Disabled Peoples’ Organizations are a mirror of society and reflect both the beauty as well as the cruelty that we see in society. As much as society excludes people, DPOs also include some and exclude others. DPOs exclude for instance, rehabilitation personnel, largely because of suspected professional paternalism among these people; but they also exclude other disabled people: depending on the type of organization they may exclude people who have epilepsy or people who have communication disorders. Another group of usually excluded people is formed by intellectually disabled people. Parents of disabled children are usually not welcome to be part of the disability movement as well. Parents of disabled children may even be seen by some as one the worst enemies of disabled children (6). A special group of discriminated disabled people is formed by people with leprosy, who in many instances face, stigma and isolation from society as well as exclusion from mainstream disability organizations. It should not then be a surprise to see some new liberation movement being formed. The last civil rights movement was certainly not the disability movement. It also will not be the movement of parents of disabled children in some countries (e.g. DICAG in South Africa); nor would it be disabled blind women who are not chosen as board members of a national organization of the blind in an African national state. It also will not be the International Association for Integration, Dignity and Economic Advancement (IDEA), an advocacy organization of people with leprosy.

   Burdick explains that current publications on social movements tend to assume that they are trying to mobilize whole constituencies such as “women,” “middle peasants,” “cannery workers,” and so on (7). The use of such language masks the fact that, in almost all cases, the majority of people who belong to a movement’s potential constituency remain nonmobilized (7). While it is difficult not to equate DPOs with the disability rights movement, there is a fundamental difference. DPOs are organizations and they play or played a role in the movement of achieving equal rights (8). The disabled people’s movement has in many respects failed to address diversity. However, there is some comfort as this applies most likely to all social movements. It is evident that in (some) western societies a debate takes place about this issue. However, it appears that this debate is not being held in lesser developed countries, though it is not a luxury debate, since it appears all too often that national DPOs have alienated themselves from their constituency. Is not one of the problems of especially national DPOs that they have become institutionalized, with their - initial charismatic and sincere - leadership turning into the greatest beneficiaries and at the same time criticizing what happens (usually in a CBR-like approach) in the disability field with and among the disabled masses? The true divide seems not anymore between disabled people and professionals or between disabled children and their parents and teachers. The true divide seems to be more a matter of the wealthy versus the poor; the urban versus the rural; men versus women; jet-setters versus refugees; academics versus illiterates; and 5-star hotel conference goers versus unemployed shack-dwellers. That is a harsh analysis, but in view of continued criticism on the - by far too few - community-based services and programmes for those who live on the fringes of society, it becomes time for DPOs to reflect upon the outcome of their work. The CRPD as stated earlier is a great achievement by the disability movement. It would be even greater if in a sense of mutual responsibility, rights will be effectuated and translated into - at least - essential services and programmes for the disabled masses of this world. That is a responsibility of governments in the first place; however, powerful stakeholders such as DPOs as well as professionals have a moral or professional obligation to influence policy-making processes as well, in such a way that it is not a minority elite that is benefiting from the new human rights law.

Voices of renowned disability activists (such as Shakespeare) in the UK argue already for a pluralistic approach to disability politics that better acknowledges disabled people’s diverse views. Others emphasize the importance of disabled people becoming part of a far wider struggle to create a better society for all. Few are likely to reject either of these proposals, but how are they to be taken forward (9)?

First of all, it appears that it is important to accept that we are all living in an unjust and unequal world. There is exclusion anywhere in this world and there is widespread exclusion among disabled people and within DPOs. Secondly, it is important to ask the question if it is always necessary and desirable to be truly inclusive of all. The concept of an egalitarian world is great and commendable but it is certainly against most philosophies. It is also not in line with the current tide of individualism, which in essence leaves abundant room for diversity. It is also against an appreciation of cultural diversity.

Keeping in mind these considerations the notion of interdependency seems to be useful. If this is not understood disabled people will continually polarize the discussion and create a divide between themselves and those who do not see themselves as disabled. It is questionable if that will help in the development of the much needed implementation of the CRPD. For the CRPD to become income into operation, joint efforts between DPOs and (CBR) professionals are needed. It does not mean that DPOs should disappear. Certainly not, and the fact that discrimination will continually and persistently be there in our societies will require also continually new emancipation- and liberation - movements. As such it may very well be that an organization like IDEA should not be part of mainstream DPOs but rather should emerge as the emancipation movement of people with leprosy.