index, the highest in Sub-SaharanAfrica. It has a diverse population of African,Indian, Chinese and European origin—with50% Hindu, 30% Christian and 17% Muslim.

Myth 5. Some cultures are more likely tomake developmental progress than others,and some cultures have inherent democraticvalues while others do not, so there is a trade-off between accommodating certain culturesand promoting development and democracy.

Again, no. There is no evidence from statisticalanalysis or historical studies of a causal rela-tionship between culture and economic progressor democracy.

Cultural determinism—the idea that agroup’s culture explains economic performanceand the advance of democracy—as an obstacleor a facilitator, has enormous intuitive appeal.But these theories are not supported by econo-metric analysis or history.

Many theories of cultural determinism havebeen advanced, starting with Max Weber’s

Cultural liberty is the

capability of people to live

and be what they choose



explanation of the Protestant ethic as a keyfactor behind successful growth in capitalisteconomies. Persuasive in explaining the past,these theories have been repeatedly provenwrong in predicting the future. When Weber’stheory of the Protestant ethic was being touted,Catholic countries (France and Italy) weregrowing faster than Protestant Britain and Ger-many, so the theory was expanded to meanChristian or Western. When Japan, the Re-public of Korea, Thailand and other East Asiancountries achieved record growth rates, thenotion that Confucian values retard growthhad to be jettisoned.

Understanding cultural traditions can offerinsights to human behaviour and social dy-namics that influence development outcomes.But these insights do not offer a grand theoryof culture and development. In explaining eco-nomic growth rates, for example, economic pol-icy, geography and the burden of disease arefound to be highly relevant factors. But cul-ture, such as whether a society is Hindu or Mus-lim, is found to be insignificant.

The same is true with reference to democ-racy. A new wave of cultural determinism isstarting to hold sway in some policy debates, at-tributing the failures of democratization in thenon-Western world to inherent cultural traits ofintolerance and “authoritarian values”. At theglobal level some theorists have argued that the21st century will see a “clash of civilizations”, thatthe future of democratic and tolerant Westernstates is threatened by non-Western states withmore authoritarian values. There are reasons tobe sceptical. For one thing, the theory exagger-ates the differences between “civilization” groupsand ignores the similarities among them.

Moreover, the West has no monopoly ondemocracy or tolerance, and there is no uniqueline of historical division between a tolerantand democratic West and a despotic East. Platoand Augustine were no less authoritarian intheir thinking than were Confucius and Kautilya.There were champions of democracy not just inEurope but elsewhere as well. Take Akbar, whopreached religious tolerance in 16th centuryIndia, or Prince Shotoku who in 7th centuryJapan introduced the constitution (kempo) thatinsisted that “decisions on important matters

should not be made by one person alone. Theyshould be discussed by many”. Notions of par-ticipatory decision-making on important pub-lic issues have been a central part of manytraditions in Africa and elsewhere. And more re-cent findings of the World Values survey showthat people in Muslim countries have as muchsupport for democratic values as do people innon-Muslim countries.

A basic problem with these theories is theunderlying assumption that culture is largelyfixed and unchanging, allowing the world to beneatly divided into “civilizations” or “cultures”.This ignores the fact that while there can be greatcontinuity in values and traditions in societies,cultures also change and are rarely homoge-neous. Nearly all societies have undergone shiftsin values—for example, shifts in values aboutthe role of women and gender equality overthe last century. And radical changes in socialpractices have occurred everywhere, fromCatholics in Chile to Muslims in Bangladesh toBuddhists in Thailand. Such changes and ten-sions within societies drive politics and histor-ical change, so that the way power relationshipsaffect those dynamics now dominates researchin anthropology. Paradoxically, just as anthro-pologists have discarded the concept of cul-ture as a bounded and fixed social phenomenon,mainstream political interest in finding corevalues and traits of “a people and their cul-ture” is growing.

Theories of cultural determinism deservecritical assessment since they have dangerouspolicy implications. They can fuel support fornationalistic policies that denigrate or oppress“inferior” cultures argued to stand in the wayof national unity, democracy and development.Such attacks on cultural values would then fuelviolent reactions that could feed tensions bothwithin and between nations.

Human development requires more thanhealth, education, a decent standard of livingand political freedom. People’s cultural iden-tities must be recognized and accommodatedby the state, and people must be free to expressthese identities without being discriminatedagainst in other aspects of their lives. In

Theories of cultural

determinism deserve

critical assessment since

they have dangerous

policy implications and

could feed tensions both

within and between

nations



short: cultural liberty is a human right and animportant aspect of human development—and thus worthy of state action and attention.

