Minority rights, democracy and development: The African experience

 Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua
 LLB (Hons), BL (Ghana), LLM (Dalhousie), DCL (McGill)
 Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Ghana
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 Edition: AHRLJ Volume 12 No 1 2012
  Pages: 69 - 88
 Citation: (2012) 1 AHRLJ 69-88
 Download article in PDF

Summary

The article argues that, in spite of recent attempts to marry human rights to development, such a marriage remains one of convenience or, rather, to the inconvenience of minority or indigenous peoples who are the focus of discussion. The article asserts that, contrary to the claim that the relationship between rights and development is non-existent to begin with, such a relationship does exist. The crucial issue, however, is the category of people who are allowed to enjoy rights to development and to enjoy the fruits thereof. This analysis is grounded in three types of relationship between rights and development. These are identified as positive, negative and passive relationships. The article contends that the positive relationship is captured and colonised by the political and economic elite who control and direct how and when those under their control should benefit from a negative or passive relationship approach between rights and development. It is contended that the negative and positive relationship perspectives have continued to dominate the dynamics of economic development from the Enlightenment era, through colonialism, post-colonialism and the globalisation era. In the context of promoting effective minority rights which lies at the heart of peace and stability in Africa, the article suggests a re-visioning of the relationship between rights, democracy and development in Africa which challenges the current notion of 'market democracy', and 'liberal international orthodoxy', among other mantras. The analysis tackles ways in which the effective promotion of minority rights can be realised. 

1  Introduction

The idea that the enjoyment of rights is a means to facilitate and promote development (or 'progress') was first recognised during the post-Renaissance era in European history. [1] It was postulated that mankind, by use of reason and science, could progress. According to Nabudere, 'rapid developments' and 'great advances' in technological progress were achieved as a result of the rise of the natural sciences. [2] The natural sciences, in turn, flourished due to the free-thinking environment which reigned at the time and allowed the intellectual movement to burgeon. This environment emerged through the contribution of the then-emerging middle class to the destruction of the power of the church and imperialists whose interests were in landed feudalism. [3] Thus, rights became a useful tool to promote progress and development. This era of progress led to the rise of technological development, [4] which saw a mechanistic image of scientific positivism (based on rationality and systematic observation) playing a pivotal role in shaping the paradigm of Western thought and technological development. [5]

Three approaches to the relationship between rights and development may be identified: the positive, negative and passive approaches.

The enjoyment of rights and its role in promoting progress and development establish a positive relationship approach between rights and development. This relationship is anchored in the proposition that rights serve as a gateway to attaining sustainable development by providing a congenial atmosphere where people will have the opportunity to realise their potential and capacities.

However, rights discourse and praxis were appropriated by the powers-that-be and exercised against slaves, the poor, workers and women in general. This practice relied on a negative relationship approach between human rights and development. The relationship, from a neo-liberal perspective, is that human rights are not crucial to those who produce wealth for capitalism, because wealth would trickle down to everybody upon the attainment of development.

Yet, the gateway to the enjoyment of rights should not be completely closed. Where it is observed that morale among the workers is low, production is on the decline as a result of abuses inflicted on the people, agitation is growing and bottled-up resentment is likely to explode, some piece-meal human rights reforms shall be implemented to bring order and stability. Upon a return to the normal situation, however, the original position should be reverted to. This is the passive relationship between rights and development approach which sees human rights as a necessary component of development only when development is threatened or disrupted. [6]

Applying these models to the situation which existed in Europe during the period of Enlightenment, it is noted that the negative and passive types were enjoyed by the underclass – workers, the poor, women, slaves and children (working as child labourers), but not the positive type. That is, the enjoyment of rights was restricted to those whose labour caused capitalism to thrive. [7]

In the same way, this class of people was not allowed to take part in the then-emerging democratic process. As a matter of fact, the classical liberal theory was dedicated to 'the individual right to unlimited acquisition of property, to the capitalist market economy, and hence to inequality, and it was feared that these might be endangered by giving votes to the poor'. Macpherson adds that liberal theory, like the liberal state, was not at all democratic. [8] It is small wonder that Bentham, though supportive of the idea of individual rights, described the idea of natural rights as 'nonsense upon stilts'. [9] Indeed, Bentham postulated that equality and productivity do not go together: Security of unequal property was an incentive for capital accumulation which was necessary to engender productivity. Also, a large labour force, whose incentive was fear of starvation, was a necessary prerequisite for the market to maximise productivity. [10] 

