|
Dr
Felix Wilfred (This is a revised version of a paper presented at the Seventh International Conference of North-South Philosophical Dialogue, held at the Central American University, San Salvador, El Salvador, 27-30 July 1998. Professor in the School of Philosophy and Religious Studies of the University of Madras, the author reflects on the ambiguity of human rights in recent history. The forces of the market economy have tended to appropriate the discourse on human rights and sought alliance with the State to maximise profits. But the market and human rights are really incompatible. There is need to reaffirm the "sovereignty of the victims" and take measures to restore human rights to the poor).
Like many things in real life and history, human rights are characterised by a radical ambiguity. We would naturally expect that they further the cause of the poor. But in reality, they are being turned into means to protect mostly the powerful, and least those in need — the poor and the marginalized victims. This is a curious story of inversion. Examples are legion which show how factors such as selfishness and institutionalization can twist and invert ideals and principles in such a way that they end up supporting the very things against which they originally stood. Fifty years after the United Nations declared the universal human rights, the world stands in need of testing this legal instrument to find out what it really has become — one more addition to the armoury of the powerful, or a "weapon of the weak"? The future of human rights lies on whether even now we can redeem them to be the rights of the marginalized. It is only by bringing the shelterless poor under the protection of these rights that human rights will acquire their true universal character. Not only are human rights inverted, but the discourse on them is being appropriated by the globalizing forces. These have taken upon themselves the task of defining the meaning and scope of human rights and laying down the parameters of their operation. Curiously enough, the very forces which are the most blatant violators of the rights of the poor pose themselves as their guardians and protectors. I am reminded of a Tamil proverb: ‘The wolf is shedding tears because the lamb is getting wet in the rain’! The challenge before us is to ensure that these rights become in effect the rights of the poor and that the discourse on human rights is restored to them. Part I The Making of a Hybrid Framework The immediate circumstance that led to the formulation of human rights in its contemporary form was the experience of Second World War. In particular, the horrendous experience of Nazi concentration camps, barbaric genocide, gas-chambers (euphemistically called "shower baths"!), the brutal use of human beings for medical experiments, the practice of eugenics, etc., shook the conscience of civilized humanity.1Such experiences exposed the kind of irrationality and anti-humanism that can be engendered, ironically, under the pretext of creating an order of perfect nationality.2 If the concrete experience of the war lent urgency to the need for a set of universal human rights, the inspiration behind them derived from two sources. In the main, the modern proclamation of human rights was nourished by the liberal tradition, which, as the history of its genesis shows, was centred on the claims for civil and political rights. An important corrective to the one-sidedness of this tradition was the introduction by the United Nations of cultural and economic rights into the purview of human rights.3 This latter tradition brought with it the experience of the many struggles and battles fought by the socialists right from the middle of the 19th century. In short, we have a certain hybridity in the articulation of human rights with two traditions not fully integrated. The tensions experienced between these two traditions in the context of the Cold War made plain how shaky the framework is. The Shifting Scenario Whether in the liberal or in the socialist tradition, human rights have political power as their main point of reference. In fact, the liberal tradition is associated with the struggle to check and control the absolute sovereignty claimed by rulers — first the monarchs and later by the sovereign States.4 Individual human beings are endowed with inalienable rights, which the State cannot prevail against, but should submit itself to. Similarly, in the socialist tradition, the responsibility is vested in the State for providing the most basic amenities for a dignified human life, and to recognize the cultural rights of various peoples. The focus of human rights is today changing. This is because the state is no more the sole public offender of human rights, nor the only agency that could be held responsible for the security of the citizens. Transnational capitalism with its global market and trade pervades every sector of human living. It has become an insidious violator of human rights. In the face of its prowess the nation-states have become like mute and powerless sheep. Now, the present human rights framework is attuned to combat violations by the state. Strategies and mechanisms have been created mainly to monitor the state’s functioning in respect to human rights. The fact is that the dominant developmental model and the new transnational economic system have caused an unprecedented serious crisis in human rights. They violate the basic rights of the poor such as the right to food, basic medical care, primary education, etc.5 Unfortunately we do not have any adequate means to hold under check and control this new leviathan — economic absolutism. As the present set of human rights came to existence by combating state absolutism, so the poor require today new ways and means to combat and protect themselves from this new economic absolutism