|
Article Excerpt
Natural disasters such as the 2004 tsunami, hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the 2006 South Asian earthquake; the postwar sites of Afghanistan and Iraq; and housing regeneration programs in the UK have allowed international institutions to increasingly gain legitimacy to participate in postdisaster governance through the language of human rights. The World Conference on Disaster Reduction (2005) promoted "people-centered governance" to reduce the violation of human rights of the poor and excluded, indicating the important relationship of rights and governance. In this article, I draw on the empirical research I conducted while living and working in villages as a relief and community development worker in the postearthquake reconstruction processes in Maharashtra India, during 1993-1997. I consider how rights legitimize, materially determine, and physically locate sites of governance in the postearthquake Maharashtra reconstruction process. I suggest that this formula of people-centered governance for understanding the relations of rights and governance is applicable to wider reconstruction processes, from postdisaster to everyday life. KEYWORDS: reconstruction, governance, rights, legitimacy, postdisaster.
In 2006, the UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing commented, "Relief efforts risk turning survivors into dependents of the state when large contractors and government machinery lead the process of rehabilitation without input from the people. We all must recognise that resettlement and rehabilitation can be most effective only when human rights standards are met and the survivors themselves are given the opportunity to transform their lives." (1)
The Maharashtra earthquake of 1993 marks a key turning point in international postdisaster reconstruction policies during the broader shift in global governance and economic policy of the post-Washington Consensus, as presented in Reinventing the World Bank. (2) In this article, I consider the experience of the World Bank and the Maharashtra state government's Maharashtra Emergency Earthquake Rehabilitation Programme (MEERP) as an example of the World Bank's rethinking on governance through participation. Joseph Stiglitz, chief economist of the World Bank, summarized the New World Bank vision in 1998:
What is needed is a thoroughgoing transformation of society that extends beyond tinkering at the margins to encompass institutional change and the creation of new institutions in the private and public sectors, including corporations, states, local communities and families. This Herculean task cannot be achieved by "imposing change from the outside" but requires local ownership, participation, inclusion and concensus-building." (3)
In this article, I consider how the World Bank's justification of the "transformation of society" through "rights of participation" is played out in the specific example of the MEERP, regarding which the chief minister of Maharashtra stated, "The Rehabilitation Policy, while addressing issues in relation to the restoration of properties lost and damaged in the earthquake, places even greater emphasis on social equity and the creation of vibrant and wholesome communities." (4)
The World Bank and the state government's MEERP divided the earthquake-affected area into a relocated township of 52,000 contractor-driven reconstructed houses, and 1,500 existing peripheral villages where homes were repaired and strengthened. In the relocated villages, the World Bank and state government designated rights of participation to the beneficiaries to select the relocation sites, the layout of the village, the design of the houses, and the provision of amenities. In the peripheral villages, the World Bank provided rights to the villagers to participate in the rebuilding of their homes. Overall, Sultan Barakat cites the Maharashtra project as a "people's project. ... The participatory project process opened many informal channels of communication between ordinary people and the government." (5) But Jennifer Barenstein's comparative analysis of the Gujurat postearthquake housing reconstruction demonstrates the problems and weaknesses of the Maharashtra participatory housing models, which often involve the "discussion of reconstruction plans with village elites, without offering even these selected citizens the opportunity to put forward alternatives." (6)
In this article, I question the relation of rights and governance in the postdisaster reconstruction process in an effort to understand the complex relationship of how change from the outside is negotiated and mediated through local ownership, participation, and inclusion. I trace this relationship through empirical research I conducted while working as a volunteer community development worker with the Catholic Hospital Association of India in Nandurga village during 1993-1995, and later as the community development manager and deputy manager of the Oxfam Lohata Housing Reconstruction Project during 1995-1997. During that time, I informally kept a personal diary to record my observations of house visits, women's meetings (which were conducted every evening in the seven villages of Nandurga, Nandurga Thande, Limbala Thande, Gubal, Hassalgaan, Sarani, and Lohata), and daily life in the earthquake-affected area. In addition, I conducted textual research of the MEERP policy documents, government of Maharashtra reports, meetings of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), news reports, and specific reports of a public interest litigation case filed on behalf of earthquake-affected persons, S. Krishnadas v. Government of Maharashtra, 1994. (7) After leaving the area in 1997, I formally documented the information for the government of India, (8) prepared an internal evaluation for Oxfam-UK, (9) and wrote a PhD dissertation on rights and gender relations in reconstruction processes (10)--all in an effort to understand the complex role of rights in reconstruction processes. (11) I draw for this discussion on three recent articles (12) on the role of rights in governing relationships at different intersections of the MEERP and the actual practices of the local community at various layers and sites of decisionmaking. I argue that the point of disaster, as a point of fracture in social relations, provides a site for questioning the role of rights as a medium to shape complex governance relationships in the reconstruction process. The questions are the following: Who has the legitimate right to govern? What materially determines rights to govern? Where are relations of governance located?
Governance in Transition
Following the devastating Maharashtra earthquake, which took nearly 10,000 lives and destroyed sixty-seven villages, six months was a relatively short time for the World Bank and the government of Maharashtra to formulate the MEERP. (13) Each day of those six months marked intense deliberations and discussions within the community about how to reconstruct lives, livelihoods, and communities. First, I question the legitimacy of the World Bank and state program to designate rights to community participation and decisionmaking within the MEERP policy. Second, I question how the MEERP's decision to reconstruct the 52,000 houses materially transformed the area from a rural, agriculture-based community consisting of traditional stone houses in small villages, to a modern township of concrete and steel. Third, I consider how the relocation of homes from their agricultural land base to reconstructed roadsides affected the location of governance structures. In contrast, I compare the role of rights in the MEERP owner-driven policy. I examine the legitimacy of owners to govern the repair and strengthening of their own homes within the existing villages at the peripheries of the earthquake reconstruction process. I draw on this formula to consider the role of rights in challenging the MEERP policy and in constructing alternative governance strategies. Accordingly, I contrast the different processes to indicate how different methods of governance as suggested in the post-Washington Consensus can "widen the scope for policy intervention from economic issues to the political, social, and cultural spheres." (14) Through my empirical analysis of the World Bank and state government policy, I question the role of rights in legitimizing, materially determining, and physically locating governance structures to "transform" the cultural, material, and gendered relations within the community.
Legitimate Governance
Upendra Baxi has argued that "practices of global governance may legitimate themselves best by recourse to human rights language." (15) In the World Conference on Disaster Reduction in 2005, human rights were considered an integral tool of governance, which promoted "people-centered governance" in significant contrast to the "good governance" of international financial interventions. (16) Moreover, the collaborative report of the UN and Habitat International Coalition prioritized "the application of international human rights and humanitarian standards in all post-disaster reconstruction planning and operations." (17) In 2005, the United Nations interagency Thematic Working Group on Women's Empowerment and Gender Equality (TWG-WEGE) hosted an event for women to share their diverse experiences...
|
