|
Government Action on Disability Policy
A Global Survey
Government Replies Question by Question
Summary
In 1993 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (48/96 of 20 December 1993). The main purpose of the Standard Rules is to facilitate for Member States to adopt policies, programmes and measures in order to achieve Full Participation and Equality for Persons with disabilities. One important feature of the Standard Rules is that the United Nations should actively monitor the implementation.
In 1994 the United Nations Commission for Social Development initiated a three-year monitoring exercise to promote the implementation of the Standard Rules and to monitor the progress in the development of national policies and programmes built on these Rules.
This study has been made as part of this UN monitoring project. In co-operation with a Panel of Experts, set up as a consultative body by six major international organizations in the disability field, the Special Rapporteur, responsible for this monitoring project, selected a number of substance areas for further study. It was also decided that a set of questions should be sent both to Governments of Member States and to all national affiliates of the six international organizations, constituting the Panel of Experts. A consultant, Dr. Dimitris Michailakis, was employed for two years to conduct the study.
The consultant prepared a questionnaire in consultation with the Special Rapporteur, the Panel of Experts and representatives of the Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development of the United Nations Secretariat.
The questionnaire was circulated in December 1995. When the analysis of the results was started in August 1996, 83 replies from Governments and 163 replies from national NGOs had been received. In this way information was received from totally 130 countries.
This book mainly contains a presentation of Government replies. In part I the material is presented question by question together with some observations by the author. Part II contains country profiles, built on Government replies. The presentation is made on the basis of regions, to facilitate comparison between countries.
Part III contains summaries of NGO replies. A further analysis of NGO replies together with some comparative observations between Government and NGO replies from the same country will later on be presented in separate reports.
Bengt Lindqvist
UN Special Rapporteur on Disability
Introduction
Differences in definitions, both within countries and among countries make it very difficult to estimate the number of persons with disabilities. However, according to WHO estimates, the figure of disabled people in the world is 500 million, 140 million of them being children. Among 300 million people are living in developing countries thus having rarely access to assistance, rehabilitation and appropriate services. Wars all over the world leave - amongst all the destruction - a lot of people disabled; on top of it the poverty also increases disability as a social and individual irreversible fact. In the Western world the high figures of unemployment together with great changes in the social welfare system do not facilitate - to say the least - the reduction of the impact of disability of the individual life.
With the adoption of the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities the international community took a decisive step towards the recognition of the human rights of persons with disabilities. The recognition of their rights started in 1975, when the UN acknowledged the need to protect the rights of persons with disabilities in the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons (General Assembly resolution 3447 of 9 December 1975). In 1982 The World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons was adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 37/52 of 3 December 1982. This resolution recognized the rights of persons with disabilities to equal opportunities, full participation in economic and social life and equal access to health, education and rehabilitation services. In 1982, the UN proclaimed 1983-1992 as the UN Decade of Disabled Persons. In the late eighties a proposed adoption of a draft Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against disabled persons was rejected by the General Assembly. The Decade resulted in an instrument of a different kind, the UN Standard Rules constituting an international legal standard for programmes, laws and policies on disability for the future. These Rules were adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 48/96 of 20 December 1993. Without entering an analysis in detail of the legal character of the Standard Rules the main difference between the UN Standard Rules and the proposed Convention must be observed. Unlike a Convention the Standard Rules are legally non-binding. Covenants or Conventions constitute binding international law having been ratified by Member States as also rules, that have become international customary law. The Standard Rules can attain binding character as ”international customary rules, when they are applied by a great number of States with the intention of respecting a rule in international law.” (The Standard Rules §14). Until then, they serve as a ”strong moral and political commitment on behalf of States to take action for the equalization of opportunities.” (ibid.) This decisive step - from the voluntarily action due to a moral and political commitment to becoming international customary rules - is what the monitoring is all about; to follow up, to push forward by giving good examples and pointing towards the need of more co-operation and action in order to attain the recognized goal: equal opportunities and participation. To be burdened with disadvantages, living in isolation and deemed to inactivity; confronted with the indifference of others, is not what human life is meant to be.
A global survey
In order to moving towards a more accurate assessment of the world-wide implementation of The Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities the Special Rapporteur of the Commission for Social Development on Disability decided to make an inquiry among the Member States. The decision was taken, in consultation with the Panel of Experts, that an inquiry should be made on four of the twenty-two Standard Rules namelythe following: the Rules on Legislation, on Accessibility, on Co-ordination of Work and on Organizations of Persons with Disabilities. The inquiry should help to distinguish progress, to designate patterns where countries are approaching equalization of opportunities, thus assisting, advising and supporting countries, especially developing countries, in their implementation efforts.
The preparation of the questionnaire started in August 1995 and was completed in December 1996. The survey research method using a questionnaire to elicit information was employed, since it offers an efficient way of collecting data. Being a descriptive survey it mainly aims at analysing the findings as percentage frequency counts, presented in a tabular form. It must be emphasized that there was never the time, nor the aim, of carrying out a more thorough sociological analysis.
A questionnaire was created requesting information on Legislation (Rule 15), Accessibility (Rule 5), Organizations of Persons with Disabilities (Rule 18) and Co-ordination of Work (Rule 17) (see Annex I). In order to receive a more comprehensive picture some questions on General Policy were added. Given the variations existing between the 185 UN Member States in economic, political and cultural life, the task of making the questionnaire was rather complicated and it is hardly surprising that certain questions require a broad interpretation. The questionnaire was completed in December 1995 and sent out to all Governments of the 185 UN Member States and, in addition, to 600 national NGO's within the disability field. It was pointed out that the questionnaire specifically focuses on the implementation of the Rules, principally through legislative action, administrative rules or regulatory measures. For those given the task to answer the questionnaire it was also emphasized that the objective was to identify the official policy of the country. Identical questionnaires were sent to Governments and NGO's. Within a month the Governments and the NGO's received a reminder where - once more - the importance of their participation in this survey was underlined.
By August 1996 the questionnaire had elicited 83 responses from Governments. Answers came from Member States all over the world. A classification according to regions gives the following distribution of responses: 24 countries from Industrialized Countries, 14 countries from the Middle East and North Africa, 15 countries from Countries in Transition, 11 countries from Latin America and the Caribbean, 11 countries from Sub-Saharan Africa and 8 countries from South, East Asia and the Pacific. The responses from Governments of Member States reached 45 percent, which is a high score for such surveys within the UN system. 163 answers came from NGO's, that is, 27 percent responded to the questionnaire. The total number of countries covered by the replies from Governments in Member States and NGO's in these Member States are 126.
The results presented in this report are the outcome of the study of these replies. The very interesting idea of including the NGO's in the survey did present some new problems of comparability. Of course a comparison between the Governments and the NGO's presupposes a common unit: the country. But, from some countries there is an answer only from the Government, and from 30 countries there is no NGO reply at all; furthermore, there are also countries with more than one NGO replying but these do not always give concordant answers. A comparison requires further analysis of the data. In a coming study the views from Governments and the NGO's are going to be compared and the differences in their responses interpreted. In this study the results from the NGO's are only presented in simple frequency distributions.
In part I the country replies are summarised and are presented according to a classification in regions. This classification - common in many UN reports - has the advantage of presenting the countries in a context and not with the randomness of the alphabetical listing. Classification according to regions is not unproblematic; there are countries that do not fit easily in the common scheme (Cyprus and Malta for instance). But, the advantages are outweighing the disadvantages since countries belong to some context formed upon common history and/or level of socio-economic development and/or cultural-religious life.