which demands a lot of human sacrifices. The change is characterized also by the entry of new interlocutors in the arena of human rights. Gender has become an important human rights issue;6so too ethnic, linguistic and cultural minorities and indigenous peoples have brought in new aspects and dimensions which simply could not be deduced from a general set of human rights valid for all.7 We cannot ignore the fact that in most parts of the world today, these are the burning issues of human rights. The Cold War accusations and polemics on human rights have given place to a politics of human rights between the North and the South.8 As a result of all these developments, there is a shift of focus also on the theoretical discourse of human rights. The attention is being directed to new areas of discussion from the debates which once centred on such issues as the universality of human rights, their foundation, to the interconnection between civil and political rights on the one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other. We are assisting today at a process of heavy ideology-building: I mean the States and the economic forces are engaged in theory building to justify the violation of human rights. From these ideological bastions human rights need to be freed. And this adds to the complexity of the present-day scenario of human rights and the tasks before us. No One Can Save Human Rights and Market That we live in an "administered world" (Th. Adorno) becomes clear to us when we observe the dominant economic system, symbolized by the market. The very structure and functioning of the market is inherently antithetical to human rights: both are simply incompatible. This is something that needs to be explained at some length. First of all, the market functions with its own laws, like the mechanical Newtonian world. As in any machine, there could be disturbances in the functioning of the market, which then need to be removed. From the viewpoint of the neo-liberal economy and its capitalist market, the struggle for human rights and their advocacy (one could think of the workers’ struggles) represent one such disturbance. It is logical that anything to do with human rights will be perceived as a challenge to the security of the system and the stability of the market. It follows then, that no one can honestly serve market and human rights. And if there is an appearance to the contrary, it is a clear sign of hypocrisy. This is precisely what many nations in the South point out when the nations of the North, which promote the transnational capitalist market, suddenly turn into ardent preachers of human rights. Even if one may not go about it analytically, the South perceives the contradiction between the two agenda. The so-called structural adjustment programmes imposed on the poor nations is a way to maintain the system, but at the cost of the poor and their rights. It is well known how such programmes are oriented precisely to undercut those areas which are vital for the poor to survive and live with a minimum of human dignity.9 Heavy cuts on primary education and primary health care, the abolition of food-subsidies, the liquidation of the labour force — such measures are diametrically opposed to the protection of the poor. The worst affected are women.10 How, could, then market-forces and human rightsless go together? Equality and Profitability at Loggerheads Secondly, the life-line of the neo-liberal economy and its market is the force of competition. It is a competition in which the fittest survive and the others perish. Anything based on equality goes contrary to the dynamics of this economy. For, the present economy and trade function on the basis of inequality which they continue to widen. In fact, inequality is even ne-cessary for the safety and profit-making by the transnational capital and trade. But the cornerstone of human rights is constituted by the principle of equality. It is easy to see why the capitalist market and the promotion of human rights to the advantage of the poor are poles apart. We see the implications of this in terms of the rights of the poor, when the market forces penetrate societies like those of South Asia where the hierarchical order of caste is the organizing principle. Here an economic system fundamentally built on inequality meets a society in which not equality but hierarchy or subordination and superordination is the natural order.11 The union of these two brands of inequality gives, birth to some of the world violations of human rights. There is further the issue of profitability which the market incessantly seeks. Human rights become truly the rights of the poor when their basic necessities of life are defended and promoted. The calculation of profit by itself will never permit any commitment to human rights. For example, one may spend millions of dollars on research on a pill like viagra to enhance sexual potency — an investment that carries with it prospects of huge profits. At the same time, there is least interest in research on many tropical diseases which kill so many millions of people in the countries of the South, and deprive them of their basic right to life. The simple reason is that there is no profitability assured in this latter enterprise. Whether millions are forced to part with their lives is no concern of the capitalist market; it is what it is because it carefully avoids areas where profit is at risk. Eclipse of the Subject Thirdly, in the contemporary world, the practice of human rights calls for placing the subject of the victims at the centre. Instead, modern economic life, with the hegemony of financial capitalism, operates through the dissolution of the subject.12 The accumulation of capital has no connection with the actual production and the producer. Capital is the fruit of fiction and speculation, functioning all