Human development is the process of widen-ing choices for people to do and be what theyvalue in life. Previous Human DevelopmentReports have focused on expanding social, po-litical and economic opportunities to expandthese choices. They have explored ways thatpolicies of equitable growth, expansion of so-cial opportunities and deepening of democracycan enhance those choices for all people.

A further dimension of human development,difficult to measure and even to define, is vitallyimportant: cultural liberty is central to the capa-bility of people to live as they would like. The ad-vance of cultural liberty must be a central aspectof human development, and this requires goingbeyond social, political and economic opportu-nities since they do not guarantee cultural liberty.

Cultural liberty is about allowing people thefreedom to choose their identities—and to leadthe lives they value—without being excludedfrom other choices important to them (such as

those for education, health or job opportuni-ties). In practice there are two forms of culturalexclusion. First is living mode exclusion, whichdenies recognition and accommodation of alifestyle that a group would choose to have andthat insists that individuals must live exactly likeall others in society. Examples include religiousoppression or the insistence that immigrantsdrop their cultural practices and language. Sec-ond is participation exclusion, when people arediscriminated against or suffer disadvantage insocial, political and economic opportunities be-cause of their cultural identity.

Both types of exclusion exist on an exten-sive scale, across every continent, at every levelof development, in democracies and authori-tarian states. The Minorities at Risk data set,a research project including issues relating to cul-tural exclusion that has reviewed the situationof minority groups worldwide, estimates thatabout 900 million people belong to groups thatare subject to some form of either living modeor participation exclusion not faced by othergroups in the state—around one in every sevenpeople around the world.

Cultural liberty allows

people to live the lives

they value without being

excluded from other

choices important to them

such as education, health

or job opportunities

TABLE

Integrating multicultural policies into human development strategies

Three pillars of the humandevelopment strategy Necessary for cultural liberty

But not sufficientfor cultural liberty

Additionalmulticultural policies

Potential contradictionsbetween aims ofmulticulturalism andthree pillars

Democracy Democracy is the only form ofgovernment consistent with allhuman freedoms and humanrights, including culturalfreedoms and rights.

Democracy does little toaccommodate minorityinterests. Well developeddemocracies have neglectedclaims for cultural recognitionfrom ethnic, linguistic andreligious groups, includingindigenous groups andimmigrants. Democracy alsopermits the rise of violentextremist groups.

Incorporate accommodation ofminority identities and adoptpolicies of multiculturalism.

Consider asymmetricfederalism and executivepower sharing.

Recognize multiple identitiesand multiple citizenship.

Claims for cultural recognitionoften made by non-democratic groups. Demandscan be antithetical to buildingdemocracy, freezingtraditional practices that areoppressive in the name of“authenticity”, and may notbe supported by manymembers of the relevantgroup.

Pro-poor growth Pro-poor growth is necessaryto redress socio-economicexclusion (participationexclusion) of cultural groups.

Pro-poor growth is not enoughto overcome discriminationand redress past wrongs.

Develop special supportprogrammes for jobs, trainingand credit.

Institute affirmative actionprogrammes.

Affirmative action is contraryto principles of equality. Arespecial programmes analternative to affirmativeaction?

Equitable expansion of socialopportunities

Equitable expansion of socialopportunities is necessary toredress socio-economicexclusion of cultural groups.

Equitable expansion of socialopportunities is not enough toovercome discrimination andredress past wrongs.Also, does not addressdemand for differentopportunities, such asdifferent kinds of education.

Develop special supportprogrammes for excludedgroups.

Institute affirmative actionprogrammes.

Offer separate publicly fundedprovisions, such as schools.

Affirmative action is contraryto principles of equality. Arespecial programmes analternative to affirmativeaction?

May involve “unfair inclusion”and exclusion from manychoices and opportunitiesopen to all other citizens.

Source: Human Development Report Office.



Of course, suppressions of cultural libertyfill the spectrum. At one extreme is ethniccleansing. Then there are formal restrictions onthe practice of religion, language and citizenship.But more frequently cultural exclusion comesfrom a simple lack of recognition or respect forthe culture and heritage of people—or fromsome cultures being considered inferior, prim-itive or uncivilized. This can be reflected instate policies, as in national calendars that do notobserve a minority’s religious holiday, school-books that leave out or belittle the achieve-ments of minority leaders and support toliterature and other arts that celebrate theachievements of the dominant culture.

Living mode exclusion often overlaps withsocial, economic and political exclusion throughdiscrimination and disadvantage in employ-ment, housing, schooling and political repre-sentation. The occupational castes in Nepalhave under-five mortality rates of more than17%, compared with around 7% for the Newarand Brahmin. In Serbia and Montenegro 30%of Roma children have never attended primaryschool. Latin Americans of European descentoften express pride that they are colour blindand insist that their states are too. But across thecontinent indigenous groups are poorer andless represented politically than the non-in-digenous. In Mexico, for example, 81% of in-digenous people are reckoned to have incomesbelow the poverty line, compared with 18% forthe general population.