2  Application of the negative and passive relationships in Africa

When capitalist adventurism extended from Europe to the shores of Africa and the Americas, the local inhabitants who were encountered were considered not human but 'savage populations'. [11] Moreover, their lands were considered terra nullius and open for discovery and/or conquest and annexation. [12] In addition, their cultures were labelled as heathen, backward and barbaric, needing to give way to European civilisation. As noted by Gozzi: [13]

However, in the case of the Ottoman empire, China and Japan were admitted into the then exclusive European club of international law by way of an agreement (flowing from the 1856 Treaty of Paris) whereby they would grant the international minimum standard of treatment for aliens coming from Europe into their territories. [14] These aliens were mainly the economic and political elite of Europe who could not bear to live while enjoying a lower standard of rights enjoyment while pursuing their economic interests outside the confines of their territories.

On the other hand, a different set of rules was applied in the African context. Rather, the colonialists sought to deny and suppress any notion of rights belonging to indigenous African peoples. Labelling Africans as savages gave Europeans the licence to engage in their Christianising and civilising mission, supposedly with the goal of eradicating all notions of supposed barbarism in the African, replacing it with European notions of rights, democracy and the rule of law and Christianity. In reality, however, the motive was to promote hegemony and empire building.

In the case of the Gold Coast (now Ghana), for example, under George Maclean's administration, a number of coastal communities had submitted voluntarily to British protection, whereupon that which became known as the Bond of 1844 was signed between the British and local chiefs. This document, which obliged local leaders to submit serious crimes, such as murder and robbery, to British jurisdiction, laid the foundation in law for subsequent British colonisation of the coastal area. The Bond of 1844 stated as follows: [15]

That is, the main issue of rights protection for the locals was protection against abuse by their fellow indigenous peoples, but not protection against violations by the colonialists. In the circumstances, the best the colonialists could do was to allow the 'non-civilised' people to be given 'just treatment', as reflected in the League of Nations requirement on colonial authorities in mandatories. [16] Humane treatment, however, was not being treated with humanity, dignity and respect as required under human rights law.

All these reflect a negative application of the relationship between rights and development. As a result, violations of human rights in the colonies were rife. According to Howard, in the Gold Coast, [17] civil and political rights, as the contemporary world now defines them, were certainly not practised under colonial rule. She writes: [18]

3  Birth of minorities in Africa through colonialism

Minority issues in Africa are strongly associated with colonialism. While not discounting the fact that minority groups existed in the pre-colonial period, it is also on record that some dominant ethnic groups gave protection to minority groups in its territory. [19] For example, among the Asante, a chief or king, in his oath of ascension to the throne, includes in his oath the promise not to disclose the origins of his subjects to avoid discrimination against them. [20]

However, the advent of colonialism created several new minority groups and exposed pre-colonial minority groups to new and intractable challenges through efforts to foster and facilitate the development of the colonial economic enterprise. First, minority groups were created through the policy of divide and rule whereby some members of the colonised population were 'raised' to a higher status than others, having been recognised as 'more human' or more prone to adopting European behaviours, lifestyles and mannerisms than others. These were given preferential treatment over their 'less human' brethren. The 'less human' brethren became minority peoples. A good example is the way in which Belgian colonial authorities treated the numerically-inferior Tutsis as genetically and physically superior over the numerically-superior Hutus who, as a result, became minorities under international law. [21]

Second, another group of minorities evolved from those communities who wanted to maintain a subsistence lifestyle as hunters, gatherers and nomads [22] which did not conform to Locke's theory of property acquisition – that is, 'mixing one's labour with the soil' to produce wealth. [23] As a result, they were side-lined because they were not considered economically productive and therefore attractive to colonialism. It was such communities whose economic activities were considered stumbling blocks in the realisation of modernisation. [24]