by itself without having to refer to the producing subjects. Understandably, then, functioning as an autonomous system by its own inner dynamism and logic, financial capitalism continues to produce an exclusion of human subjects — more and more people without basic means and without security. People are rendered faceless, without profile, which makes exploitation all the easier. Even those countries, which not long ago proudly called themselves the "tigers" of Asia, are humbled to the state of pussy cats. The catastrophic effect of this on the lives of the poor came out in the open through the protests of the farmers of Thailand and of the students in Indonesia in recent months. They exposed the violations of human rights done to the faceless poor by international capitalism with the collusion of their ‘patriarchal states’.13 Inbuilt Violence in Homogenization Fourthly, the neo-liberal economy and market rest on a particular homogenizing model of development. This model of development, tied up today with the process of globalization, is an outrageous violator of human rights. Those in the South know by experience how in the name of development the poor are deprived even of the minimum life security they enjoyed. The story of millions of indigenous peoples and tribals displaced in the name of development eloquently testifies to the violence built into the homogenizing model of development. For example, transnational capital is calling to the tribals, to surrender their forests and other natural resources for better development, which ultimately will lead to their integration into the global market. It is a very enticing call, of course, but woe to those who are gullible and believe it. Speaking on development issues, Rajni Kothari, one of the leading political scientists of South Asia, notes how the homogenization in this process negates any other forms of human self-development by forcing everything and everyone into a single universal pattern. The modernist perspective on universalization and homogenization is colonizing, ne-cessarily rejecting all other universals and castigating them as ahistorical and anachronistic.... Every other entity or belief system is by definition illegitimate. There is only one legitimate structure of power, morality and truth. All others are invalid.14 This arrogant homogenizing project built into modern liberal economy and model of development is such that it just cannot be reconciled with a genuine concern and commitment to human rights. There is an inherent violence and aggression in this project which is bound to cause victims. And that is precisely what we are witnessing in the world today. The worst thing this model of development does is to close the path of hope for the future. It exhibits what Noam Chomsky called, the "TNA syndrome" — There is No Alternative. State, Market and Dissent Managing Strategies Fifthly, the incompatibility of the market and human rights naturally has its consequences for the state. Any state that promotes a neo-liberal economy and capitalist market and at the same time wants to be protector of human rights falls into a deep contradiction. The reaction of the market and state vis-à-vis to human rights, reveals how they try to cover up this contradiction by some strategic measures. The state shows a benign face towards the mounting pressure of the people clamouring for their basic rights, but at the same time it furthers the globalizing forces.15 It hands over to these forces public properties that become private ones. The market on its part wants to appropriate the human rights discourse, so that it can steer it so as to avoid any confrontation with the mounting pressures from below. For its self-justification as promoter of development, the state requires the globalizing economic forces. On the other hand, transnational capitalism and the market seek to domesticate the state so that it is rendered incapable of intervening effectively in the violation of human rights they continue to cause. In short, by the adoption of dissent managing strategies, the state and the market continue with their contradiction to human rights. Human Rights in Defence of the Powerful? Finally, it is a puzzling oddity that human rights should be turned into a means at the service of the powerful instead of being a shield to protect the poor. A most clear instance is the question of private property. It is anomalous that we club together the basic right to food of the starving children of Sudan with the right of the Microsoft Corporation or Coca-Cola companies to own properties because they are legal persons. It does not take any special effort to understand that there is a large qualitative difference between the two. We may recall here that according to the latest United Nations’ Development Report (UNDP), "the world’s 225 richest people have a combined wealth of over $1 trillion, which is also the total income of 47 per cent of the poor, who number 2.5 billions".16 The figures speak for themselves about ownership in our present world. Such scandalous accumulation of wealth is made possible by the present economic system in which large corporations have become the principal owners of world property. The transfer of wealth takes place from real human persons and subjects which the poor are in flesh and blood, to non-persons such as the corporations, through juridical fiction that they are ‘persons’.17 And the most ludicrous situation is created when the same protection to the little possessions of the poor is extended in an aggressive way to these giant owners in the name of human rights. For the powerful, the entire human rights instrumentality is reduced to this single right of ownership. It is the hinge on which everything else moves. Universal Human Rights offers a protecting umbrella to possess and to dispose of properties. For