Living mode and participation exclusion,however, do not always overlap. People of Chi-nese ancestry in South-East Asia, for example,are economically dominant yet have been cul-turally excluded, for example, with Chineselanguage schools restricted, publishing in Chi-nese prohibited and people of Chinese descentsocially pressured to adopt local names. Butmore often living mode exclusion reinforcesexclusion from other opportunities. This is par-ticularly so for language. Many groups, especiallylarge minorities such as the Kurds in Turkey andthe indigenous people of Guatemala, are ex-cluded from political participation and eco-nomic opportunities because the state does notrecognize their language in schools, law courtsand other official arenas. This is why groups fight

so hard for their languages to be recognizedand used in instruction and in political andlegal processes.

None of this is utopian. Incorporatingmulticultural policies is not always easy.Democracy, equitable development and statecohesion are essential, and many countries aresuccessfully developing multicultural poli-cies to address cultural exclusion.

Cultural liberty will not just happen, any morethan health, education and gender equity justhappen. Fostering it should be a core concernof governments, even where there are no explicitpolicies of persecution or discrimination.

Some argue that guaranteeing individualscivil and political rights—such as freedom ofworship, speech and association—is enough togive them the ability to practice their religion,speak their language and be free of discrimi-nation in employment, schooling and manyother types of exclusion. They argue that cul-tural exclusion is a by-product of economicand political exclusions and that once these areresolved, the cultural exclusion will disappearof its own accord.

This has not happened. Many rich and de-mocratic countries, for example, profess to treatall citizens equally, but are nonetheless home tominorities who lack proper representation in pol-itics, and for whom harassment and difficulty inaccessing public services are their daily fare.

To expand cultural freedoms requires explicitpolicies to address denials of cultural liberty—multicultural policies. To do this, states need torecognize cultural differences in their constitu-tions, their laws and their institutions. They alsoneed to formulate policies to ensure that the in-terests of particular groups—whether minori-ties or historically marginalized majorities—arenot ignored or overridden by the majority or bydominant groups. And they need to do so inways that do not contradict other goals andstrategies of human development, such as con-solidating democracy, building a capable stateand ensuring equal opportunities to all citizens.This is not easy, but there are many examples ofcountries around the world adopting innovative

Several emerging models

of multicultural democracy

provide effective

mechanisms for power

sharing between culturally

diverse groups



approaches for managing cultural diversity. TheReport focuses particularly on five central pol-icy areas: political participation, religion, accessto justice, language and access to socio-economicopportunities.

Policies for ensuring political participation

Many historically marginalized groups are stillexcluded from real political power, and so theyoften feel alienated from the state. In some casesthe exclusion is due to a lack of democracy orthe denial of political rights. If so, democrati-zation would be an essential first step. However,something more is required, because even whenmembers of minorities have equal political rightsin a democracy, they may be consistently un-derrepresented or outvoted, and so view thecentral government as alien and oppressive. Notsurprisingly, many minorities resist alien or op-pressive rule and seek more political power.That is why a “multicultural” conception ofdemocracy is often required.

Several emerging models of multiculturaldemocracy provide effective mechanisms forpower sharing between culturally diverse groups.These kinds of power-sharing arrangements arecrucial for securing the rights of diverse cul-tural groups and minorities and for preventingviolations—either by majoritarian impositionor by the dominance of the ruling political elite.

Electoral reforms addressed the chronicunderrepresentation of Maoris in New Zealand.With the introduction of proportional repre-sentation in place of the winner-takes-all for-mula, Maori representation rose from 3% in 1993to 16% in the 2002 elections, in line with theirshare of the population. Reserved seats and quo-tas have been critical to ensuring that the sched-uled tribes and castes had a voice in India and thatethnic minorities were represented in Croatia.

Federal arrangements are an important ap-proach to power sharing. Almost every one ofthe dozen ethnically diverse countries that arelongstanding democracies has asymmetrical fed-eral arrangements in which subunits of the fed-eral state do not all have the same powers. Thisarrangement responds more flexibly to the needsof different groups. For example, Sabah andSarawak have a special status in Malaysia, as do

the Basques and 14 other communidades auto-nomas in Spain, with autonomy in areas suchas education, language and culture.

Some indigenous people, such as the Inu-its in Canada, have also negotiated self-gov-erning territories. The lesson is that such powersharing arrangements have broadly proven to becritical in resolving tensions in countries his-torically confronted with secessionist move-ments, as in Spain. Introduced early enough,when tensions are mounting, they can forestallviolent conflict.