Third, where mineral resources were found, the locals were forcibly driven off or subjected to all manners of abuse for them to relinquish control over their lands. [25] Fourth, because of the nature of their political and social set-up, when it came to using local authorities to implement colonial policies such as 'indirect rule', [26] the authorities found it more expedient to deal with the 'more civilised brethren' with organised political structures. As a result, the 'more civilised' saw the others as inferior and treated them as such, during and after colonialism. Fifth, in communities whose lands could not produce cash crops such as cocoa, coffee, tea, and such that were in demand in Europe, nor minerals, a deliberate policy to create labour reserves was implemented to trigger labour flow to centres of commercial, farming, mining and industrial activities. In the case of Ghana, the northern sectors were neglected, occasioning men and women to stream down south to work as labourers and ending up in what we call zongos. [27]

Six, some were driven off their lands to live as 'reserves residents' or as 'squatters' in order to give their lands away to support settler colonialism. [28] Seven, in a few territories, such as modern-day South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Botswana, the colonialists practised settler colonialism which meant that the local peoples all became minorities. [29] Eight, as a result of the haphazard manner in which the colonial borders were carved during the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885, [30] some major ethnic groups found themselves split into two or more and joined to different neighbouring countries. Some of those who turned out to be inferior in numbers ended up as minorities in the new countries they were joined to. Examples are the Touaregs in Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Libya, and the Ewes in Togo and Ghana. In sum, quotes Abraham: [31] 

4  Development, modernisation theory and their impact on minorities

Modernisation theory evolved as a popular economic and political concept by neo-liberal economists when it became evident that colonialism could not be sustained and that political independence was inevitable. [32] It was adopted as a model of development packaged for implementation as a means by which colonialism could escape blame for the negative development impact generated by the unrelenting exploitation and plunder of the resources of the colonised. Thus, it became the new development model for implementation in colonised states in order not to sever the centre-periphery relations [33] that capitalism established through colonialism. It was also a means for the colonialists to act as the 'new redeemers', though practically responsible for the problems created in the first place.

This notion of development was imposed on the decolonised states by the US. [34] According to Esteva, the US opened the era of development for the world when, on assumption of office in 1949, President Truman set the policy of embarking 'on a bold new program for making the benefits of American scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas'. [35] The old imperialism – exploitation for foreign profit – was to be replaced by 'a program of development based on the concepts of democratic fair dealing'. [36] This supposedly new development paradigm was to move the relationship from the negative to the positive, but in reality it was simply old wine in a new bottle. The effect of this 'development statement' was that from that period onwards, the Western model of progress was foisted on the 'backward' and 'underdeveloped' countries as their only escape route to freedom, civilisation and improvement of their lot.

Rostow, for example, outlined four stages of evolution that all countries would have to go through towards the attainment of economic growth. First, the 'traditional' stage; the 'preconditions of modernisation' is established in the second stage; third, the 'take-off' stage; and fourth, the 'drive to maturity'. [37] One salient feature of this model of development is the notion that economic growth, based on industrialisation and catapulted by science and technology, would spawn a gradual uni-dimensional evolution towards a more open global society imbued with some peculiar characteristics. [38] Development is thus to be measured by the level of technological advance as attained in a 'high mass consumption' society. This model gives the state a prominent role to play as the agent 'for advancing the human and economic dimensions of development through its exclusive prerogatives in collective problem-solving and conflict resolution'. [39]

The process of modernisation had a devastating effect upon Africans, and on minority groups in particular. One example is through the policy of homogenisation and integration of colonised economies into the global economy and amalgamation of different ethnic entities to form the independent nation states of Africa.

At the time of independence, African leadership adopted this policy by seeking to consolidate communities of people into the nation state by abandoning its original agitation during the anti-colonial struggle for a Commonwealth of Free African States which called for the abolition or adjustment of 'artificial barriers and frontiers drawn by imperialists to divide African peoples'. [40] This approach would have helped to give better protection for minorities.