them, of course, this right should be universal so that they can own properties unhindered across national borders anywhere. Thus human rights have become rights of big business enterprises to control the world. As we can see the question today is not like in the years of the Cold War, a tussle between private and state-ownership. The engagement in the critique of private property is not an ideological battle between liberalism and socialism. The question has shifted to new ground from the classical dispute between two contending ideologies. With the penetration of liberal economy and the expansion of the market, we are experiencing something that affects the lives of the millions of poor on the globe. We become more aware of this strange inversion when we consider the raison d’être of this right as it developed in history. In the Western classical anti-quity of Greece and Rome, possession of property was a means of ascertaining one’s identity, related to a particular locality. Property was seen in the context of the family institution and as part of the parental duty towards the progeny. It is natural then that the possession related to one’s native place or region. As Stephen G. O’Kane notes with reference to Hannah Arend, In the classical world ‘property’ meant the location of the citizen and (his, not her) family rather than specific material possessions or ‘wealth’. That is, the criterion for membership of the public body included a geographical element, not necessarily specified in the nineteenth-century practice of property qualifications for voting.18 Today, the possession of private property by the corporate giants transgresses all national and regional borders, and has nothing to do with local or public identity. The connection of property is with profitability. It is doubtful whether even liberal defenders of private property like John Locke could be invoked to justify in the name of human rights the fabulous possessions of private corporations. Even though one may not find in Locke a social restraint on private ownership, nevertheless, even for him private property is intimately connected with actual use, on which basis appropriation takes place. In the case of modern corporate possession, it is no more a question of use, nor a legitimate space conducive to the exercise of freedom and self-expression as in the case of individuals, but simply a means for maximizing profit. Private property has become a matter of "control of a part of the material world and/or its resources".19 In a situation of scarcity of resources — as in the case of the nations of the South — the unrestrained possession of wealth and property by transnational business enterprises is an affront to the basic rights of the poor. Part II In short, we face today a situation when those forces that most violate the basic rights of the poor take shelter under the human rights’ protection! We are left with the disturbing question whether human rights protect the poor or defend the powerful. It is high time now to redeem the human rights instrumentality and direct it towards the cause of the marginalized. This calls, first and foremost, for a different point of departure, a different set of philosophical presuppositions and spiritual orientation than the values centred on crass individualism and profit-motives at work in neo-liberal thought and economy. Secondly, operationalizing human rights in favour of the poor demands historically and culturally rooted means and strategies. This part of the essay is an attempt to address very briefly both these issues against the background of the situation prevailing in the South. Duhkha — The Starting Point of Human Rights The category individual does not really seem to bring out the poor in their concrete historical reality. We grasp their reality when we approach them not as abstract individuals, but as subjects and as victims placed within a concrete history. To these victims of an unjust world, it makes a lot of sense when the discourse on human rights starts with the many negations and deprivations they are subjected to. Starvation and death, lack of basic medical facility and chronic illness, negation of even a roof overhead to protect themselves from the ravages of nature, total illiteracy and powerlessness — such is the condition of the victims in our world. This whole situation of duhkha - suffering — should be the starting point for any effective praxis of human rights and a meaningful discourse on it. The inter-connection between poverty and violation of human rights is graphically described by the Asian Human Rights Commission: Widespread poverty, even in states which have achieved a high rate of economic development, is a principal cause of the violation of rights. Poverty forces individuals and families and communities into the alienation of their rights: prostitution, child labour, slavery, sale of human organs and the mutilation of the body to enhance the capacity to beg. A life of dignity is impossible in the midst of poverty.20 In the face of such poverty, suffering and negations, how could anyone dare to begin a philosophical discourse on human rights with the abstraction of individual as understood in the liberal tradition? And to whose benefit? It is undeniable that, in spite of the various strands of thought that went to make up the human rights framework, in its core it still reflects the stamp of the liberal tradition, with the individual and his (not her) freedom as the focus. One may, of course, enter into fine philosophical distinctions and debates on the foundations of human rights. However, no amount of substantialistic philosophical musings nurtured in the cradle of liberalism can offer any chances of coming to grips with the grim reality of poverty and deprivation of the victims. On the contrary, such an ahistorical liberal approach could