Part I of this report presents and analyses the results from the Governments' replies. In order to facilitate comparisons the data are presented in tables. Each table corresponds to a question in the questionnaire (the number of the question is marked). The reader who wishes a general overview may consult only Part I. Still, analysis requires reference to the concrete cases and these could be found in Part II. Here the information is presented in a rather detailed form in order to make the answers of the responding Member States known. The preliminary results of the NGO's replies are presented in tables in Part III.
The United Nations and its specialized agencies are continually monitoring the legal status of disabled persons and the various services - education, employment, health care etc. - legislated for them. The efforts of this study largely comply with the efforts of the UN specialized agencies examining national policy, to determine the legal rights enjoyed by disabled people in different countries and to identify the problems in connection with the implementation. I hope that the data provided in this report in some way will have positive effects for persons with disabilities even if the figures are not always so positive.
Methodological considerations
Sociological research involves comparison of cases or variables which are similar in some respects and dissimilar in others. Comparability of data in this type of studies is highly problematic due to definition and other problems, which are specific for the cultural settings to which they belong. A well-known methodological problem when studying institutional and macro-social factors across different societies, is whether the units of comparison and the indicators chosen to compare differences or similarities are genuinely comparable and could legitimately be used outside their specific cultural settings. For instance, can we estimate the equality of opportunity for participation of disabled people irrespective of whether the person is living in a village in a Sub-Saharan country or in a big city in a country of Advanced Market Economies?
Comparing countries is a type of comparison particularly necessary for the UN since, on the one hand, it constitutes a unit representing the international community, on the other, is established through another kind of unit, autonomous and distinct, namely the nation-state. As an international organization the UN is concerned with world-wide issues, mainly social - the development of megacities, the situation of children, women, refugees, the disabled people - but the reality encountered is always within the context of the nation-state. Thus, the problems concerning comparison are enormous, at the same time being tremendously important to overcome. Each country has its own specific social organization, its own way of defining and solving problems.
The problem of comparability derives from the fact that the measures themselves are embedded in different structural and cultural contexts. The measures originate from the social structure and culture within which they occur. The context of the measure must therefore be taken into account before comparisons are made of the measures themselves. If the meaning of what we are comparing depends upon the context, the context must be taken into account before the comparison is made.
One way of tackling this problem is to group the countries according to regions, that is giving them a common socio-economic context, as has been argued earlier. Another is taking into account the very meaning of the concept ‘disability' which differs from country to country. Not surprisingly, none of the existing classification systems and none of the definitions of who is to be classified as disabled, belonging to this or that category, provide a common framework for the different Member States. The lack of a common classification system is evident in the vague definitions of who is entitled to what services. The result thereof are great difficulties for a comparative analysis about service provision since, for instance, persons with mild disabilities in some countries are regarded as disabled, while in others as non-disabled.
In the Standard Rules the concepts of disability and handicap are defined with a different approach than that of individualising disability and presupposing a static environment. Disability has long been defined on the basis of medical factors and only more recently on the basis of social conditions. According to the first definition a person is disabled if he/she has a medically recognized condition or is unable to do anything. According to the second definition a person is disabled because he/she is discriminated against due to barriers, fear, myth or attitude. Without rejecting the medical conditions, the Standard Rules emphasize that the environment plays a decisive role in the life of persons with disabilities. Physical and socio-cultural barriers can very effectively prevent a person with a disability from living an active life. The environment is perceived not as a norm to which the person must adapt, but rather as a variable which can and should be fashioned by society to meet the demands of all persons, in variance with their needs. The point is that disability in itself does not necessarily lead to handicap, neither that similar disabilities by themselves lead to a greater handicap for a person living in a country in the Caribbean than a person living in a industrialised country. Handicap is a social science concept. It refers to the social differences between disabled and non-disabled people which are created, variable over time, within and across cultures. Handicap is affected by age, class, religion and by the geographical, economic and political environment. Therefore, the particular socio-economic and cultural or religious context cannot be ignored in determining disabled persons' opportunities for participation. The concept of handicap can then be used as an analytical tool for assessing the socio-economic situation of persons with disabilities, through reporting on rights and benefits guaranteed by law, lack of services, negative community attitudes, prejudice towards disabled persons, opportunities for independent living, transport arrangements, public media programmes etc.
The distinction between disability and handicap is important as it indicates the necessity of going beyond support to the individual - medical care, rehabilitation, support services - in order to reducing functional limitations and increasing independence. For there to be true equality of opportunity, the issues of accessibility, education, employment, minimum wage, social security etc. must be addressed. The distinction underscores the importance of legislative action in order to create an accessible environment and to take action to raising awareness in society about persons with disabilities.
Having decided to measure the prevalence of handicap, the challenge is to develop a way of capturing the hindrances depending on the social environment. There has been a tendency, in the past to concentrate almost entirely on disability indicators. The meaning of ‘equalization of opportunities for participation' as explained in the Standard Rules, namely to ensure that persons with disabilities ”as members of their societies, may exercise the same rights and obligations as others” draw the attention to the fact that other categories of indicators, that is, indicators helping to identify obstacles preventing persons with disabilities to participate in society are being necessary. This study collects information on social factors which have an impact on persons with disabilities and are a hindrance, or a support, for them to participate in the way of the non-disabled.
The chosen indicators aim at identifying the main social and economic factors, which constrain persons with disabilities to participate: handicap policy indicators; accessibility in physical and socio-cultural environment indicators; indicators of legislative action; indicators of co-ordinated involvement and indicators of organized action by disabled persons in interest groups. This kind of indicators, however, are subject to interpretation and are certainly not suitable (and not meant) as indicators in individual situations.
In order to increase the validity of the survey, comparability was looked for in the answers given by a Government, on the one hand, and the organization or organizations from that country, on the other. The reply from a Government gives the official view, the other is the view of an engaged part. Sometimes the official view is more coherent and more well-informed on details concerning each category of disability, sometimes the reply of an NGO is a telling example of the distance between what has been decided and what has been achieved. In this study, though, in a number of questions the answers from the Governments and NGO's are coinciding to a great extent, which could be interpreted as a verification of the accuracy of the given answers. It could also point towards a successful policy on the mentioned questions. But there are questions with significant differences, which I will analyse in a coming study.
General Policy
An officially recognized disability policy is essential for the attainment of equality of opportunity. The aim of this part of the questionnaire was to identify the existence of such policy and its form. The existence of a disability policy can be measured by the extent to which relevant legislation has been enacted, information campaigns undertaken etc.
In the first question the respondents were asked to indicate whether there is an officially recognized disability policy and in what way is it expressed. As Table 1 shows, the majority of the countries, i.e. 71 out of 82 providing information on this issue, have an officially recognized disability policy. Only 11 countries - Ghana, Israel, Namibia, S:t Kitts, S:t Lucia, South Africa, S:t Christopher, Madagascar, Malawi, Liechtenstein, Tanzania - report not having an officially recognized disability policy. With the exception of Liechtenstein all of them are developing countries.
Table 1 (Question No. 1)
Number of countries having an officially recognized disability policy expressed in:
| Disability policy expressed in: | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Reporting having an officially recognized policy | 71 | 86,6 |
| Reporting not having an officially recognized policy | 11 | 13,4 |
| Law | 61 | 74,4 |
| Guidelines adopted by the Government | 50 | 61,0 |
| Guidelines adopted by a disability council | 26 | 31,7 |
| Policy adopted by political parties | 16 | 19,5 |
| Policy adopted by NGO's | 23 | 28,0 |
Total 82, No answer 3
In 10 countries - Malta, Sri Lanka, Denmark, Eritrea, Austria, the Maldives, Pakistan, Guinea, Barbados, Belgium (Francophone) - the officially recognized disability policy is not expressed in law but in guidelines and/or in different policy documents.