However, under the Charter of the then Organisation of African Unity (OAU), minority rights issues were not put on the agenda. All references to 'peoples' were interpreted to mean a whole people, a country as a whole, with no apparent reference to minorities. Moreover, the principle of uti possidetis was affirmed in the 1964 OAU Cairo Declaration on Border Disputes Among African States, [41] which sought to legitimise national borders inherited from colonial rule. Thus, Julius Nyerere, the first President of Tanzania, is quoted as saying that '[Africans] must be more concerned about peace and justice ... than we are about the sanctity of the boundaries we inherit'. [42] In addition, sovereignty and territorial integrity were held sacrosanct, underpinned by the principle of non-interference in internal affairs. [43]

It was further argued that to preserve national unity, the community had to be incorporated into the state or the community equated to the state. Thus, for example, article 4 of the OAU Cultural Charter for Africa states: [44]

The pursuit of this policy meant for most minority groups 'internal colonialism'. They were and some are still treated as second-class citizens. They continue to struggle for recognition of their land rights; some remain on reserves carved out for them by the colonial authorities, and so on. Some are still considered 'backward and inconvenient entities' that pose as stumbling blocks to development and need to be assimilated or denied citizenship status. They have been killed, dispossessed or forced to assimilate in the process of nation building and national economic growth. [45]

Also, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Commission) describes the indigenous peoples of Africa, inter alia, as follows: [46]

In the context of the rights-development relationship approach, it can be argued that African states unremittingly pursued the negative relationship approach in its dealings with its citizenry, particularly minorities. They became the inheritor state by maintaining the repressive colonialist policies and its means to maintain order and cohesion. Among others, it was contended that a strong hand was needed to propel economic growth and give room for the exercise of civil and political rights. Politically, it was argued that the granting of human rights would lead to the unleashing of centrifugal forces that may occasion the collapse of the new fragile nation state. [47]

5  Minority rights protection at the international level

Attempts have been made in the past by some scholars to define minority groups. However, elements of these definitions were found problematic in its application to minorities in the African context. Referring to one definition of indigenous people proposed by Francesco Capotorti, [48] one notices that there are some major shortfalls in its application to Africa. For example, the definition contains the idea of two main groups, one dominant and other non-dominant. However, looking at the ethnic composition of most African states, there are several different minority groups located in the same country, with one (or sometimes a few more) as the dominant and the rest in non-dominant status.

Another important lacuna that is significant for consideration in terms of minority rights in Africa is the notion that the idea of the preservation of culture, traditions, and such is not pursued in a vacuum or in isolation from the issues of survival and development. It is therefore vitally important to attach culture and tradition to the mode of economic survival and development of the group. Such lacunae are taken for granted in the leading literature on minority rights which gives only scant attention to minority rights issues in Africa. Ethnicity is portrayed as the principal cause of civil wars in Africa. However, the ethnic factor is only one of the factors, if not simply the immediate cause. Remote factors are mainly economic and political: access to scarce resources and political power. 

Looking at José Martínez Cobo's definition, [49] it is noted that in the African context, 'indigenousness' is not always tied to aboriginal status or original title to land. There are other traditional means of tracing common descent or ancestry, such as through myths and fables. Further, the definition limits itself to territories that have suffered from settler colonialism whereby colonialists are considered the dominant group and the locals as the minority. But this situation only applies to a few countries in Africa.

The international community has taken key steps to promote minority rights through the promulgation of various international instruments, including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; [50] the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; [51] Convention (No 169) Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples; [52] the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities; [53] and the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. [54]

The latest addition to the list is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. [55] This instrument is a comprehensive document which seeks to give effective protection and promotion of the rights of minorities. Among others, the Declaration recognises external self-determination (under articles 3 and 4 of the Declaration) if exercised in line with the demands of the UN Charter (under article 46). Article 4, for example, stipulates:

However, as noted above, Africans are opposed to external self-determination for African minorities. This position has been reaffirmed by the African Commission in its advisory opinion on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, [56] in which it noted: [57]

However, Africa's position is in direct conflict with the African Commission's own decision in the Katangese case, in which it decided: [58]

That is to say, if two conditions had been met, namely, violations of human rights which seek to compromise the territorial integrity of a country and where the minority group is denied the opportunity to participate in governance, then the minority group could exercise its right of self-determination. Because these situations had not been fulfilled in the case of the Katangese within Zaire, it meant it could only exercise a variant of internal self-determination.