serve the inversion of human rights about which I spoke in the first part. We will be able to redeem human rights from the contemporary inversions if we shift our focus of discourse from an abstractly conceived individual to concrete historical subjects and victims. Even more, it is important that the victims themselves become active subjects of the human rights discourse. From contemporary linguistics and theories on the relationship of language and society, we know that discourses are not simply representations of reality, but that they make their own contribution to construct reality in a particular form. The inversion of human rights takes place because the élites and the powerful seem to have the monopoly over the human rights discourse. What kind of discourse on human rights is made and by whom, then, is very important, since this has far-reaching social and political consequences. Our efforts today should go in the direction of restoring the human rights discourse to the poor as the primary subjects. A Spirituality and Anthropology in the Alphabet of the Victims To really serve the cause of the poor, a spiritual approach to human rights is called for. Respect for the marginalized and their legitimate rights cannot result simply from a general intellectual perception of the equality of all and its formulation in statements. History amply bears out how the project of the Enlightenment could co-habit with the practice of slavery, colonization of peoples and suppression of women’s rights, and with what devastating consequences!21 Unless human rights become part of a deeper spiritual quest and an expression of the "soul-force" (Gandhi), the scandalous cleavage between theoretical affirmations and praxis is bound to continue. Duhkha, as already noted, is that from which a vibrant spiritual realization of human rights and its practice could stem. In modern times, Mahatma Gandhi, in the thick of his political engagements, underlined the importance of ahimsa — not inflicting suffering on others (which translated could be called non-violation of human rights). The respect for the dignity of others and desisting from inflicting suffering on them (by way of concentration of power, exploitation and injustice) flow from another kind of anthropology. The human spells differently in the world of victims. In this anthropology, human beings are not primarily ethical beings who follow certain principles of conduct because these are in conformity to reason. There is something even deeper than ethics and reason. Human beings are those who have deep in them the capacity to be affected by the suffering of others. It is by awakening this inherent power that we lay a lasting foundation for respect for others and for the removal of their suffering. In other words, human beings are defined not simply in terms of reason; human beings are compassionate beings. In this anthropological perspective, human rights are expressions of the compassion for the suffering of the poor. Human suffering and compassion offer the anthropological and spiritual key to interpret human rights as the rights of the poor. There are peoples and cultures for whom anything related to law brings with it a sense of obligation: the best way to give effect to anything is to convert it into legal language. But for most peoples in the south this may not be the case. Anyone conversant with the societies in the South will know that many of the modern laws and constitutions remain dead-letters and they are observed more in breach.22 In other words, a legal approach to human rights couched in a formal and abstract anthropology dissociated from the concrete historical subjects and victims — whether one likes it or not — stands little chance of being listened to. It does not carry conviction unless it becomes a part of a spiritual outlook towards others and the vasudeva kutumbakam — the whole human family. It is the appeal to the suffering of others and the activation of compassion that can lead to the fulfilment of ethical and legal requirements. Historicization of Human Rights Anything turned into abstraction could easily be manipulated to serve vested interests. The inversion of human rights will continue to happen if these rights remain an abstract legal entity, like icing on the cake. This is all the more so when this set of rights is perceived as having come into being through a history which the people of the South do not share. The danger of inversion and alienation in a particular society could be overcome if we fill these rights with concrete social, cultural and political contents drawing from the history of that particular society. The need for this creative contextualization was expressed in the 1993 Bangkok Declaration: ...While human rights are universal in nature, they must be considered in the context of a dynamic and evolving process of international norm-setting, bearing in mind the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds.23 The historical context is particularly important, so that the human rights take root among a people. The many struggles the societies of the South have waged against oppression and domination unfold before us deeper insights into the ways in which these societies have sought to protect the human, specially those who were weak and marginalized. In South Asia, for example, the experience of human dignity and rights were implicitly present in the resistance to the hierarchy of the caste system, the central organizing principle of the society. Through the centuries, men and women of deep humanism and indomitable courage fought valiantly against the caste oppression that went manifestly against human dignity and rights.24 This has given birth to a rich body of literature which is the point of reference even today for the masses of the people when it comes to understanding the spirit