In question 2 respondents were asked to indicate, where the emphasis in national disability policy lies. The aim was to find out whether disability policy focuses on a welfare approach, or if it focuses on changes in the environment or towards the making of rules to eliminate discriminating conditions in society. As Table 2 indicates the highest ranking emphasis among countries is on rehabilitation and prevention, while there is less emphasis on accessibility measures and anti-discrimination law. Accessibility measures and anti-discrimination law are very seldom emphasized which could be explained by the difficulty of their organization and financing. Unquestionably, it is clear that the traditional approach to disability is still very widespread. Only a few industrialized countries have enacted laws which make various forms of discrimination, including those directed specifically against disabled persons, punishable offences. Anti-discrimination legislation, particularly the one referring specifically to disabled persons, is an appropriate way of combating certain reprehensible attitudes, particularly in so far it affords the possibility of suing persons who have been guilty of discrimination.
Table 2 (Question No. 2)
The emphasis of disability policy
| Emphasis in national policy | Number of countries indicating respective emphasis |
| | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Prevention | 28 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 10 |
| Rehabilitation | 16 | 33 | 11 | 7 | 1 |
| Individual support | 15 | 13 | 16 | 12 | 8 |
| Accessibility measures | 4 | 8 | 16 | 26 | 7 |
| Anti-discrimination law | 12 | 3 | 10 | 7 | 27 |
1 = very strong emphasis, 5 = very weak emphasis
When individual support is given more emphasis than accessibility measures, it might indicate that disability policy has a welfare approach directed towards assisting persons with disabilities, while with the emphasis being on the accessibility measures or anti-discrimination law, the policy has a rights-based approach directed towards the creation of formal possibilities to equal opportunity. From the information available it can be concluded that disability policy in the majority of countries is characterised by a welfare approach. The policy aims at supporting the individual in order to reduce the functional limitations and to increase independence. More rarely the disability policy is characterised by a rights-based approach, i.e. an approach where aspects of society are regarded as the main obstacles impeding persons with disabilities to participate in society. Only lately this movement towards a rights-based approach to disability takes place. One major new development is the introduction of legislation protecting disabled persons against discrimination (e.g. in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States).
In the third and last question of the general policy part respondents were asked to indicate if, since the adoption of the Rules, any measures had been taken by the Government to initiate and support information campaigns conveying the message of full participation for persons with disabilities. As is shown in Table 3, 63 out of 78 countries providing information on this question reported that through various methods the Government has conveyed the message.
Table 3 (Question No. 3)
Government action to convey the message of full participation
| Conveying the message of full participation | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Governments reporting action | 63 | 80,8 |
| Governments reporting no action | 15 | 19,2 |
Total 78, No answer 7
Of course, the actions taken by the Governments vary. The most frequent measures being mentioned are the following: translation of the Rules; translation and publication into an easy reader version, development of educational materials in order to raise the awareness of the public; television and radio programmes conveying the message of full participation; support to research projects; support to NGO's that propagate the message of full participation; advertisements in newspapers; donations in order to support the work of the Special Rapporteur. Some Governments have in their answers stated that information campaigns had been supported to convey the message of full participation, but failed to specify the kind of support. As many as 15 countries report that the Government has not, since the adoption of the Rules, done anything to convey the message of full participation. This is rather astonishing, three years after the adoption of the Standard Rules by the Member States. To make the message known is after all the most essential and the least demanding action of them all.
Legislation
Law forms the fundamental framework from which mechanisms for equality of opportunity can be established. The term human rights refers to rights that pertain to individuals simply because they are human. ”They are, as it were, innate rights, not rights that are acquired through achievement or qualification.” (Aubert 1989:413) Since human rights inhere in all human beings by virtue of their humanity alone, they are inalienable and universal rights. From this distinguishing characteristic follows that we cannot discriminate between different individuals in respect of their human rights: neither functional impairment nor talent entitles any individual to any more or any fewer human rights than any one else (Sieghart 1985:75).
A human rights approach implies legal reasoning. The task consists in finding authoritative principles to underpin, by a deductive method, the imposition of an obligation upon some agency capable of fulfilling the demand. For instance, one authoritative principle states that human life is of equal value; each man is infinite worth. To regard the life of a man with a physical or mental impairment as being of less value than that of a man without impairment is a violation of this principle. Thus, the human rights approach implies, among other things, the creation of a legislation giving persons with disabilities and their organizations the lever to ensure that there is effective advocacy for their rights. It offers an overall approach to the problems of disability involving all sectors of society. Structural transformation, involving redistribution of economic and political power is implicit in any application of the human rights' strategy. As in the struggle against racism, discrimination based on sex or ethnicity, advocates and policy-makers chose to combat discrimination against persons with disabilities by reference to human rights.
In order to present a broad picture of national legislation concerning the rights of disabled persons, the present study reviews general aspects of such legislation in various countries. The aim of question 4 was to find out whether the Government has enacted laws on rights to protect individuals and groups from discrimination on the basis of disability. This can be done either by general legislation, special legislation or a combination of the these two types. The provisions in general legislation intend to apply equally to all persons, regardless of ability or disability. Special legislation draws attention to the particular relevance of disability and creates specific protections. Special legislation is advocated when general legislation fails to provide the protection for which it is intended. Special legislation could be said to be a stronger legislation, since it specifically refers to the rights of disabled people.
As Table 4 shows the most common type of legislation is to use both special and general legislation or a combination of these two types as done by 56 countries, i.e. they make specific amendments specifically referring to the rights of disabled persons within the general legislation. While 8 countries report that the rights of persons with disabilities are protected only by special legislation and 18 countries - Ghana, Malta, Oman, Namibia, Hungary, S:t Kitts and Nevis, S:t Lucia, Eritrea, Yemen, the Maldives, Luxembourg, S:t Christopher and Nevis, Switzerland, Holy See, Guinea, Qatar, Tanzania - report that their rights are protected only by general legislation. The great diversity among these countries indicates that the level of socio-economic development or law tradition cannot play an essential role in the choice of legislation.
Table 4 (Question No. 4)
Types of legislation to protect the rights of persons with disabilities
| Types of legislation | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Countries reporting having only special legislation | 8 | 9,8 |
| Countries reporting having only general legislation | 18 | 22,0 |
| Countries with a combination of these two types | 56 | 68,3 |
Total 82, No answer 3
In question 5 the aim was to find out whether there are mechanisms to protect disabled people's citizenship rights. Judicial mechanisms as well as administrative and other non-judicial bodies are the institutional arrangements through which citizenship is realised, i.e. citizens have the right to bring actions before a law court or to a special agency dealing with anti-discrimination issues in order to defend their rights. The protection of the rights of disabled people thereby to a large extent depends on the enforcement mechanism build into the legislation. Laws remain ineffective, unless there are judicial mechanisms and/or other non-judicial bodies to object against their infringement or neglect. In other words, the efficacy of the legislative framework to protect the rights of persons with disabilities largely hinges on the capacity of disabled people to benefit from the law's protections and benefits. This means usually gaining access to the court system and providing testimony. As Table 5 shows, the status of persons with disabilities in relation to the enforcement mechanisms is not always clear.
