Governance Area: Social inclusion
Power to the People: the Commonwealth Foundation at CHOGM 2022
After two years of delay and postponement, of anticipation and frustration, the Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings (CHOGM) finally took place in Kigali in late June.
For the Foundation, this was the culmination of years of preparation and planning, most especially for the People’s Forum—the largest gathering of civil society in the Commonwealth system that has been a fixture of the CHOGM calendar for almost two decades.
The Foundation also took the lead in convening a half-day of roundtable discussions between Foreign Ministers and members of Commonwealth civil society. An outcome video of the Forum, which was broadcast at the official CHOGM Foreign Ministers Meeting, and also played at the Roundtable itself, can be accessed here.
‘What role could—or should—the Commonwealth of Nations play in these vital steps towards a better world for all its people?’
The People’s Forum 2022: Our Health, Our Planet, Our Future
The People’s Forum 2022 set itself the ambitious task of asking—and trying to answer—the biggest and most important questions of our age: how do we harness the best of humanity—the forces of love, compassion, equality and justice—to advance our common future and protect our planet? How do we work together to build or re-fashion our institutions so that they support a world that leaves no one behind? And what role could—or should—the Commonwealth of Nations play in these vital steps towards a better world for all its people?
Along with our partners at the Rwanda Governance Board, the Foundation took advantage of the two-year delay to shape a strong and streamlined programme that focused on what is front and centre for so many people of the Commonwealth: health, climate and freedom of expression. The Critical Conversations online event series, launched by the Foundation in 2020 after the first CHOGM postponement, proved to be a gamechanger: giving us experience and confidence in new formats and approaches and expanding our network of activists and leaders across all Commonwealth regions.
‘In a time of growing debt burdens, especially across low and middle-income countries, who should be paying for better primary health care and the other elements of UHC?’
In relation to developing the Forum sessions on climate for example, the Foundation was able to draw on several different events organised as part of the Critical Conversations series, including one on small states and climate justice held in September 2021 just before COP26, and another on the difficult issue of reparations for climate damage, held in February of this year. Our main climate session at the People’s Forum was explicitly practical: looking ahead to COP27 in November and to what the Commonwealth could and should be doing to advance the interests of those most affected. Leaders and advocates from the Commonwealth’s small island developing states left the Forum in no doubt about the urgency of the challenge and the moral duty of the Commonwealth, its member countries and its institutions, to demonstrate genuine solidarity through concrete commitments.
The Forum’s sessions on health also benefited from multiple Critical Conversations events the Foundation has convened since early 2020 which shed a bright light on the parlous state of so many national health systems and the apparent incapacity of international systems and institutions (including, disappointingly, the Commonwealth itself) to deliver practical support. At the Forum, the issue of universal health coverage (UHC)—the guarantee that people can access quality health services without facing financial hardship—was front and centre, with panellists interrogating the role that civil society might play in pushing for UHC and the strong, resilient, and equitable health systems that must be at its heart.
Any useful discussion around health and climate must address the thorny question of finance: how do we get the money needed to fund desperately overdue measures aimed at protecting countries and communities from the worst effects of climate change? In a time of growing debt burdens, especially across low and middle-income countries, who should be paying for better primary health care and the other elements of UHC? In the case of climate, Forum participants strongly took up the cause of the Commonwealth’s smaller and more vulnerable Member States, for whom the loss and damage caused by climate change is presenting unique—and in some cases existential—challenges. Across both issues participants were united in their conviction that the Commonwealth has a unique role to play in bringing together those who hold the power to deliver support, relieve debt burdens, and provide restitution. A failure to take up that role with determination would be, in the eyes of Commonwealth civil society, a clear rejection of the very ideas that the Commonwealth stands for.