Policies for ensuring religious freedom

Many religious minorities suffer various formsof exclusion, sometimes due to explicit sup-pression of religious freedom or discriminationagainst that group—a problem particularly com-mon in non-secular countries where the state up-holds an established religion.

But in other cases the exclusion may be lessdirect and often unintended, as when the pub-lic calendar does not recognize a minority’s re-ligious holidays. India officially celebrates 5Hindu holidays but also 4 Muslim, 2 Christian,1 Buddhist, 1 Jain and 1 Sikh in recognition ofa diverse population. France celebrates 11 na-tional holidays, 5 are non-denominational andof the 6 religious holidays all celebrate events inthe Christian calendar, though 7% of the pop-ulation is Muslim and 1% Jewish. Similarly, thedress codes in public institutions may conflictwith a minority’s religious dress. Or state rulesabout marriage and inheritance may differ fromthose of religious codes. Or zoning regulationsmay be at odds with a minority’s burial practices.

These sorts of conflicts can arise even in sec-ular states with strong democratic institutionsthat protect civil and political rights. Given theprofound importance of religion to people’sidentities, it is not surprising that religiousminorities often mobilize to contest these ex-clusions. Some religious practices are not dif-ficult to accommodate, but often they presentdifficult choices and trade-offs. France is grap-pling with whether headscarfs in state schoolsviolate state principles of secularism and demo-cratic values of gender equality that state edu-cation aims to impart. Nigeria is struggling with

Power sharing

arrangements have

broadly proven to be

critical in resolving

tensions



whether to uphold the ruling of a Sharia courtin a case of adultery.

What is important from the human devel-opment perspective is to expand human freedomsand human rights—and to recognize equality.Secular and democratic states are most likely toachieve these goals where the state provides rea-sonable accommodation of religious practices,where all religions have the same relation to thestate and where the state protects human rights.

Policies for legal pluralism

In many multicultural societies indigenous peo-ple and people from other cultural groups havepressed for recognition of their traditional legalsystems to gain access to justice. For example,the Maya in Guatemala suffered centuries of op-pression, and the state legal system became partof their oppression. The communities lost faithin the state system of rule of law, because it didnot secure justice and because it was not em-bedded in the society and its values.

Several countries such as Guatemala, Indiaand South Africa are developing approaches tolegal pluralism, recognizing the role of the ju-dicial norms and institutions of the communi-ties in different ways. Demands for legalpluralism meet opposition from those who fearthat it undermines the principle of a unifiedlegal system or that it would promote traditionalpractices contrary to democracy and humanrights. For sure, conflicts do arise—SouthAfrica, for example, is grappling with the con-flict between the rights of women to inheritanceunder state constitution and the rights deniedunder customary law. There are real trade-offssocieties must face, but legal pluralism does notrequire wholesale adoption of all traditionalpractices. Culture does evolve, and culturalliberty is not a knee-jerk defence of tradition.

Language policy

Language is often the most contested issue inmulticultural states. Some countries have tried

Multicultural policies that

recognize differences

between groups are

needed to address

injustices historically

rooted and socially

entrenched

On 4 January 2004 Afghanistan’s new Consti-tution was adopted by a Loya Jirga (or grand as-sembly) of 502 representatives from all parts ofAfghanistan. While the adoption itself is a sig-nificant milestone achieved over the past twoyears, certain aspects of the new Constitution areparticularly noteworthy. For example, in rec-ognizing the linguistic diversity in Afghanistan,the Constitution takes a step that is unprece-dented in the history not only of Afghanistan, butof the region as a whole.

Afghanistan has two major official languages,Pashto and Dari, which we have proudly spokenfor centuries. The Constitution provides for theequal application of these two languages as theofficial medium of communication in all state or-ganizations. Many state institutions will need towork to implement this, but some, includingmy own Office, do this already. It is gratifyingto me as an Afghan, and as President, to be ableto switch between Dari and Pashto when speak-ing publicly, as the occasion requires.

In addition to the two major official lan-guages the delegates to the Loya Jirga agreedto give official status to all minority languagesin the areas where these languages are spoken.

This is an important step that has precedence,I think, only in societies that are strong andsolid. It is a powerful indication that, eventhough we are a society that has just emergedfrom war and disorder, we have the courage andbroadmindedness to be inclusive and to rec-ognize diversity. It makes us proud that todayour Baluch, Nuristani, Pamiri, Pashai, Turkmenand Uzbek fellow Afghans are enjoying theright to use their own languages and to havethem recognized as official. I am confident thatthis step will make Afghanistan a stronger na-tion, prouder than before, and an exemplary na-tion in the region.

Having taken the first step, Afghanistannow needs to work to make the words of theConstitution a reality. While we are confidentabout the feasibility of making regional lan-guages official in their respective regions, it is in-deed not a small task to put the infrastructurein place for this purpose. To teach people to readand write in their mother tongue requires in-corporating the language into the school cur-riculum. This will require changes in ourmainstream education system. We will need totrain more teachers and to print more books.