Table 5 (Question No. 5)
Mechanisms to protect citizenship rights
| Judicial/non-judicial mechanisms | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Due process | 62 | 72,9 |
| Recourse procedure | 13 | 15,3 |
| Ombudsman | 24 | 28,2 |
| Governmental body (administrative) | 49 | 57,6 |
| Expert bodies | 15 | 17,6 |
| Arbitration/conciliation body | 10 | 11,8 |
Total 85, No answer 0
Table 5 shows that in the majority of the countries mechanisms have been adopted to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. The most usual judicial mechanism adopted is legal remedy through the courts, while the most usual non-judicial is a Governmental body (administrative). 16 countries report lacking judicial mechanism. It is a discouraging fact that only 28% of the countries reviewed have promoted national legislation ensuring people with disabilities to have access to an ombudsman who can receive complaints about abuse of human rights and take corrective action.. In two countries there is neither a judicial nor any non-judicial mechanism/arrangement to protect the rights of disabled people. In these cases they do not even have access to the court system, i.e. their testimony is not regarded as valid because of their disability. This is a serious infringement of the human rights.
Human rights implies rights and freedom to which every human being is entitled. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) spells out most of the principal rights that must be protected. There are two international Covenants binding the parties having ratified them: the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
In question 6 the aim was to find out whether general legislation applies to persons with disabilities and if they enjoy equal protection under the law, or is disability is a cause for differential treatment. Question 6 is dealing with the interest or the privilege recognized and protected by law and the freedom to exercise power conferred by law. Citizenship exists only when a person has duties and rights implying the power to exercise these rights/duties. In many countries persons with disabilities are not considered as full-fledged citizens, as is shown in Table 6, that is, general legislation does not apply to one or several rights e.g. the right to vote, property rights, right to privacy etc. However, in the majority of the countries disability is not used as a basis for differential treatment.
Table 6 (Question 6)
Civil and political rights of persons with disabilities
Countries reporting that general legislation
does not apply with respect to: | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Education | 10 | 12,5 |
| Employment | 10 | 12,5 |
| The right to marriage | 18 | 22,5 |
| The right to parenthood/family | 17 | 21,3 |
| Political rights | 14 | 17,5 |
| Access to law court | 18 | 22,5 |
| Right to privacy | 18 | 22,5 |
| Property rights | 18 | 22,5 |
Total 80, No answer 5
As it is indicated in the Table 6, in 10 countries out of 80 providing information the right to education and the right to employment is not by law guaranteed to disabled people; in 18 countries the right to marriage is not guaranteed by law; in 18 counties the rights to parenthood/family, access to law court, privacy, property are not guaranteed by law, and in 14 countries persons with disabilities have no political rights. In countries where persons with disabilities have no political rights they have no permission to vote or stand for election. When disaggregating the data according to kind of disability, it can be inferred that these legal barriers are most evident in the sphere of mental disability. There is a general agreement that persons with mental disabilities are among the most discriminated groups. The findings of the present study fully confirm this view. As regards exclusion from the right to marriage, to parenthood/family, access to law courts, property and political rights, they are all examples of the factual discrimination occurring through legislation and regulations. Legislation may actually prohibit disabled people (in particular those with mental disabilities) to exercise these rights, based on perceptions about their capacities and role in society. For instance, the laws in some countries governing property exclude disabled persons from owning property. There may also be legal provisions forbiding disabled persons from entering into contracts in their own name. This is a de jure (as a matter of law) segregation - legally sanctioned discrimination - which these Governments are rectifying in their legislation. Such laws sanction prejudices and give grounds for devaluation of persons with disabilities. Such laws sanction a kind of direct discrimination occurring when in comparable circumstances a person with a disability is treated less favourably than a non-disabled person.
In question 7 the aim was to find the existence of any legislation giving attention to the wider availability of health services and institutionalized social security. Social citizenship is meant to be realized through the rights of health and medical care, financial security (income maintenance/insurance), independent living, participation in decisions affecting the interested persons etc. The right to employment, health and medical care etc. are not to be seen as indicators measuring the present socio-economic conditions of disabled people, nor their quality of life. They are to be seen as indicators measuring how well institutional arrangements have been worked out in establishing social and economic conditions for persons with disabilities. When a certain country replies that one, or all, of these benefits are guaranteed by law to persons with disabilities, this does not mean that the rights are being implemented, it only indicates the existence of a legal basis for these benefits. On the other hand, when nothing or little is guaranteed by law, persons with disabilities are really a disadvantageous group; the prevalence of handicap is high.
Many persons with disabilities are socially and economically marginalised. Reforms at system level are necessary in many countries in order to assuring persons with disabilities more equitable possibilities to partake in education, employment, decisions affecting them. Individuals who, for whatever reason, are unable to provide for their own financial security (income maintenance/insurance) should by law be guaranteed financial security providing them with adequate levels of support. They can thus avoid living in unequal social and economic position, in comparison with the non-disabled part of the population.
As Table 7 shows, in 9 countries out of 81 providing information on this issue, the right to health/medical care is not guaranteed by law. In 13 countries the right to training, rehabilitation and counselling is not guaranteed by law. In 23 countries the right to financial security, in 26 the right to employment, in 34 the right to independent living and the right to participation in decisions affecting the persons concerned. In 4 countries no benefits at all are guaranteed by law to persons with disabilities. In 33 countries all of the above mentioned is guaranteed by law, while for the remaining 49 countries one or several of the above mentioned are not guaranteed by law. Thus, in most countries one or several of the above mentioned social security and welfare services are, not even within the legal framework, guaranteed to all citizens.
At least in the advanced market economies social security and welfare services are funded through taxes. With rising unemployment, and efforts to keep the inflation low, state expenditure in social services is reduced. In the social and health budget the lion's share is consequently taken up by other objectives than disability measures. In particular, economic recession in many developed and developing countries has had a negative impact on disabled persons' employment. There is a reciprocity between poverty and the incidence/prevalence of disability. Poor people run the risk to become disabled because of their living conditions. On the other hand economic marginalization contributes to the increasing number of disabled people.
Table 7 (Question No. 7)
Economic and social rights of persons with disabilities
Countries reporting that the following benefits are not guaranteed by law:
does not apply with respect to: | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Health/medical care | 9 | 11,1 |
| Rehabilitation | 13 | 16,0 |
| Financial security | 23 | 28,4 |
| Employment | 26 | 32,1 |
| Independent living | 34 | 42,0 |
| Participation in decisions affecting themselves | 33 | 40,7 |
Total 81, No answer 4
Despite efforts to strengthen their citizenship, their low economic and social living conditions, and exclusion from participating in decisions affecting themselves have made social citizenship rights to an inadequate basis for the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities. When comparing the information in Table 6 with the information in Table 7 it can be concluded that Governments have progressed more regarding the enactment of laws which guarantee civil and political rights than social and economic rights. Many countries operate without either adequate free medical care or a social security system that guarantees a minimum of dignity and welfare to the disabled. Persons with disabilities are in many societies at a significant disadvantaged position. Many of the social and economic conditions facing them reflect a basic lack of equality which, in turn, can be traced to a weak legal basis regarding their economic and social rights.
When comparing questions 6 and 7 with question 4 it can be concluded that a correlation exists between general legislation and a weaker protection of citizenship rights for persons with disabilities. Consequently, when the rights of persons with disabilities are protected only by general legislation there are several citizenship rights (political rights, the right to marriage, the right to parenthood/family), as well as several social and economic rights (financial security, employment, independent living) that are not guaranteed by law. This tendency could be found in 13 countries - Malta, Israel, Namibia, Hungary, S:t Kitts and Nevis, S:t Lucia, South Africa, Yemen, the Maldives, S:t Christopher and Nevis, Guinea, Qatar, Tanzania - of a total 17 reporting having only general legislation. Only in four countries exceptions could be noticed from the tendency of general legislation being sufficient to protect the citizenship rights of persons with disabilities. In those countries where general legislation fails to provide sufficient protection is special legislation preferable, specifically referring to the rights of disabled people.