and practice of human rights. How this challenge to a hierarchical order of society has endured in the South Asian tradition to this day comes out in a recent book based on an empirical study by Steven Parish.25 In the West, as is well-known, the beginnings of the human rights tradition goes back to the effort to check the sovereign power of the despotic ruler, and later the absolutist state. For the nations of the South, the experience with the issue of human rights in modern times is connected with their struggle against the colonial powers.26 The illegal occupation of their lands and usurpation of their natural resources by the colonizers led the indigenous peoples to challenge the colonial administration and its violence. We may recall here such tragedies as the massacre by the British army in Jallianwala Bagh in Punjab where numerous innocent people were killed. Nationalist struggles against colonial rulers were the concrete form of claiming legitimate rights by human beings who were enslaved in their own lands. This struggle for rights was not confined to well-known leaders and movements. There were innumerable struggles of the subaltern peoples at the local level — less known, perhaps, but significant — which broke the back of the colonial power.27 The assumption at the time of national independence was that the establishment of a post-colonial state would lead to a governance that is respectful of the dignity and rights of the people. Nilanjan Dutta points out what happened, instead, after independence: The reins of the state were taken up by the same people who had once championed the ‘right to oppose the government’. And ironically, their perceptions had now changed. The ‘infant state’, they now felt, had to be protected even at the cost of some rights of the citizens. The hearts of the people, on the other hand, were filled with new aspirations. They wanted the state immediately to satisfy their hunger not only for basic human needs like food, clothing and shelter, but also rights and justice which had eluded them under two centuries of colonial rule. The interests of the state and the interests of the people stood pitted against each other.28 Today the story of human rights in many nations of the South is one in which the poor and marginalized face repressive and authoritarian regimes. Further, for all practical purposes we are in the context of an economic war on the poor by the forces of globalization to which the post-colonial states have now succumbed. Fighting against the new set of violations unleashed against them requires appropriate means and strategies. Human rights would make sense when they are placed in continuity with this historical process and tradition of resistance. The memory of these struggles is important, since it can inspire among the victims of today a sense of confidence and hope. There is then less likelihood of these rights being inverted and bent so as to serve the cause of the powerful. Activation of Civil Society Any form of power needs to be checked and its wings clipped, so that it does not take flight into anti-human subterfuges, or practice arbitrariness and absolutism. In present day circumstances, if the state and the economic regime are to be made accountable in terms of human rights, we require a vibrant civil society. It is an important means to protect the poor and ensure them of their legitimate democratic rights. Civil society is something between the state and the individual. The issue is that of "expanding people’s space" where they could come together, interact, debate, take up questions of polity. According to Neera Chandhoke, "the values of civil society are those of political participation, state accountability, and publicity of politics...; the institutions of civil society are associational and representative forums, a free press and social associations".29 In short, civil society is the space where people interrogate the state and contest its ways that go counter to the public welfare. At a time when the state as well as the globalizing forces have turned out to be the most callous violators of human rights, civil society has a crucial role to play. In many countries of the South there are authoritarian or ‘patriarchal’ regimes which on the basis of the doctrine of national sovereignty imagine that they can with impunity deny civil and democratic rights to the people. Even in countries with more open modes of governance, democracy and democratic institutions have become almost a kind of empty ritual and sham. The post-colonial states of the South — both authoritarian and apparently democratic — have heightened their power in the name of development ideology, which means that development ideology was coupled with theories of modernization (read economic liberalization and market). The ideology of development has become the raison d’état and a convenient justification for violating the basic rights of the people. We may think of situations in which indigenous people and tribals have been displaced for the execution of so-called development projects. It is interesting to note that in several countries of sub-Saharan Africa the ideology of development is invoked to legitimize the single-party political systems. Precisely because civil society is an important means for the enforcement of human rights, the state and the market today want to encroach upon it and appropriate it for themselves. Particularly interesting is the way the market forces are claiming the space of civil society for their own ends. The capitalist market finds in civil society a means to weaken the state, so as to pursue its agenda of profit without the irritants of state control. As Ananta Giri rightly points out, Civil society today is a globally valorized discourse but its contemporary valorization makes it an ally of the market, the liberated and