But above all, we need to proceed carefullyto ensure that making regional languages officialcontributes to national integration, rather thanreinforcing the isolation of communities. In the 21stcentury, people around the world are increasinglysearching for commonalities, including common-ality in language. Learning a local language shouldnot become a countercurrent. And it should notreduce the quality of education for our children.

The Loya Jirga representatives ensured thatour new Constitution represents not only thedeep aspirations of the nation but also the diversepreferences of the people of Afghanistan. Turn-ing their vision into reality may indeed be a chal-lenge, but it is a challenge we are confident thatwe can meet. Recognizing our diversity, while af-firming our nationhood, will further solidify thefoundations of a democratic Afghanistan.

Hamid KarzaiPresident

Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan

Recognition of linguistic diversity in Afghanistan’s Constitution




to suppress people’s languages, labelling theiruse subversive. But the more frequent sourceof widespread exclusion in even well-estab-lished democracies is monolingual policy. Thechoice of official language—the language ofinstruction in schools, the language of legisla-tive debates and civic participation, the lan-guage of commerce—shapes the barriers andadvantages individuals face in life—political, so-cial, economic and cultural. In Malawi the con-stitution requires all parliamentarians to speakand read English. English and Afrikaans are stillthe de facto languages used in the courts ofSouth Africa, even though nine other languagesare now officially recognized. Recognizing a lan-guage means more than just the use of thatlanguage. It symbolizes respect for the peoplewho speak it, their culture and their full in-clusion in society.

The state can be blind to religion, but itcannot be mute to language. Citizens need tocommunicate to feel a sense of belonging, andthe choice of official language symbolizes the na-tional identity. That is why many states resist rec-ognizing multiple languages even when theychampion civil and political freedoms.

Many countries are finding ways to accom-modate the twin objectives of unity and diversityby adopting two or three languages, recognizinga unifying national language as well as local lan-guages. In many colonized countries this hasmeant recognizing the language of administration(such as English or French), the most widelyused local language and a mother tongue at locallevels. Tanzania has promoted the use of Kiswahilialong with English in schools and government.India has practised a three-language formula fordecades; children are taught in the official lan-guage of their state (Bengali in West Bengal, forexample) and are also taught the two official lan-guages of the country, Hindi and English.

Socio-economic policies

Socio-economic injustices and inequalities in in-come, education and health outcomes have beenthe defining feature of many multi-ethnic societieswith marginal groups—blacks in South Africa andindigenous people in Guatemala and Canada.These exclusions reflect long historical roots ofconquest and colonization—as well as entrenchedstructures of hierarchy, such as caste systems.

The maintenance of a

liberal society depends on

respecting the rule of law,

listening to political claims

and protecting

fundamental human

rights—even those of

vile people

On 27 April 1994 the people of South Africafounded a nation on the pledge that we wouldundo the legacy of our divided past in order tobuild a better life for all.

It was not a pledge that we made lightly.For generations, millions had been delib-

erately reduced to poverty. And to perpetuate it-self, the apartheid system that claimed to beordained from on high was sustained only bybrute force, robbing us all of our humanity—oppressed and oppressor alike.

For decades we had fought for a non-racial,non-sexist society, and even before we cameinto power in the historic elections of 1994, ourvision of democracy was defined by the princi-ple, among others, that no person or groups ofpersons shall be subjected to oppression, dom-ination or discrimination by virtue of race, gen-der, ethnic origin, colour or creed.

Once we won power, we chose to regard thediversity of colours and languages that had oncebeen used to divide us as a source of strength.

We ensured that the basic law of our land, ourConstitution and Bill of Rights, promoted unityand gave unique attention to social and eco-nomic rights. Our path of inclusiveness was notnew, nor had it been chosen in haste. For decadesthe African National Congress had promoted na-tional unity, and even at the height of oppression,when racial interaction led to prison and death,we never gave up on our aim to build a societygrounded on friendship and common humanity.

Now, although laws no longer enforce theold divisions, they are still visible in social andeconomic life, in our residential areas, in ourworkplaces and in the growing inequality be-tween rich and poor.

When we took on the project to transformour society, one of our rallying cries was “free-dom from want”. Our goal was to banish hunger,illiteracy and homelessness and ensure that every-one had access to food, education and housing.We saw freedom as inseparable from humandignity and equality. Now the foundation for a

better life has been laid, and construction hasbegun. We are fully aware that our freedom andour rights will only gain their full meaning as wesucceed together in overcoming the divisionsand inequalities of our past and in improving thelives of all, especially the poor. Today, we arestarting to reap some of the harvest we sowed atthe end of a South African famine.

