Jyotsna Mohan on Inclusive Governance and Peaceful Societies

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/07/29

Dr. Jyotsna Mohan Singh is the Advocacy Officer for Forus. Jyotsna holds a Ph.D. from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, and has over 20 years of experience in the development sector and academia. She specializes in SDGs on Agenda 2030, focusing on finance for development, policy coherence, SDG 16 Plus, and regional realities in Asia. She previously served as the Asia Regional Coordinator for the Asian CSO platform, Asia Development Alliance, for over seven years. Jyotsna’s research expertise includes socio-economic and environmental issues, linking development, democracy, and human rights, development finance, health, environment and climate governance, and Voluntary National Reviews for the Asia-Pacific region. She is also experienced in institutional development, training, and capacity building. She has written extensively on voluntary national review analysis for the Asia-Pacific region and the role of international financial institutions and climate justice in the context of policy coherence for sustainable development (PCSD) governance and accountability, with a focus on SDG 16 Plus. You can contact her here: jyotsna@forus-international.org

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Jyotsana Mohan from Forus. They’ve launched a new report looking at inclusive governance for peaceful societies.  As a quick primer, Forums is a global network of civil society organizations representing over 22,000 NGOs. So with this new report, “Rebuilding Trust for Inclusive Governance: Unlocking SDG 16 for Peaceful Societies.” What were the overall findings of the trends regarding the movement towards inclusive governance and peaceful societies? 

Jyotsana Mohan: Hi, I’m Jyotsana Mohan, and I represent Forus. As you rightly said, we are a global civil society organization with membership in 69 countries. We recently launched this report entitled “Rebuilding Trust for Inclusive Governance.” This report is based on the experiences of civil society, government, and other stakeholders. It presents over 40 good practices and experiences across regions where the Forus network works to establish accountable institutions and peaceful societies.

Some of the important findings of this report focus on how to promote inclusive participation. As we know, civil society needs to be included in many events or examples. We have discussed this absence and the need for more civil society engagement. However, we have also discussed experiences promoting inclusive participation, which include developing legal frameworks and policies that facilitate citizen participation, especially for marginalized groups in decision-making processes at all levels of government.

We also discuss intersectoral collaboration and partnership and how to strengthen partnerships between government, civil society, and the private sector. For example, we have a member called KCOC, based in Korea. They are working on the Share and Dream project, collaborating with the private sector, especially Samsung, and the government. This showcases collaboration between civil society, government, and the private sector.

Additionally, we are discussing the enabling environment for civil society. Numerous obstacles exist in many countries, particularly concerning freedom of expression and association and online and offline issues regarding civil society engagement or participation. We look at mechanisms to support civil society in such cases. For instance, we have a regional coalition in the Pacific, which uses a civic monitor developed by Civicus to address restrictions on civic freedom. Another example is a member in Brazil, ABONG, advocating for political reforms and community engagement.

Other findings include the promotion of participation, equity, and inclusion. In Spain, our members developed an innovative feminist cooperation framework that promotes gender equality and equitable governance. These findings provide positive and inspiring frameworks and examples from around the globe, giving hope for inclusive governance.

Recognizing SDG 16 as an enabler and accelerator of all the SDGs, other SDGs are also promoted. We are also talking about localizing decision-making, transparency, and accountability, upholding the rule of law, combating corruption, improving public services, and building effective institutions; last but not least, data-driven decision-making is crucial. Many issues relate to data, especially disaggregated data. Civil society can play a very important role in substantiating good-quality data, particularly quantitative data, also known as citizen-generated data.

We have been discussing all these issues. These important findings, if read and replicated, can change the narrative that SDG16 is regressive and not highly promoted. We urge our readers and policymakers to read this report so that good examples from across the globe can inspire them.

Jacobsen: When looking at the reports in general, what are the strongest factors in advancing SDG16 over others, ones that work cross-culturally?

Mohan: Transparency and accountability are crucial. We have seen many cases where governments are inspired to be more transparent and accountable. For example, the EPICS initiative was launched in Zimbabwe to build a comprehensive CSO database to improve transparency, profiling, and monitoring threats to advocate for a safer civic space.