In question 8 the aim was to find out whether, since the adoption of the Rules, new legislation concerning disability has been enacted. Table 8 shows that in the majority of the countries - 44 out of 83 providing information on this issue - no new legislation concerning disability has been enacted since the adoption of the Rules. This is a curious result. Firstly, the responsibility of presenting legislative proposals lies with the Government. Secondly, the Standard Rules being so advanced, it is highly unlikely that a majority of the respondents already had a legislation, equal with the Standard Rules in intention and demands. On the contrary, a country well-known for its advanced and progressive handicap policy, Sweden, has enacted two major laws since the Standard Rules were adopted (one on functional impairment wholly inspired by the definition set down in the Standard Rules of disability as environment-based, the other about the right to individual assistance for those with severe disability, in order to live as active a life as possible). Many problems are encountered in the implementation of the Standard Rules: economic problems foremost (since almost everything from the bottom is a question of resources), there are attitudinal problems, problems of co-ordination and planning, and so on, but the problem of the standard set by the nations themselves not being realized where it could be so, but let to remain a good intention on the paper alone, is disheartening for all of us. It gives cause for the public to hold the efforts of the UN in low esteem. According to the Rules, Governments must accept a major responsibility and play a principal role in the development of policies aiming at the equalization of opportunities for all persons with physical and mental disabilities. It is a hopeful sign, however, that several Governments (47%) have recently adopted legislation which protects persons with disabilities against discrimination and other forms of unjust treatment having adverse effects on equality of opportunity for participation for disabled people. The right of access in the physical environment and access to information and communication is also the subject of legislation. The implementation of this right will lead to the removal of architectural barriers in buildings, transport and other public facilities as well as to access to information and communication, being necessary preconditions for an active social and working life.
Table 8 (Question No. 8)
New legislation concerning disability since the adoption of the Rules
| Legislation on disability | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Countries reporting enactment of new legislation | 39 | 47,0 |
| Countries reporting no enactment of new legislation | 44 | 53,0 |
Total 83, No answer 2
Accessibility
In the area of accessibility, eradication of discrimination against people with disabilities necessitates eliminating two major obstacles: (a) the inaccessibility of the physical environment; and (b) the lack of access to information and communication. Access to environment as an individual right does not enjoy global recognition. One reason for that is the reluctance of Governments to translate, into practice, such an individual entitlement necessitating large investments.
Accessibility along with education, employment etc. is addressed by the Standard Rules as a basic human right for all. The demand is equal opportunities and the same choices taken for granted by the general population in areas such as housing, transportation, education, work and culture. Accessibility is largely related to social citizenship; it concerns access to physical environment and access to information and communication. But, accessibility is not only related to social citizenship. It is one of the preconditions for exercising political and civil citizenship rights. Without accessible physical environment it becomes rather difficult to exercise political rights (voting right, right to hold office in legislature etc.).
The aim of Rule 5 on accessibility is to provide an instrument for Member States enabling them to conduct national policy which will ensure accessibility in the environment and its further development. The removal of architectural barriers at the place of work, the adaptation of jobs and machines, the safeguarding of the working environment, all such action would help to create equality of opportunity for disabled persons.
Questions 9 and 10 aim at finding out, the existence of any laws and/or regulations concerning the build environment. As Table 9 shows, 23 countries are reporting that there are no standards requiring accessibility of the build environment.
Table 9 (Question No. 9)
Regulations to ensure accessibility in the built environment
| Countries reporting that: | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Accessibility standards exist | 62 | 72,9 |
| Accessibility standards do not exist | 23 | 27,1 |
Total 85, No answer 0
As Table 10 shows, most countries have standards ensuring accessibility in public places. But, in only 41% of the countries there are means of public transportation being accessible. Thus, the accessibility of public places in practice is much lower, since without any transportation means to these places, they are impossible to attending and entrying. The lack of accessible means of transportation has a highly discriminatory effect, constituting an insurmountable obstacle for a lot of other activities. In fact, it prevents an independent life for persons with disabilities. Furthermore, it is rather astonishing that in almost 40% of the countries providing information on this issue, houses not accessible to disabled persons, are still being constructed.
Table 10 (Question No. 10)
Accessibility of the built environment
| Countries reporting accessibility in: | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Public places | 60 | 98,4 |
| Outdoor environment | 48 | 78,7 |
| Transportation | 35 | 57,4 |
| Housing | 38 | 62,3 |
| Accessibility standards do not exist | 23 | 27,1 |
Total 85, No answer 0
In question 11 the aim was to find out the authority having the responsibility to ensure that accessibility in the build environment is being observed. Table 11 shows that in 22 countries out of 80 providing information no such responsible body exists. In the majority of the countries accessibility in the build environment is observed by local Governments.
Table 11 (Question No. 11)
Supervision of the accessibility in the build environment
| Accessibility in the built environment is observed by: | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| National authority | 48 | 60,0 |
| Local Governments | 49 | 61,3 |
| The constructor | 13 | 16,3 |
| The organizers/providers of the activities | 8 | 10,0 |
| No responsible body exists | 22 | 27,5 |
Total 80, No answer 5
The accessibility of the build environment is of vital importance for the possibilities of people with disabilities to enjoy full participation and equality in society. Though this may to a great extent be determined by the local community, it is desirable that the frame for national building regulations to be followed in building projects should be stipulated in national design standards or codes, through decisions at Government level, in order to ensure a nation-wide uniformity of guidelines.
In question 12 the aim was to determine what measures that have been promoted by Governments in order to facilitate accessibility in the build environment. As Table 12 shows, marking parking areas and installing automatic doors, lifts and accessible toilets are the measures being most frequently promoted, while the use of special lighting and contrast colours for visually impaired are the measures less frequently promoted. 18 countries out of 81 providing information report that no measures at all facilitating accessibility in the build environment have been promoted.
Table 12 (Question No. 12)
Measures to facilitate accessibility of the build environment
| Government measures promoted: | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Levelling off pavements | 42 | 51,9 |
| Marking parking areas | 52 | 64,2 |
| Installing automatic doors, lifts and accessible toilets | 46 | 56,8 |
| Ensure accessibility in the public places | 43 | 53,1 |
| Improving accessibility in housing | 37 | 45,7 |
| Provision of financial incentives/support for accessibility measures | 34 | 42,0 |
| Using special lighting and contrast colours for visually impaired | 23 | 28,4 |
| Provision of specially adapted motor vehicles | 35 | 43,2 |
Total 81, No answer 4
While persons with disabilities have always been painfully aware of the limitations imposed on them by the physical environment, a lot is still to be done as the present survey indicates. Although Table 12 shows that accessibility in the physical environment has, for the majority of the countries, started becoming a concern of Governments. However, buildings which are not accessible to disabled persons are still being constructed, the using of wheelchairs is impossible in many apartment buildings, public office buildings, libraries, sport facilities, restaurants, etc.
In question 13 the aim was to see, if there are any special transport arrangements for persons with disabilities and for what purposes special transport are available. Table 13 shows that in 26 countries there are no special transport arrangements, not even in the most initial form, i.e. reduced prices in public transport in urban areas. Special transport arrangements vary to a great extent among Member States. In Israel, for instance, special arrangements are provided for by self-help organizations in the big cities. Other arrangements: discharge of tax on vehicles for persons with disabilities, reduced prices in public transport etc. Special transport, when existing, often means reduced prices or free of charge for the public transport and is available for whatever purpose. As Table 13 indicates special transport is most often provided for the purpose of education but less frequently for recreational purpose.