‘a vibrant and principled Commonwealth is critical to the future of its citizens’
The Commonwealth Charter affirms that freedom of expression—including media freedom—is essential to the flourishing of democratic societies and a basic condition for development. Sadly, this is an area where too many Commonwealth countries are slipping behind. Building on a previous Critical Conversations event, the Forum engaged in a vigorous, at times tense discussion of freedom of expression: why does it matter and how can it be protected? What can the Commonwealth, its member states and institutions, do to support and advance free and responsible media? There was clear agreement that no country can afford to be complacent: direct threats to journalists and freedom of expression are real and growing. Civil society has an important role to play in championing the proposed Commonwealth Principles on Freedom of Expression that could help shore up freedom of expression and break the culture of silence that provides cover for its steady erosion.
The final session of the Forum, ‘A Commonwealth for All’, set itself the ambitious goal of provoking deep discussion and personal reflection about where we are now, and how the Commonwealth—its Member States, its institutions, and its people—can help inspire real and meaningful change. It was aimed at all those who care about the Commonwealth; those who have a perspective on its past; and those who have a stake in its future. The Forum Chair participated in the event alongside the Commonwealth Secretary-General. Both were asked to comment on a provocative video of highlights from the Foundation’s three-part mini-series on the future of the Commonwealth. The passion and conviction of speakers at this final event—and of the many participants who contributed to the discussion—left no doubt that a vibrant and principled Commonwealth is critical to the future of its citizens. The ten-year anniversary of the Charter, which will be commemorated next year, was singled out by many as an opportunity to galvanise action for a reinvigorated Commonwealth.
Weaving together all Forum sessions was the idea of participatory governance: the idea that the involvement of people in their governance is critical to democracy and democratic legitimacy; the idea that citizens have a central role to play in helping to shape policies and decisions that affect their lives. Forum participants acknowledged that participatory governance is a work in progress right across the Commonwealth. We can learn from examples of innovation that have delivered tangible results. But we must be brave in pushing for more meaningful involvement of citizens across every area of public life.
‘How can we measure progress? And how can we push for meaningful action as global economic headwinds turn against us?’
Civil Society and the Foreign Ministers’ Roundtable
The roundtable between participants of the People’s Forum and Foreign Ministers is now an established fixture on the CHOGM calendar: a powerful embodiment of the Commonwealth identity as an organisation of people—and not just of states. For the Foundation, it is an unambiguous exercise in participatory governance—the unifying thread of the People’s Forum.
The 2022 Roundtable was widely proclaimed to be a huge success with the largest-ever number of Ministers in attendance, including a substantial contingent of Foreign Ministers and excellent representation from Commonwealth civil society and accredited organisations. The event was Chaired by the Rwanda Foreign Minister and moderated by me. The seating arrangement, large round tables where government and civil society sat together, and the moderator’s insistence that each take turns in contributing, guaranteed a lively and at times passionate debate. Among the wide range of matters discussed, gender equality and freedom of expression stood out as issues that everyone in the room—government and civil society alike—cared deeply about.
Towards the Future
On the current schedule, we now have less than two years to go until CHOGM 2024. While our future is uncertain, we must brace ourselves for the likelihood that many of the challenges discussed in Kigali will be unresolved. How can we measure progress? And how can we push for meaningful action as global economic headwinds turn against us?
The CHOGM communique—which sets out a bold and ambitious plan of action—should be front and centre. However, many participants in the Forum pointed out the danger of the Communique becoming irrelevant unless Member States commit to measuring their actions against the goals they have set before reporting to CHOGM 2024. Our analysis of the sentiment coming out from the Forum indicates that progress on climate could be usefully measured by the practical steps that Commonwealth countries and institutions take to protect small island developing countries. Progress on freedom of expression is even easier to measure: the Commonwealth must take the final step to adopt a robust set of principles on media freedom that comply with current international human rights standards and put in place mechanisms to monitor implementation. Progress on health requires concerted action to break the debt deadlock that is strangling efforts to deliver universal health care in so many of the Commonwealth’s low and middle-income countries.
So much more could and should be done. But we must start somewhere if the Commonwealth is to hold its head high. Let us decide to hold ourselves—and each other—to account. The people of the Commonwealth deserve no less.
Dr Anne T. Gallagher AO is Director-General of the Commonwealth Foundation.