Many in the international community, ob-serving from a distance how our society defiedthe prophets of doom and their predictions ofendless conflict, have spoken of a miracle. Yetthose who have been closely involved in thetransition will know that it has been the prod-uct of human decision.

Nelson Mandela1993 Nobel Peace Prize Winner

Diversity—from divisive to inclusive




Economic and social policies that promoteequity are critical in addressing these inequali-ties. Redressing biases in public spending as wellas targeting basic services to people with lowerhealth and education outcomes would help—butwould not be enough. Multicultural policies thatrecognize differences between groups are neededto address the injustices that are historicallyrooted and socially entrenched. For example,simply spending more on education for childrenof indigenous groups would not be enough, forthey are disadvantaged if school instruction is inthe official language only. Bilingual educationwould help. Claims over land—such as the claimsof indigenous people over land with mineral re-sources or the land settled by white colonizers inSouthern Africa—cannot be resolved with poli-cies that expand socio-economic opportunities.

Experience in India, Malaysia, South Africaand the United States shows that affirmative ac-tion can reduce inequalities between groups. InMalaysia the ratio of average income betweenChinese and Malay populations declined from 2.3in 1970 to 1.7 in 1990. In the United States theproportion of black lawyers rose from 1.2% to5.1% of the total and the proportion of blackphysicians from 2% to 5.6%. In India the allo-cation of government jobs, admission to highereducation and legislative seats to scheduled castesand tribes has helped members of these groupsclimb out of poverty and join the middle class.

None of these policies is without its com-plexities, but the experience of many countriesshows that solutions are possible. Bilingual ed-ucation may be contested as ineffective, but thatis because it receives too little support to ensurequality. Affirmative action programmes may becontested as creating permanent sources of in-equality or becoming a source of patronage—butthey can be better managed. These are ways ofresponding to demands for cultural inclusion. Butwe must also recognize that in the world todaythere are also more movements for cultural dom-ination that seek to suppress diversity.

Movements for cultural domination threatencultural liberty. Fighting them with illegal andundemocratic measures violates human rightsand does not make the problem go away.

Democratic accommodation is more effectivein exposing the intolerant agendas of suchmovements and undermining their appeal.

People leading movements for cultural domi-nation believe in their own cultural superiorityand try to impose their ideologies on others,both within and outside their community. Notall such movements are violent. Some coerce oth-ers using political campaigns, threats and ha-rassment. In the extreme they use violent meansas well—hate attacks, expulsions, ethnic cleans-ing and genocide. As a political force intoleranceis threatening to overwhelm political processesin countries around the world. Movements forcultural domination take different forms: polit-ical parties, militias, violent groups, interna-tional networks and even the state. It is naïve toassume that democratic societies are immune tointolerance and hatred.

The underlying causes for the rise of move-ments for cultural domination often includemanipulative leadership, poverty and inequality,weak or ineffectual states, outside political in-terventions and linkages with the diaspora. Thesefactors can also inspire nationalist movements—say, for autonomy or secession. But movementsfor national autonomy are not the same as move-ments for cultural domination. For one thing,movements for cultural domination can oftenarise within the majority group that alreadydominates the state—such as extreme right par-ties in many European countries. Conversely,many movements for national autonomy can bequite liberal, recognizing the importance of ac-commodating diversity within an autonomousterritory and seeking only the same respect andrecognition as other nations. What distinguishesmovements for cultural domination is their as-sertion of cultural superiority and their intoler-ance. Their targets are freedom and diversity.

The question is how to deal with them?States have often tried to confront thesemovements with repressive and undemocraticmethods—bans on parties, extrajudicial de-tentions and trials, legislation that violates fun-damental rights and even indiscriminate forceand torture. These measures often suppress le-gitimate political demands and processes, re-sulting in much more extreme reactions. When

The Report advocates an

approach that respects

and promotes diversity

while keeping countries

open to global flows of

capital, goods and people



the Islamist Salvation Front (FIS) won the firstround of elections in 1991 in Algeria, the mil-itary intervened and banned the party. The re-sult: a civil war that cost more than 100,000 livesand spurred the growth of intolerant and vio-lent groups.

Instead, democratic accommodation works.Allowing extreme right parties to contest inelections can force them to moderate their po-sitions as well, for example, with the FreedomParty (FPÖ) in Austria or the Justice and De-velopment Party in Morocco. Electoral compe-tition exposes the fringe appeal of other groups(the Progress Party in Denmark). Democratic ac-commodation also gives states the legitimacy toprosecute hate crimes, reform the curriculum ofreligious schools (in Indonesia and Malaysia)and experiment with community initiatives to im-prove relations (Mozambique and Rwanda).