Table 13 (Question No. 13)
Special transport system
| Special transport is available for: | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Medical treatment | 50 | 89,3 |
| Education | 53 | 94,6 |
| Work | 47 | 83,9 |
| Recreational purpose | 41 | 73,2 |
| No special transport system exists | 26 | 31,3 |
| Special transport system exists | 57 | 68,7 |
Total 82, No answer 3
The provision of a special transport service to individuals for compensating disabilities enables the realisation of principles of equality of opportunity and integration. The discriminatory effect of the failure to provide accessible means of transport and the obstacle that presents to disabled persons are hardly needed to be pointed out again. Special transport is in fact one of the measures in providing equal opportunities to people with disabilities being rather easy to realize. A lot could be done with a comparable little investment.
Question 14 aims to determine of those impediments when planning to build accessible environments. A number of possible obstacles when building accessible environments were listed, and Governm ents were asked to rate the most difficult obstacles. The survey indicates - see Table 14 below - the three main obstacles for an adaptation of the build environment to the needs of disabled people as: economic/budgetary factors, attitudinal factors and the lack of enforcement mechanism. It is surprising that attitudinal factors are by so many considered as a major obstacle inhibiting disabled persons participation. This could indicate that discrimination against persons with disabilities is not so different from discrimination against women or racial minorities. In these cases, the discrimination results solely from attitudes towards the groups in question.
Table 14 (Question No. 14)
Adaptation of the built environment
| Obstacles reported by Governments when building accessible environments: | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Attitudinal factors | 43 | 53,8 |
| Economic/budgetary factors | 62 | 77,5 |
| Technical factors | 22 | 27,5 |
| Geographical and climatic factors | 18 | 22,5 |
| Lack of legislation and regulations | 29 | 36,3 |
| Lack of planning and design capacity | 18 | 22,5 |
| Lack of knowledge, research and information | 31 | 38,8 |
| Lack of user participation | 10 | 12,5 |
| Lack of co-operation from other organizations/institutions | 17 | 21,3 |
| Lack of enforcement mechanism | 41 | 51,3 |
Total 80, No answer 5
Question 15 aims to determine whether there is a disability awareness component incorporated in the training of planners, architects and/or construction engineers. The incorporation of a disability awareness component in the training implies that planners, architects and construction engineers have to learn about the laws and the regulations and what these laws and regulations mean for their practical work. The findings of the survey indicate that in the majority of the countries - in 42 out of 78 providing information on this issue - there is no such awareness component incorporated in their training. This is an area where major efforts should be done in order to increase the awareness among the students. Usually, young people do have a more open mind than adults. If the schools of architecture, industrial design, construction, make visible the problems that persons with disabilities are encountered with in their everyday life, many creative solutions will most certainly come into view.
Table 15 (Question No. 15)
Disability awareness component
| Disability awareness in the training: | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Countries having a disability awareness component | 36 | 46,2 |
| Countries not having a disability awareness component | 42 | 53,8 |
Total 78, No answer 7
An issue closely related to disabled people's possibilities to exercise their rights is the access to information and communication. The information and communication rights of persons with disabilities are addressed specifically by the questions 16, 17, 19. Due to the important role of communication in society, deaf people run a greater risk than people with other disabilities of falling into social isolation, which in turn can lead to the development of psycho-social problems. In question 16 the aim was to find out the status of the sign language in Member States.
Language rights for the deaf people implies calling for the recognition of sign language as the official language of deaf people, as the first language in education of deaf people and as the natural language of communication between deaf persons and others. When sign language is recognized as the official language of deaf people it almost always implies that it is also used as the first language in education of deaf people and that it is recognized as the main means of communication between deaf persons and others. When sign language has no officially recognized status it implies that it is neither recognized as the official language of deaf people, nor used as the first language in education of deaf people, nor recognized as the main means of communication between deaf persons and others. This means that deaf people have no language rights at all. When it is recognized as the main means of communication between deaf persons and others, but not as the first language in education, there is accordingly almost no Government involvement in the education of deaf people.
Table 16 (Question No. 16)
Status of sign language
| The status of sign language as reported by the Governments: | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Recognized as the official language | 24 | 30,0 |
| As the first language in education | 15 | 18,8 |
| As the main means of communication | 15 | 18,8 |
| No officially recognized status | 26 | 32,5 |
Total 80, No answer 5
In 26 countries out of 80 providing information on this issue consequently sign language is used neither in education of deaf people nor as the main means of communication between deaf people and others. In these countries deaf people are deprived of the right to a defence because the judicial and investigating authorities do not have permanent interpreters, being indispensable in such cases. In 15 countries it is used as the first language in education of deaf people and in 15 countries as the main means of communication between deaf persons and others, but not as the first language in education of deaf people.
Questions 17 and 18 concern measures taken by governments to encouraging media and other forms of public information to make their services accessible for persons with disabilities. The Standard Rules set information services within the wider context of the disability rights. Effective information services are needed in order to enable persons with disabilities to exercise the rights they have won. Such services include text on TV, news in sign language, interpretation in sign language of other programmes, newspapers in an easy reading language, text telephone for deaf people, interpretation of theatre plays in sign language, etc. As Table 17 indicates, 47% of the countries providing information on this issue have not taken any measure at all to encouraging media to make their services accessible to persons with disabilities.
Table 17 (Question No. 17)
Accessibility measures in media
| Acessibility measures in media | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Countries reporting accessibility measures | 42 | 53,2 |
| Countries reporting no accessibility measures | 37 | 46,8 |
Total 79, No answer 6
Likewise, ca 47% of the countries reported that no measure had been taken in order to encourage other forms of public information to make their services accessible to persons with disabilities. This is another unsatisfactory finding. The possibility to obtain information, especially in the societies of Advanced Market Economies, is an absolute prerequisite for living an active life; without information you live in isolation and cannot even properly utilize what is due to you (legal rights, social benefits, etc.).
Table 18 (Question No. 18)
Accessibility measures in public information services
| Public information services | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Countries reporting accessibility measures | 41 | 51,9 |
| Countries reporting no accessibility measures | 38 | 48,1 |
Total 79, No answer 6
Question 19 strives to determine the services provided in order to facilitate information and communication between persons with disabilities and others. As Table 19 shows, deaf persons constitute a disadvantaged group in terms of services facilitating information and communication between deaf persons and others. In most developing countries deaf persons do not even for major events have access to interpretation.
Table 19 (Question No. 19)
Access to information and communication
| Services to facilitate information and communication | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Literature in Braille/tape | 71 | 87,7 |
| News magazines on tape/Braille | 47 | 58,0 |
| Sign language interpretation for any purpose | 33 | 40,7 |
| Sign language interpretation for major events | 30 | 37,0 |
| Easy readers for persons with mental disabilities | 25 | 30,9 |
| None | 5 | 6,2 |
Total 81, No answer 4
According to this survey, the most disadvantaged group of all is the one of persons with mental disabilities, while deaf persons only slightly have a better situation. In fact, in the majority of the countries providing information, these services are not provided for to these two groups of disabled persons.