Patently necessary: taking health into our own hands
At long last, the World Trade Organization is slated to open formal discussions on intellectual property waivers to help developing countries in the fight against Covid-19.
This pragmatic and humane idea was first proposed 18 months ago at the height of the pandemic. The proposals have since been woefully diluted: indeed—in their current form—it would seem the WTO has finally achieved the consensus it was looking for, since, apparently, everyone hates them. Hidden in the folds of this fiasco, however, is an important lesson for the developing world.
From the very beginning of the pandemic, monopolies on the production of tests and medicines were a part of the problem of surviving it. We went from a situation in 2020 during which tests and treatments were in short supply to a situation in 2021 in which vaccines were being made in far smaller quantities than was possible. This led to shamefully unequal access to these essential tools of survival. While vaccine access generally improved towards the end of 2021, there are still glaring disparities. To date, 93% of all contracted mRNA vaccines from Moderna, Pfizer and BioNtech have gone to rich countries, according to data from Airfinity, a health analytics company. Promising new treatments such as Pfizer’s Paxlovid which are now standard treatments in rich countries are almost completely unavailable in poor countries.
‘Promising new treatments such as Pfizer’s Paxlovid which are now standard treatments in rich countries are almost completely unavailable in poor countries.’
The TRIPs waiver—named after an obscure but powerful rule that obligates WTO member countries to uphold pharmaceutical monopolies—was meant to solve this problem. As the initial proposal was deflected, objected to, or just outright blocked by rich countries over a period of 18 months, people around the world suffered and died. The international community should be ashamed of this failure. Nevertheless, we find ourselves where we are, on the eve of discussions regarding proposals that have been dramatically watered down. What are we to make of this moment?
The first thing to understand is that critics of the current proposals are right: the ideas first put forward 18 months ago were more comprehensive and would have enabled us to turn the tide on the pandemic far sooner. The original proposals asked for intellectual property rights on all crucial aspects of our survival—namely tests, treatments and vaccines—to be waived for the whole course of the pandemic. These demands would have covered our immediate need to ramp up testing and would have delivered far greater quantities of treatments to those in need much faster. Consider the case of Bangladesh, where Pfizer’s patent on Paxlovid does not extend. Beximco—a pharmaceutical company based there—was able to manufacture and deliver the drug a mere ten days after the US Food and Drug Administration approved it, saving thousands of lives.
‘By limiting the waiving of patents to vaccines, rich countries have ensured the WTO plan will have a limited effect on the availability of treatments and tests that are so desperately needed.’
But, alas, the revised waiver proposal now under discussion at the WTO covers vaccines alone. This is perverse. By limiting the waiving of patents to vaccines, rich countries have ensured the WTO plan will have a limited effect on the availability of treatments and tests that are so desperately needed.
No matter how flawed the revised TRIPS wavier proposal is, the potential it holds to prompt a wider discussion among WTO member countries is probably a good thing. For the first time in eighteen long months, there has been a measure of agreement, however inadequate, between key WTO players to move forward: an essential prerequisite for the WTO to move the proposal into formal multilateral discussions. So far, discussions on potential waivers have been bilateral, or between groups of similarly-inclined countries, which is to say they have been unproductive and unaccountable to the international community.
The outcome at the WTO next week is almost certain to disappoint public health activists. Some rich countries are intent on further watering down the proposals and perhaps suppressing them altogether. A wide section of international civil society believes the proposal at the WTO has no value, even as a starting point. They argue that the WTO is in effect supporting a global protection racket: formal permission from the world’s richest countries to the rest of the world to allow them—without fear of reprisals—to do what they are in fact legally entitled to in order to survive an emergency.
‘But it’s also vital that we—those living in developing countries, the majority—begin to understand and use our own sovereignty to arrive at solutions.’
So, what if a decision could be taken at the level of the nation-state to simply roll back or even temporarily suspend patents, regardless of what’s decided at the international level? This would bring the immediate relief that developing countries need and arguably increase their bargaining power at the WTO. In September 2021, one country did exactly that: Brazil passed a law that went beyond even what the original TRIPs waiver proposal had asked for, and it did so with an overwhelming domestic majority and cross-party support. Even though the law was ultimately diluted by a Presidential veto, it remains in effect today and is perfectly permissible under the WTO’s own rules. This option, to create a legislative framework that supports increased supplies of tests, treatments and vaccines, and moreover, encourages their manufacture everywhere, is one that is open to all developing countries today.