This view reflects the proper position under international law, which is affirmed in The Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo (Kosovo case), in which the UN General Assembly sought an advisory opinion regarding the legality of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence. The ICJ noted that [59]

Africa should therefore amend its rigid stance to reflect that of international law which supports a positive relationship between rights and development for minorities. Also, to facilitate the monitoring of minority rights, Africa has to adopt the 'violations approach' proposed by Chapman. [60] Among the approaches proposed by her which are of direct relevance to our discussion, contains violations relating to patterns of discrimination. [61] Articles 2(2) and 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) stipulate that violations related to discrimination represent a fundamental breach of the Covenant, [62] which cannot be excused on grounds of being subject to progressive realisation. Also, under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), [63] apart from the usual obligation on states to promote non-discriminatory policies, states are also obliged to take proactive steps to eliminate discrimination against minorities through affirmative action. [64]

6  Democracy and minority rights

Though liberal democracy and it ideology have helped to sustain the West, these concepts have not proven effective and workable in most African societies. One fundamental factor is the imposition of its majoritarian vision of the liberal international orthodoxy, [65] instead of a pluralistic, multi-ethnic-based notion of democracy, which recognises and takes into account the interests and wellbeing of minorities. Thus, attempts by Western states to impose its brand of democracy on non-Western states have not been in the best interests of minority groups and for the sake of political stability and social cohesion, particularly in the African context.

What makes the democratic idea even more precarious is the fact that it has been watered down to the notion of 'market democracy' which aims more at ensuring the efficacy of the democratic structure to promote market efficiency and does not support the positive rights-development relationship.

Judging by Africa's past record of a lack of recognition of minority rights and the fact that the new Constitutive Act of the African Union (AU) does not deal with minority rights issues, unless a situation degenerates into a crisis, [66] this type of democratic arrangement does not bode well for the future stability and development of the African continent.

Rothchild cites the Burundi example where, at the urging of the US and various non-governmental organisations (NGOs), democratic elections were called for and held in Burundi from 1993 to 1994 in an effort to bring peace between the Hutus and Tutsis. However, the plan failed. Instead, it paved the way for the resumption of intergroup violence in Burundi. The first reason for the failure of the Burundi plan was that ethnic differences were exploited by the local elite who have always felt threatened by regular political change through the ballot box. The second reason is that political participation was emphasised over and above the formation of strong civic institutions. Rothchild notes: [67]

Indeed, democracy is supposed to be empowering when people are able to transcend their personal interests and meet as a group to articulate needs, assess capacities, impose duties and make rights claims or assert the same in order to deal with their needs. It in turn involves finding, through this interaction, the means to interpret their experiences, the injustices and stumbling blocks to their development and realise self-hood and contribute to community development. The process involves the exercise of the right to freedom of association, movement, assembly, and the like, which helps people to acquire agency, recover selfhood and earn self-confidence. This is the positive rights-development relationship in action. 

However, where sovereignty is vested in an authority 'that proclaims its competence and willingness to settle all issues of collective action facing the society', [68] democratic governance becomes unitary and centralised in focus. It then loses its relevance for application in communities that are multi-ethnic in composition and that have serious minority rights issues to grapple with.

This brings us to the relationship between respect for minority rights, peace and development. The contention is that the suppression of minority rights compromises peace and that the absence of peace in turn impacts negatively on development. In other words, the rights-development relationship in this respect will be a negative one. However, this policy is what many African states have pursued against minorities. [69] Therefore, attempts by African states to suppress indigenous minority rights with the hope of attaining stability and development have failed because the negative rights-development relationship is unsustainable. In its report on conflicts in Africa, the Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination expressed [70]

As well, as noted by Christopher J Bakwesegha, a representative of the OAU: [71] 

The situation in the Niger Delta is instructive. The strong-arm tactics employed by the Nigerian government as well as Shell to deal with the disruption of the work of Shell by minority groups in the Niger Delta have resulted in the exacerbation of Nigeria's chronic fuel shortages as well the death of thousands of people through explosions while trying to take out fuel from the leaking pipes, extra-judicial executions and the wanton invasion and destruction by military task force personnel. [72] Shell has also reported increasing theft, or 'bunkering' of crude oil from its facilities, resulting in the loss of up to 32 000 barrels per day of production. [73] The Nigerian government has undertaken a number of measures to appease the aggrieved Niger Delta citizenry and calm the situation. However, typical of the application of the passive relationship between rights and development, this has not worked.