The maintenance of a liberal society de-pends on respecting the rule of law, listening topolitical claims and protecting fundamentalhuman rights—even those of vile people.Intolerance is a real challenge for culturalliberty—that is why the means to deal with itmust be legitimate.

Globalization can threaten national and localidentities. The solution is not to retreat to con-servatism and isolationist nationalism—it isto design multicultural policies to promote di-versity and pluralism.

So far the focus has been on how states shouldmanage diversity within their borders. But in anera of globalization states also face challengesfrom outside their borders, in the form of in-ternational movements of ideas, capital, goodsand people.

Expanding cultural freedom in this age ofglobalization presents new challenges and dilem-mas. Contacts between people, their values,ideas and ways of life have been growing anddeepening in unprecedented ways. For many,this new diversity is exciting, even empowering.For others, it is disquieting and disempowering.Many fear that globalization means a loss oftheir values and ways of life—a threat to localand national identity. An extreme reaction is to

shut out foreign influences, an approach that isnot only xenophobic and conservative but alsoregressive, shrinking rather than expandingfreedoms and choice.

The Report advocates an alternative ap-proach that respects and promotes diversitywhile keeping countries open to global flows ofcapital, goods and people. That requires policiesreflecting the goal of cultural liberty. Policiesneed to explicitly recognize and respect cul-tural difference. They also need to address im-balances in economic and political power thatlead to loss of cultures and identities.

Such alternatives are being developed anddebated in three hotly contested areas:• Indigenous people are protesting invest-

ments in extractive sectors and misappro-priations of traditional knowledge thatthreaten their livelihoods.

• Countries are demanding that cultural goods(mainly cinema and audiovisual products)not be treated as any other goods in inter-national trade since imports of cultural goodscan weaken national cultural industries.

• Migrants are demanding accommodationof their way of life and respect for the mul-tiple identities they have in both the localcommunity and their country of origin. Butlocal communities are demanding that im-migrants assimilate, or be turned away, forthey fear that their societies are becomingdivided and that national values and iden-tity are being eroded.How can these demands be accommodated?

How should diversity be respected, and theasymmetries addressed?

Indigenous people, extractive industries andtraditional knowledge

Investments that disregard indigenous peo-ple’s rights to land and its cultural significanceas well as its value as an economic resource willinevitably invite opposition. So will patentingtraditional knowledge under the same condi-tions. Three principles are critical: recognizingindigenous people’s rights over knowledge andland, ensuring that indigenous groups havevoice (seeking their prior informed consent) anddeveloping strategies for sharing benefits.

Individuals have to shed

rigid identities if they are

to become part of diverse

societies and uphold

cosmopolitan values of

tolerance and respect for

universal human rights



Some initiatives, though still limited, arebeing taken by corporations and national gov-ernments to work with indigenous communitiesin developing new investments. In Peru gov-ernment and corporations have learned thelessons of previous confrontations and havebeen involving indigenous communities in de-cision-making in the Antamina zinc and coppermine since 2001. In Papua New Guinea in-vestments in community development projectsaccompany extraction activities. Collaborativeventures between mining companies and in-digenous people in North America and Australiahave brought monetary benefits while preserv-ing traditional lifestyles.

Many national governments are taking stepsto recognize traditional knowledge. Bangladeshrecognizes community-based rights to biolog-ical resources and associated traditional knowl-edge. Lao PDR documents knowledge in itsTraditional Medicines Resource Centre. SouthAfrica has promised to share with the SanBushmen the proceeds from drugs developedbased on their knowledge. Countries have al-ready found ways of using existing intellectualproperty rights systems to protect traditionalknowledge. Industrial designs are used to pro-tect carpets and headdresses in Kazakhstan.Geographical indications protect liquors andteas in Venezuela and Viet Nam. Copyrightsand trademarks are used for traditional art inAustralia and Canada.

Recognizing diversity means that differentnotions of property rights and the cultural sig-nificance of knowledge and art forms be accom-modated within global regimes. This requiresinternational action. If current intellectual prop-erty standards cannot accommodate commonlyknown traditional knowledge or its attributes ofgroup ownership, the rules will need to be revised.Loans to countries and companies for projects thatwrongly acquire property or do not compensatecommunities should be withdrawn.

Cultural goods

Should cultural goods be protected in interna-tional trade to help protect cultural diversity inthe world? Are films and audiovisual productscultural goods? Two principles are critical: rec-ognize the role of cultural goods in nurturingcreativity and diversity, and recognize the dis-advantage of small film and audiovisual indus-tries in global markets.

Diversity in cultural goods has its own valuebecause it increases consumer choice and en-riches people’s cultural experience. But cul-tural goods also enjoy economies of scale. So theproducts of large producers tend to crowd outthe products of smaller producers, particularlyin poorer countries.