Organizations of Persons With Disabilities
According to Rule 18, the work in every country concerning the implementation of the Standard Rules should be carried out in co-operation between national authorities and organizations of persons with disabilities. The right to represent and the advisory role given to organizations of persons with disabilities are based on the objective that equalization of opportunities should imply that decisions are not be taken by others. Accordingly the active involvement in the integration process of the groups concerned is, at the same time, a prerequisite for and a symbol of its success. In more general terms, the active involvement is a part of the human rights and democracy approach. It is not sufficient only advocating that everyone should participate in decision-making. Genuine participation encompasses the formulation of projects, and their execution and evaluation. Lack of involvement by those concerned and their organizations is not a tiny matter. Without the co-operation with organizations of persons with disabilities it is very likely that policy makers will misinterpret the directives/guidelines.
Organizations of persons with disabilities should be involved because of their ability to provide decision-makers with insight into and knowledge of the problems, needs and requirements of people with disabilities. Organizations of persons with disabilities are a point of crystallisation for expertise based on experience: the expertise on living with a disability, generated by people with disabilities. Participation of organizations of persons with disabilities in policy-formulation and decision-making of the national plans of action, is also important in order to ensure the implementation of the programmes on the equalization of opportunities. Programmes are more easily implemented when obtaining the organizations' full support and participation. The actual implementation of a programme therefore depends on the interest and co-operation of people who are active in organizations, and hence in much closer contact with the problems connected with a specific disability.
As regards the existence of a national umbrella organization of organizations of persons with disabilities (question 20) 64 countries out of 83 providing information on this issue are reporting the existence of a national umbrella organization. 19 countries reported there being no umbrella organization. In countries with an national umbrella organization, most organizations of persons with disabilities are being represented.
Table 20 (Question No. 20)
National umbrella organization
| National umbrella organization | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Countries with umbrella organization | 64 | 77,1 |
| Countries with no umbrella organization | 19 | 22,9 |
Total 83, No answer 2
Regarding the existence of legal provisions mandating the representatives of persons with disabilities to participate in policy making and to work with Governmental institutions the results are less encouraging. In 32 countries out of 81 countries providing information, there are no such legal provisions. In 49 countries there are legal provisions mandating the representatives of disabled persons to participate in policy making. It is necessary to recognize that the organizations of persons with disabilities should have a role in all efforts relating to their participation in development. This role should be carried out at all levels: national, regional and local. Democracy, among other things, implies fair representation and the possibility to influence processes affecting the lives of disabled persons.
Table 21 (Question 21)
Participation in policy making
| Participation in policy-making | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Countries reporting participation | 49 | 60,5 |
| Countries reporting no participation | 32 | 39,5 |
Total 81, No answer 4
According to Rule 18, in the formulation of disability policy, both the directives/guidelines from the responsible authorities and the views of the organizations of persons with disabilities have to be taken into account. Question 22 aims at finding out, if and how often the views of organizations of persons with disabilities are taken into account. The information from this survey shows that in 37 countries out of 80 providing information on this issue, organizations are always consulted during the preparation of laws, regulations and/or guidelines with a disability aspect, in 24 countries their views are often taken into account, in 18 their views are sometimes taken into account and in one country the views of the organizations are never taken into account.
Table 22 (Question 22)
Consultations with organizations of persons with disabilities
| Their views are taken into account | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Never | 1 | 1,3 |
| Sometimes | 18 | 22,5 |
| Often | 24 | 30,0 |
| Always | 37 | 46,3 |
Total 80, No answer 5
As the results in question 23 shows, when the views of the organizations are taken into account, consultations most often take place at the national level - i.e. in 71 countries out of 80 providing information on this issue - less often at the local level - i.e. in 38 countries - and least often at the regional level, i.e. in 35 countries. According to the Standard Rules, measures have to be taken enabling persons with disabilities to participate as citizens with full rights in the decision-making process, of the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes at all levels.
Table 23 (Question 23)
Level of consultations
| Level of consultations | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| National | 71 | 88,8 |
| Regional | 35 | 43,8 |
| Local | 38 | 47,5 |
Total 80, No answer 5
In question 24 the aim was to find out whether the Government gives any support and what kind of support is given. As Table 24 shows in 66 countries out of 80 providing information on this issue, organizations of persons with disabilities receive financial support from their Government. In 39 countries organizations receive financial and/or organizational/logistic support, while in 5 countries organizations do not receive any support at all.
Table 24 (Question 24)
Support to organizations of disabled people
| Kind of support | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Financial | 66 | 82,5 |
| Organizational/logistic | 39 | 48,8 |
| No support at all | 5 | 6,3 |
Total 80, No answer 5
Needless to say, the extent of the financial support varies between different countries. But, of course, even a small support may have significant symbolic effects.
Question 25 tried to measure the extent in which persons with disabilities participate in political and public life. Respondents were asked to evaluate, in a scale ranging from 1 to 5, the extent to which, according to their judgement, persons with disabilities participate in five different areas of public life: Government, legislature, judicial authorities, political parties and NGO's. The level of participation could be evaluated on a scale ranging from a very limited extent to a great extent. Table 25 displays a clear and traditional tendency, namely that persons with disabilities participate to a very limited extent in Government, legislature and judicial authorities but to a great extent in NGO's. Maybe the participation in political parties - with the highest score "to some extent" - is a new feature. The tendency - foremost in the advanced market economies - among political parties to take an interest in disability issues could be a result of this participation. Thus, persons with disabilities are underrepresented everywhere among decision-makers. They are rarely represented in government, legislature, in judicial authorities or in political parties.
Table 25 (Question 25)
Participation in political and public life
| Areas of political and public life | Number of countries reporting participation |
| | Limited | Some | Great |
| Government | 45 | 14 | 10 |
| Legislature | 44 | 17 | 7 |
| Judiciary | 51 | 13 | 5 |
| Political parties | 39 | 21 | 9 |
| NGO's | 10 | 10 | 53 |
1 and 2 = limited extent
3 = some extent
4 and 5 = great extent
Question 26 aimed at pointing out the effective role of the organizations of persons with disabilities. As Table 26 shows, the organizations of disabled people most often contribute to public awareness, to mobilize persons with disabilities and to advocate rights and improved services. Less often their role is to promote/organize income generating activities.
Table 26 (Question 26)
The role of organizations
| Areas organizations are involved | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Advocating rights and improved services | 70 | 87,5 |
| Mobilize persons with disabilities | 71 | 88,8 |
| Identify needs and priorities | 68 | 85,0 |
| Participate in the planning, implementation etc. | 57 | 71,3 |
| Contribute to public awareness | 73 | 91,3 |
| Provide services | 60 | 75,0 |
| Promote/organize income generating activities | 48 | 60,0 |
Total 80, No answer 5
Co-ordination of Work
Rule 17 states that co-ordination of work should be ensured, for the widespread and sustained improvements in the position of persons with disabilities. In addition, co-ordinated and co-operative efforts by Governments and disabled persons' own organizations should be promoted. The most common way of achieving co-ordination between the different Government agencies responsible for various aspects of equalization of opportunities, is by means of a national disability council or another similar body. The council's members include representatives of both voluntary organizations and Government departments and agencies responsible for providing services. Most of these national disability councils are advisory bodies. In addition to the national council, in a number of countries, the non-Governmental organizations, have established such a council or a central committee in order to co-ordinate their activities.
In questions 27 and 28 the aim was to find out the existence of a national co-ordinating committee or a similar body as well as its destination of reporting. The results of the survey are less encouraging. 62 countries out of 84 providing information on this issue report that a co-ordinating committee or a similar body has been established, while as many as 22 countries (26%) report that not having a national co-ordinating committee or a similar body.