Through this pandemic, we have heard much of the unfair way a majority of the world is being treated by a much smaller and wealthier minority. This situation deserves our outrage and attention. But it’s also vital that we—those living in developing countries, the majority—begin to understand and use our own sovereignty to arrive at solutions. The mRNA vaccine technology of today will define the future of global health. Many in the developing world understand that suspending pharmaceutical monopolies is an integral part of securing our present and future wellbeing. But what is less widely understood is that developing countries can do a lot to fix these problems on their own—or better still in concert with others—without having to wait endlessly for permission to do so.
Achal Prabhala is the coordinator of the AccessIBSA project which campaigns for access to medicines in India, Brazil and South Africa.
A Commonwealth of the People: Time for Urgent Reform
Commonwealth Heads of Government decided to create an Eminent Persons Group (EPG) to advise them on reform of the association at their meeting in Port-of-Spain in 2009.
This decision by Heads of Government was taken at a time when the world was – as it now still is – in the midst of an economic crisis. The old order of economic power was changing. Climate change showed signs of endangering global economic activity and the safety and livelihood of millions of people. It posed threats to the very existence of a number of countries. Terrorism, too, threatened the security of states and presented a serious challenge to international peace.
Heads of Government decided that in such a world, it was important to build a stronger, more resilient and progressive Commonwealth and to make it more relevant to its times and to its people in the future. They made it clear that they wanted the Commonwealth to continue to be an important player in the world, drawing on its rich diversity to help build global consensus around the Commonwealth’s core values including peace, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, gender equality, economic development, and freedom of expression.
Download the reportTowards common ground
It was an unseasonably hot humid day in the stunning Scenic Rim, Queensland, Australia, also known as Mununjahli and Bundjalung Country by the Aboriginal Traditional Owners of the land.
The mountains were kissing the sky in the distance and there was not a cloud to be seen. Heat was radiating off the ground. I was walking past my totem tree: a flame tree, blooming with vivid scarlet red flowers. I was on my way to the local shops to avoid the heat and rehydrate. I stopped and looked in awe, my feet connecting with the hot earth beneath. It struck me that it was the wrong time of the year for the flame tree to flower. Indigenous Australians have been stewards of this land for thousands of years; knowledge passed down, through countless generations, would suggest that something was profoundly wrong.
I turned and walked into the cool of the shops. As soon as I entered—dressed in my Aboriginal art singlet and flip flops—I felt eyes on me. Shrugging off this feeling I continued to walk the aisles but I couldn’t help noticing an employee behind me, following. I turned the corner and, out of the corner of my eye, I spotted the employee again. Feeling uncomfortable I grabbed some water and headed for the checkout. This never happens when I wear non-Indigenous identifying clothes, I thought.
Heading back to my car, shoes off and walking on the grass, I noticed a group of Aboriginal Elders sitting upright under the flame tree, peaceful, silent, but nonetheless being questioned by police. Yet in view of the police, a group of non-indigenous people were drinking alcohol and littering. Why did the police not choose to speak to them?
I shook my head and left. This experience is sadly not uncommon; it is one that has been spoken about publicly by many indigenous Australians including Steven Oliver, Melanie Mununggurr-Williams and Meyne Wyatt.
‘We tend to notice the reality of exclusion bubbling under the surface of mainstream consciousness only when a tragedy is filmed and tensions explode’
Nor is it an experience that is unique to Aboriginal Australians. First Nations people across the globe fall victim to misunderstanding and isolation, not to mention poverty, short life expectancy and imprisonment. We tend to notice the reality of exclusion bubbling under the surface of mainstream consciousness only when a tragedy is filmed and tensions explode as they did in the fallout from the George Floyd tragedy and the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests, or, in the Australian context, the now politicised ‘change the date’ debate for Australia Day, currently held on the 26 January—the day that Indigenous Australia changed forever and our lands were taken forcefully and declared Terra Nullius.