Localizing decision-making is also important. As we know, we are halfway through the implementation of the SDGs. Localizing is becoming more prominent, with some excellent examples in Nepal, Timor-Leste, and France, where civil society plays a crucial role.

In Nepal, civil society and the government are working to advance localization. They are also looking at community-led practices, which are considered a bottom-up approach because SDGs are always viewed as a top-down approach. Localizing can play a very important role. We have seen that many countries are trying to implement Voluntary Local Reviews (VLR) or Voluntary Subregional Reviews (VSR), which still need to be acknowledged in the SDGs of Agenda 2030.

Acknowledged in the SDGs of Agenda 2030, voluntary national reviews are discussed, but voluntary local reviews or voluntary sub-national reviews have yet to be acknowledged. However, look at the summit of the future. In that case, localization has come up many times, and many governments acknowledge the benefits of localizing because it’s easier to work at the local level, especially with local departments, people, and government officials, rather than at the national level. For instance, the US has yet to develop a voluntary national review, but many civil society organizations are working on voluntary local reviews, which are much more feasible. Localizing is becoming increasingly prominent and can significantly advance SDG 16.

Promoting participation, equity, and inclusion is essential, particularly for marginalized groups, women, youth, and children. For example, Nepal recently presented at a high-level political forum and discussed how to engage youth and children in voluntary national or local reviews. This approach is gaining traction. There are many marginalized groups in the Asian context, and governments are collaborating with civil society to engage them. This collaboration must be widely replicated because localizing and promoting participation has a positive future.

We cannot achieve 100% progress on the SDGs, as we know they are all regressing, with only 17% of targets expected to be met by 2030. However, these practices show some right paths towards a better society. These are some of the practices we highly recommend, and they are coming up a lot.

Jacobsen: A lot of the SDGs are typically interrelated in many ways. Are some SDGs with SDG 16 important even though they may not necessarily be explicitly stated in the press?

Mohan: Yes, all the SDGs are interrelated, and that’s how they were designed. When we look at all the SDGs, that’s how they were formed: you cannot have peace without justice. If you’re talking about peace, you’re talking about positive and negative peace. You cannot have peace when there is no justice. There is no justice if there is no inclusion. From that point of view, all the SDGs are interrelated.

For example, if we are talking about SDG 13, which addresses climate action, climate action can only be achieved by ensuring basic rights for all. Recognizing the role of women is crucial because women play a very important role in decision-making. You can only think about achieving climate action or environmental sustainability if you pay attention to the role of women, which is covered under SDG 5. From this perspective, all the SDGs are interrelated.

There is a very good concept of SDG 16+, which includes the 24 targets of SDG 16 and incorporates targets from other SDGs. SDG 16 has a human rights angle, which is one reason governments might hesitate to promote it.

There is a group of 46 member states, along with partners from international organizations, civil society, and the private sector, committed to advancing sustainable development goals and targets for peace, justice, inclusion, and equality, known as SDG 16+. SDG 16+ addresses three grand challenges: global violence, justice for all, and addressing inequality and exclusion. This involves all the SDGs and is driven by research, evidence, and a multi-stakeholder approach to reduce these challenges.

To halve global violence by 2030, there is a need for international mobilization led by a global violence task force. Justice for all is another grand challenge, aiming to bring together countries, civil society, and multilateral organizations to close the justice gap by investing in people-centred justice. Addressing inequality and exclusion involves creating cross-regional alliances in all countries and seeking practical, politically viable solutions to combat inequality, exclusion, and division at national and international levels. These issues are cross-cutting and demonstrate that all the SDGs are interrelated, with SDG 16 being particularly connected to all the other SDGs. You must consider or implement the others to implement one SDG. They are interrelated.

Jacobsen: Which countries have made the most progress, and which truly stand out in their commitment, advancement, and implementation of SDG 16?

Mohan: The global North countries stand out because of their technological advancement, higher awareness, and smaller size, which facilitate implementation. For example, Finland leads the SDG implementation. These countries benefit from significant awareness in governance among both civil society and the government. This results in a noticeable gap between global North and global South countries.