Minority Rights Group International emphasises the positive link between minority rights and development in the following terms: [74]

In such contexts, polycentric systems of governance are the preferred choice to realise this goal. Polycentric designs for governance [75]

This affords problem-solving units within a polycentric system greater discretion to solve local problems locally. [76] It also gives room for the realisation of the potential of the local people, and thereby to acquire agency, self-confidence and the recognition of their worth and dignity. For that matter, it is not merely a question of recognising the underdevelopment and poverty of minorities and seeking to help them; it is a question of giving them space to contribute to helping themselves and the community as a whole.

In the case of Pushpanathan v Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that 'a polycentric issue is one which involves a large number of interlocking and interacting interests and considerations'. [77] The Court explained: [78]

7  Conclusion

The article has sought to analyse the critical relationship that exists or should exist between human rights, democracy and development, particularly as it affects minorities, and to contend that the so-called relationship between them has remained in the negative/passive and not crossed the line to the positive. Although the recognition of the need for a positive relationship approach is present, its enjoyment is only made available to those who tread the corridors of powers – be it multinational corporations, heads of government or local political elites. Thus, the notion that the positive relationship has been established with the fall of communism is being touted largely for political reasons and as a public relations gimmick. Human rights rhetoric is used as a façade to deflect criticism and as a means to actually facilitate increased exploitation of an already exploited people, particularly minorities.

It notes further that it is troubling that African states have been manipulated to go along with various forms of development agendas by Western states, even in the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) project. This is reflected in, for instance, NEPAD's subscription to the 'global standards of democracy' which do not take into account a multi-ethnic approach to democracy. The same goes for the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance [79] which calls for, among others, 'universal values and principles of democracy and respect for human rights'. [80]

Moreover, African leadership has only given indirect attention to minority rights in the AU's Constitutive Act. With the realisation by the AU of the relationship between a lack of democratic space and civil wars and the subsequent impact of that on development, [81] one would have expected the AU to wake up to the realities of the times and to give due recognition and respect to a pluralistic approach to democracy.

A positive approach to ethnicity in African politics is needed. It is the only way to constructively deal with the ethnic dimension exploited by African leaders and which has accounted for almost all of the 30 or more wars that have been waged in Africa since the formation of the OAU, including both inter-state and intra-state conflicts.

The type of democracy that is prescribed for Africa is not only tied, but it does not establish the positive relationship between human rights and development. It is simply presented as a functionalist tool to pave the way for the establishment of market forces that will facilitate further exploitation of an already over-exploited, marginalised, disenfranchised and disempowered community. That is the essence of market democracy. According to this democratic arrangement, human rights are not considered key. The emphasis is simply on some form of political participation through periodic elections. However, democracy is more than that.

To help establish the positive relationship between human rights and development, African citizens should be given the opportunity to design effective, workable and practical grassroots democracy. Democracy should play a role in establishing the proper relationship with human rights and development. It has to be in tune with the needs and circumstances of the people. Additionally, it has to be owned by them, be identified with their aspirations and daily experiences and its practice should likely lead to the attainment of sustainable, holistic development. Furthermore, democracy should be located in a broad-based, inclusive national government represented by all ethnic groups in the country, no matter how large and diverse. This may include the automatic reservation of certain parliamentary seats for disenfranchised and marginalised minority groups.

An African notion of rights would see human rights as the key to unlocking the fetters to development. The ultimate goal of development should be the realisation of human potential and dignity through the ability of the community to meet its needs through its members' efforts and contributions. In short, development must be seen as an end in itself, to be attained through the exercise and enjoyment of rights. Clearly, then, it is the contention of this article that development is meant to enhance people's core values, and that development or growth is desirable only if it is consistent with the people's deepest values, including those of minorities.