So why do Indigenous peoples continue to face these abiding challenges? It’s important to look at root causes. Indigenous peoples have faced varying levels of settlement and colonisation by imperial powers throughout history. Western cultural world views, for example, are very different to the Indigenous world views they have tended to dominate, especially around the areas of individualism vs community orientation and holistic thinking vs technological and scientific thinking. As our thinking can often contradict western views, we have been relegated as a psychological out-group. This has led to pervasive, intergenerational misconceptions that Indigenous people are somehow less intelligent and less human than their non-Indigenous counterparts—and more deserving of suspicion. Most of this thinking is unconscious and has seeped into the fabric of our political and social systems. It has also played havoc on the way we relate to ourselves, each other, and our environment.
In order to move forward, we must acknowledge that Indigenous knowledge systems have much to share.
Indigenous Australians have the longest surviving continuous culture in the world, and most of the unspoilt natural environment in Australia is Indigenous-owned land: as a beacon of sustainability we should stand tall and proud.
This brings me to our shared now—and the imperative to find common ground with each other to live and prosper in harmony. Deep down I believe that we all want the same thing—a happy and equitable community of people on a safe and healthy planet—we just have different beliefs on how to get there.
‘Indigenous Australians have the longest surviving continuous culture in the world, and most of the unspoilt natural environment is Indigenous-owned land.’
To borrow from activist Alice Eather: let’s sit around a metaphorical fire—in a circle—and decide on a path that promotes equity and prosperity. In this spirit, I invite you to read the table below and see how differing outlooks on the world can merge to create a more sustainable and just tomorrow; not just for the indigenous people of the world, but for everyone.
| Key Assumptions | Indigenous (Ecocentrism) |
Western (Technocentrism) |
Working Together Towards Equity & Sustainability |
| Ontological and ethical | |||
| Metaphor of Earth | Mother/web of life | Vast machine | Life support system |
| Perception of Earth | Alive/sensitive | Dead/passive | Home/managed |
| System composition | Organic/wholes | Atomistic/parts | Parts and wholes |
| System structure | Heterarchical | Hierarchical | Holoarchical |
| Human role | Plain member | Domination | Stewardship |
| Scientific and technological | |||
| Resilience of nature | Highly vulnerable | Tough/robust | Varied/fragile |
| Carrying capacity limits | Already exceeded | No limits | Approaching |
| Population size | Freeze/reduce | No problem | Stabilise soon |
| Risk orientation | Risk aversion | Risk-taking | Precaution |
| Faith in technology | Pessimism | Optimism | Scepticism |
| Economic and psychological | |||
| Primary objective | Ecological integrity | Efficient allocation | Quality of life |
| The good life | Antimaterialism | Materialism | Postmaterialism |
| Human nature | Homo animalist | Homo economicus | Homo sapien |
| Economic structure | Steady-state | Free market | Green economy |
| Role of growth | Bad/eliminate | Good/necessary | Mixed/modify |
*Table 1 is adapted from Gladwin et al’s (1995:993) Paradigm framework and their constituent assumptions as sighted in appendix 1, page 40, Barter, N & Bebbington, J (2011), Pursuing Environmental Sustainability, University of St Andrews. Please note that these categories are generalised for illustration purposes and may not apply to all people within each category.
What more can the Commonwealth institutions and members states do to learn about First Nations’ world views, and promote cultural capability between non-Indigenous and Indigenous peoples? I suggest starting with these practical steps:
- Build your organisation’s knowledge of First Nations’ history, culture and world views
- Provide a platform for Indigenous voices at events hosted by your organisation
- Fund development and growth opportunities for Indigenous people and include them in the design of such programmes
- Monitor and report on your cultural capability progress.
These steps are not exhaustive, but they are a great start—let’s continue to walk together towards a more equitable and sustainable future.
Lisa Rapley is a social entrepreneur and co-founder of Yuludarla Karulbo.