liberalized non-state public sphere where there exists rule of law so that people can exercise their "freedom of choice". Thus propagation of civil society through the package of market gains currency in popular consciousness when the agents of market capitalism such as the World Bank today are also the votaries of civil society.30 For this reason, civil society needs today to be closely linked to new social movements. It is this linkage that can prevent it from being hijacked by the all-pervading market forces. New Social Movements and Human Rights In a broad sense, social and autonomy movements are part of civil society. It is through concrete and contextual social movements that civil society acquires flesh and bone. The commitment of many social movements and Non-Governmental Organizations to take up at a political level the issues of exploited children, victimized women, homeless refugees, discriminated migrant workers, opens up a large space for people’s self affirmation and participation. In spite of the many limitations, these social movements represent a hopeful sign for the defence of human dignity and the rights of the poor in the nations of the South. There is another reason why social movements are so crucial in terms of realizing the spirit and goal of human rights. It is a fact that the effectiveness of the present-day human rights discourse remains incomplete inasmuch as it does not reflect all the areas and spheres in which the dignity of human beings are violated in the concrete. New historical situations and social contexts bring us face to face with new victims whose dignity and rights need to be defended. Social movements are also, then, sources for the formulation of new human rights. In that sense, we understand why the present-day human rights instrumentality needs to be completed by the sustained struggle of the victims. These movements also are schools for human rights education. Education goes beyond imparting knowledge and awareness about the present set of human rights. From the victims’ point of view, a chief reason why rights are denied or violated is because people are illiterate. The lack of education renders the poor powerless and vulnerable. Experience amply proves that it is poverty and powerlessness which causes the poor to be victims of human rights violations. Equipping the poor with education is in the line of protecting them from the violent onslaught of exploitative forces. And this education needs to take into account the fact that the poor live in a culture of orality.31 In other words, education is the fundamental form of security against violation of human rights, and this important role is performed effectively and concretely by the social movements. Conclusion At the turn of the new century, humanity remains with many unanswered questions in every sphere of life. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was supposed to be a "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations".32Whether we can have a sense of achievement at the turn of the century is a disturbing question. Are we not perhaps moving towards a countdown? The crisis of human rights has been caused in the main by the states, which are becoming violators of human rights in alliance with transnational capital and market. Together, they have waged a war on the defenceless poor. Countering these new avatars of injustice is a crucial and critical task before us as committed and responsible citizens in our societies. We realize the gravity and complexity of the new task when we realize that these very forces opposed to dignity and human rights are the ones trying to appropriate the human rights and the discourse on them. There is an inherent incompatibility between the market — the symbol of the dominant economy — and the practice of human rights. That is why it is important that human rights become truly the rights in favour of the victims; that they are interpreted with "positional objectivity" — to use an expression of Amrtya Sen, the eminent Indian economist. The restoration of human rights back to the poor calls for certain measures. From a theoretical perspective, debates on the universality of human rights and cultural particularities still retain their validity. But more important today is that such a discourse be related to the concrete social, cultural and political processes. Moreover, the human rights instrumentality needs to be imbued by a spiritual vision that focuses on the suffering of the victims. Ultimately we are confronted with the pain inflicted on the poor and the many negations to which they are subjected. The more human rights are able to concretely protect the excluded and the poor, the more they will grow in universality. Similarly it is through the many struggles of the civil society and social movements that the present set of human rights will become progressively more comprehensive. For there are still far too many areas of discrimination against the victims and of violation against their dignity. The effectiveness of the human rights is still in evolution and will depend upon the way each particular society relates them to its own indigenous history of resistance to inhumanity of every kind. Whatever measures are taken, the crucial question remains whether we place the "sovereignty of the victims" over that of the state and of the "free market". The key to free the human rights from inversions will depend upon this. There are miles to go. Notes 1
1) At the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (1945-1946), army
officials had to respond not only to crimes related to war, but to "crimes
against humanity" perpetrated against innocent civilians, independent
of whether what they did was in obedience to a command from higher authorities. Ref.: Info on Human Development, Vol. 24, n. 11-12, November - December 1998.
|