How can diversity be promoted? Mount-ing barriers to trade is not the answer, since thatreduces choice. Support to cultural industries

Development divorced from its human or cul-tural context is growth without a soul. Eco-nomic development in its full flowering ispart of a people’s culture.

—World Commission on Culture and Development 1995

Indigenous peoples are proponents and repre-sentatives of humanity’s cultural diversity.Historically, however, indigenous peoples havebeen marginalized by dominant societies and haveoften faced assimilation and cultural genocide.

In the multicultural societies growing uparound them, indigenous peoples seek an end tosuch marginalization and fringe dwelling. They

have much to contribute to society, and theybring to both national and international debatesvaluable advice about the great issues facing hu-manity in this new millennium.

In May 2003 the Permanent Forum on In-digenous Issues stressed in its Second Session theimportance of recognizing cultural diversity indevelopment processes and the need for all de-velopment to be sustainable. Recommendation8 of the Second Session calls for “instituting alegal framework that makes cultural, environ-mental and social impact assessment studiesmandatory” (E/2003/43). The forum also ex-pressed concern over development practicesthat do not take into account the characteristics

of indigenous communities as groups, thus sig-nificantly undermining meaningful ways of par-ticipatory development.

Indigenous peoples have dynamic living cul-tures and seek their place in the modern world.They are not against development, but for toolong they have been victims of development andnow demand to be participants in—and to ben-efit from—a development that is sustainable.

Ole Henrik MaggaChairman of the UN Permanent

Forum on Indigenous Issues

Indigenous peoples and development




rather than tariffs would do more for diversity.Argentina, Brazil and France have successfullyexperimented with production subsidies andtax breaks for cultural industries, without stop-ping the flows of cultural products from over-seas to local markets. Hungary diverts 6% oftelevision receipts to promote domestic films.Egypt uses public-private partnerships to fi-nance the infrastructure for film making.

Immigration

Should immigrants have to assimilate or shouldtheir cultures be recognized? Three principlesare critical: respect diversity, recognize multipleidentities and build common bonds of belong-ing to the local community. No country has ad-vanced by closing its borders. Internationalmigration brings skills, labour and ideas, en-riching people’s lives. Just as traditionalism andreligious practices that violate human rightscannot be defended, forced assimilation cannotbe a viable solution.

Identities are not a zero sum game. Considerthis, from a Malaysian in Norway: “I am oftenasked how long I have lived here; ‘20 years’, Isay. The next remark often is ‘Oh, you are al-most Norwegian!’ The assumption here is thatI have become less Malaysian because it is com-mon to think about identity as a zero sum game;if you have more of one identity, you have lessof another. Identity is somehow imagined likea square box with a fixed size.”

Two approaches to immigration dominatemost countries’ policies: differentialism (mi-grants keeping their identities but not inte-grating into the rest of society) and assimilation(without the choice of keeping the old identity).But new approaches of multiculturalism arebeing introduced that recognize multiple iden-tities. This involves promoting tolerance andcultural understanding, but also specificallyaccommodating religious practice, dress andother aspects of everyday life. It also involves

acknowledging that immigrants are voicelessand insecure in the face of exploitation and pro-viding support for integration such as languagetraining and job search services.

Countries are expanding the rights of civicparticipation to non-citizenship—“denizenship”(Belgium, Sweden). And more than 30 countriesnow accept dual citizenship. To reduce miscon-ceptions and prejudices the Commissioner’s Of-fice of the Berlin Senate for Integration andMigration funds immigrant organizations, usespublic information campaigns and offers legalconsultations in 12 languages to help with jobs andtackle discrimination.

But these policies are contested. Bilingual ed-ucation in the United States and the wearing ofheadscarf in France are divisive issues. Some fearthat they challenge some of the most funda-mental values of society—such as commitmentto adopt the American culture, or the Frenchprinciples of secularism and gender equality.

* * *Expanding cultural freedoms is an importantgoal in human development—one that needs ur-gent attention in the 21st century. All peoplewant to be free to be who they are. All peoplewant to be free to express their identity as mem-bers of a group with shared commitments andvalues—whether it is nationality, ethnicity, lan-guage or religion, whether it is family, profes-sion or avocation.

Globalization is driving ever-increasing in-teractions among the world’s people. This worldneeds both greater respect for diversity andstronger commitment to unity. Individuals haveto shed rigid identities if they are to become partof diverse societies and uphold cosmopolitan val-ues of tolerance and respect for universal humanrights. The Report provides a basis for dis-cussing how countries can make that happen.If the short history of the 21st century has taughtus nothing else, it is that ducking these questionsis not an option.


Documents

SUMMARY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2004hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr_2004_summary_en.pdf · SUMMARY: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2004 5 OVERVIEW Cultural liberty in today’s diverse