Table 27 (Question 27)
Co-ordinating committee
| Co-ordinating committee | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Countries with a co-ordinating committee | 62 | 73,8 |
| Countries with no co-ordinating committee | 22 | 26,2 |
Total 84, No answer 1
Regarding the authority to which the co-ordinating committee submits its reports, the co-ordinating committee in the majority of the countries, 39 out of 57 providing information on this issue, is reporting to the Ministry of Social Affairs/other Ministry. In 12 countries the co-ordinating committee is reporting to the Prime Minister's Office, while in 6 countries the co-ordinating committee is reporting to other authorities.
Table 28 (Question 28)
What authority the co-ordinating committee is reporting to
| The co-ordinating committee is reporting to: | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| A particular Ministry | 39 | 68,4 |
| Prime Minister's office | 12 | 21,1 |
| Other | 6 | 10,5 |
| Countries with no co-ordinating committee | 22 | 26,2 |
Total 79, No answer 6
In question 29 the aim was to find out the organizations and/or authorities being represented in the co-ordinating committee. As Table 29 shows, in a majority of the countries organizations of persons with disabilities are represented in the co-ordinating committees. Representatives from the private sector are more rarely included in the co-ordinating committees.
Table 29 (Question 29)
Representation in the co-ordinating committee
| Representatives of: | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Ministries | 54 | 90,0 |
| Organizations of persons with disabilities | 50 | 83,3 |
| Other NGO's | 33 | 55,0 |
| Private sector | 25 | 41,7 |
| Countries with no co-ordinating committee | 22 | 26,2 |
Total 81, No answer 4
With questions 30 and 31 the aim was to find whether the co-ordinating committee by the Government is expected to participate in policy development and to perform other tasks, for instance to be involved in evaluation, provide services etc. As Table 30 shows, in most of the countries - 51 out of 55 providing information on this issue - the co-ordinating committee is in fact expected to participate in policy-development.
Table 30 (Question 30)
Participation in policy-development
| Involvement of the co-ordinating committee | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Participation in policy development | 51 | 92,7 |
| No participation in policy-development | 4 | 7,3 |
| Countries with no co-ordinating committee | 22 | 26,2 |
Total 76, No answer 9
As Table 31 shows in 42 countries the co-ordinating committee is involved in performance of other tasks. Only 11 countries of 53 providing information on this issue the co-ordinating committee is not expected to perform other tasks.
Table 31 (Question 31)
Participation in performance of other tasks
| Involvement of the co-ordinating committee | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Reporting performance of other tasks | 42 | 79,2 |
| Reporting no performance of other tasks | 11 | 20,8 |
| Countries with no co-ordinating committee | 22 | 26,2 |
Total 74, No answer 11
Question 32 asks for the effects of the establishment of the co-ordinating committee. As Table 32 shows, the fields where the establishment of the co-ordinating committee has had great effects include: improved co-ordination of measures/programmes in the disability field and better dialogue in the disability field. The fields where establishment has had less effect include: more accurate planning and more effective use of resources. 9 countries out of 59 providing information on this issue reported that it being too soon for an assessment.
Table 32 (Question 32)
Effects of the establishment of the co-ordinating committee
| Effects | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Improved co-ordination of measures/programmes | 47 | 79,7 |
| Improved legislation | 38 | 64,4 |
| Improved integration of responsibility | 37 | 62,7 |
| Better dialogue in the disability field | 45 | 76,3 |
| More accurate planning | 25 | 42,4 |
| More effective use of resources | 31 | 52,5 |
| Improved promotion of public awareness | 40 | 67,8 |
| Too early for assessment | 9 | 15,3 |
| Countries with no co-ordinating committee | 22 | 26,2 |
Total 76, No answer 9
The last question asks for the effects of the Rules on the approach to disability policy. 50 countries out of 62 providing information on this issue reported that the adoption of the Rules has lead to a rethinking of the approach to disability policy and 9 reported that the adoption of the Rules has not lead to a rethinking of the approach to disability policy. 23 countries did not answer the question and 3 countries reported that it is too early for an assessment of the effects of the Standard Rules.
Table 33 (Question 33)
Effects of the adoption of the Standard Rules
| The effects of the Standard Rules | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Countries reporting rethinking | 50 | 80,6 |
| Countries reporting no rethinking | 9 | 14,5 |
| Too early for assessment | 3 | 4,8 |
Total 62, No answer 23
When a Government in its answer states that the adoption of the Rules has not lead to a rethinking, it does not necessarily mean the approach to disability being in conflict with the philosophy expressed in the Rules. It can also mean that the guidelines in the Standard Rules are very similar to these of the country's disability policy. When this is the case (Finland, China, Austria, Thailand) the reply was classified together with these countries reporting a rethinking, the purpose of this survey being more important to knowing if the policy of a country is compatible with the Rules. Nonetheless, the fact that so many countries did not answer this question - a key in the evaluation of the implementation process of the Standard Rules - remains to be explained. In my view this could reflect an attitude of the nation state, namely the wish to show its independence from whatever imperatives and pressures from outside, even from the UN or some other international organization (compare to what extent the Standard Rules has resulted in new legislation). The nation state is by the very definition a system with its own rules and it own laws. This points towards the dilemma of the United Nations - to partake in the international community, but as a nation state.
Conclusion
The definition of who has a disability or who has not varies from country to country; to a great extent there is a pattern according to the level of the socio-economic development. In the traditional society, there are only four kinds of disability (physical disability, blindness, deafness and mental retardation). With a more complicated society where everybody is more and more dependent of being asserted certain specific rights, thereby obtaining social services and other benefits, the tendency is towards an extended concept of disability.
The survey shows that the extent of the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities and the scope of law varies enormously among countries. Moreover, even when the rights of persons with disabilities are protected by law, effective mechanisms/arrangements have not necessarily been adopted in order to ensure the de facto protection and respect of those rights. There is, however, no country reporting no laws at all aiming at the protection of persons with disabilities.
According to the Standard Rules, citizens with disabilities should be accorded the same rights and obligations as others. Looking at the rates in questions 6 and 7 one is struck by the rather high prevalence of civil, political, social and economic rights. It must be remembered that this is not identical with the ability of the state to implementing these rights in practice. As a matter of fact, these legal rights are in many cases to be seen as declarations of intent. Many countries include these rights in their legislation, otherwise almost appearing to denigrate their value. Law is a necessary but not a sufficient precondition for achieving the sort of social change which will lead to people with disabilities being treated as equals. Nonetheless, if there is a legislative framework people with disabilities can defend themselves against Governments ignoring, abusing or neglecting their rights. They can advocate their own interests.
Many findings in this survey are discouraging. The implementation of the Standard Rules has not been effected as wanted. Four rules have been investigated and, in many cases, the results from the Member States indicate that conformity with the provisions in the Standard Rules has been ensured through legislation and regulations but only to a low degree. Little has been done, if the high frequency of respondents to this survey is not to be regarded as a result in itself. The result would be to interpret the responses as the recognition of disability in practice entering the agenda of the Governments; becoming an issue that cannot be hushed back into silence. Compared with one of the objectives of the UN Disability Decade - to highlight the disability question, to make it a well-known subject and to encourage the policy-makers to address it - there has been a certain progress, but the conclusion must be that the pace of the progress is very slow.
Equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities still remains a challenge to realize. However, persons with disabilities are world wide becoming more and more aware of the fact of being citizens with equal rights and obligations. As regards governments, their feeling of responsibility for persons with disabilities is in many cases certainly minimal, seen in absolute terms, but compared to earlier, this feeling has increased.
|