Mexico performs well in some areas, such as localization, with many voluntary local reviews. However, merely reviewing the SDGs does not guarantee achievement. There are good practices among global South countries, but there is a need to share technical know-how from the global North to the global South. This issue was highlighted during COVID-19, emphasizing the importance of technological know-how sharing, which needs improvement.

There is a significant divide between global North and South countries, with the former advancing more rapidly. However, the global South has valuable experiences, especially in locally-led initiatives. For example, the Topoa Forum in Uganda is a community-led practice involving the government. In meetings, I’ve heard how Indigenous people use knowledge from observing animal behaviour to predict weather patterns, demonstrating valuable local insights.

Similarly, established local development practices exist in India, such as the panchayat system, where development work starts at the village level with a village head and community involvement.

People selected from all sections, including marginalized groups, are all part of decision-making. There are many good practices. However, today, we discussed how “localization” suddenly gained attention. We have serious issues with this term. It is a superior term, implying that people have little know-how, which is wrong. We always call it locally-led development because people in the global South have much knowledge and expertise. The problem is that even governments want to refrain from acknowledging such practices. If they did, we might be in a better situation. Reluctantly, we have to admit that global North countries, especially the Nordic countries, are advancing in SDG implementation.

Jacobsen: And concerning sharing knowledge, expertise, technology, and scientific know-how about different systems, such as preventing climate catastrophes to maintain a stable society, what about knowledge around governance? Are methodologies of governance that help create more peaceful societies being shared broadly, or are they limited?

Mohan: This depends on the political will of the people and the government. We have seen a significant gap. We have systems and guidelines on how good governance could be practiced. However, when it comes to implementing good governance, it is happening little due to the bureaucratic nature of the government. They often believe that once elected, they have the power to make decisions on behalf of the people, even if the people are not consulted or only tokenistic consultations take place.

The need for more political will and systemic issues are preventing the right implementation and advancement of SDGs. This hinders progress. SDGs will come and go, but what about the actual progress? We must address the issues of accountability and willingness from the government to work with the people before we advance. People know how Western countries are developing and know about good governance. They are very much aware of good governance practices.

For example, in the US, a small but significant thing I notice is that people follow traffic rules. The reason could be that the laws are stringent, and there are heavy fines for not following traffic rules. There is also trust among the people that the penalties collected from those who break the law will be used for development. In the Global South, we need more trust because we know we pay many taxes, but it needs to be translated into development.

Trust is very important, and the people responsible for enhancing it often need more political will. Otherwise, why would we have so much corruption? I’m not saying there is no corruption in the Global North, but the amount of money in the South could have led to significant development. However, people have been taken for granted. I want to understand how our governments would replicate or learn good practices from developed countries.

That’s why we always emphasize the issue of political will and systemic problems. These must be addressed before we can move in the right direction. I do not want to sound pessimistic, but this is a reality we must admit. The power belongs to the people, not to the elected officials. They are supposed to listen to the people, but this is not happening, preventing progress.

If you look at the issue of climate, why do we see so much pollution in the Global South? In Western countries, the sky is blue, and there is less pollution. But in our region, pollution is rampant. Governments often say they are banning polythene, but it is not effectively banned. Many products still come in polythene. This issue also exists in the North. For example, New York is one of the highest trash producers, and much of this trash is dumped in the sea, affecting the Global South.

People in the Global North can often silence those in the Global South with money or power, creating a vicious cycle. Bhutan, for instance, is such a small country. Why is Bhutan paying the price?

Bhutan has hardly any role in pollution, yet it also pays the price of global warming. Small countries in the Global South face similar issues. Corruption, transparency, and accountability are significant issues intertwined with the system, making it difficult to eradicate corruption from governance.

How can we replicate or learn from the good practices of the Global North? The situation in the Global North is very different; they have different climatic and systemic issues. I was in Finland some years ago, and they discussed replicating their education system. Cancateland’s education system in countries like India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh? It’s not possible. We have completely different setups.

Jacobsen: Thanks, Jyotsna. That was great.

Mohan: You’re very welcome. Take care, Scott.

Jacobsen: Thank you. You too.

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.