Contemporary Political Theory
Introduction
Many ask what human rights are in a philosophical sense and can they ever be justified as more than personal preference. In the same token, similar questions may ask what difference the way we conceptualize human rights makes to practitioners, and what are the normative and policy consequences. Then finally, who benefits and who loses.
In my point of view, I would say “the essence of human rights is to make man human by knowing his rights”; characterizes the certainty of awareness, respect and upholding the humanity. By knowing the rights of others is therefore coherent to preserving “knowingness” so that “belongingness” in a community and society exalts the preservation of human rights. This theoretical pretext could be an individual understanding with varying perceptions of both young and old human rights advocates and practitioners.
Several contemporary theories attribute human rights in the development of societies, indicating the socio-cultural-economic-political conditions that transpire in the way of life of families and individuals. In a sense, human rights can be a daily interaction in various affairs of people in a community, places and events. Thus, the concept of human rights can be a broad and complex understanding to be applied in many ways of decisions, purposes and responses.
On the other hand, the expressions of human rights are undeniably a compelling influence in the state of affairs of every nation and the rationale of government leaders. However, the concept of human rights may be also intensely disputed in the aspect of cultural beliefs and conflict of political-economic interests. Therefore, the conceptualization of human rights must attain the value of life and human existence. This stricture can only be the guiding theoretical norm of this paper that will discuss and relate the contemporary political theories on the concept of human rights.
What are the fundamental elements of human rights?
Without the literal answer to the question of what human rights are, it is parallel and necessary to know the fundamental elements of human rights relevant to the physical, social and environmental situations of humans in a society. Hence, it can be perceived that these fundamental elements accompany the promotion, preservation and protection of human rights.
It can be cited that the first common understanding on the concept of human rights has been agreed by the general assembly of the United Nation in Geneva on December 10th 1948, adopting and proclaiming the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) with the conceptual framework which it wrote the following description:
“The recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”. (1)
The conceptual framework expresses the implication of dignity, equality, freedom, justice and peace that is essential to upholding the human rights. In which case, the UDHR promulgates the basic principle of human freedom interacting in a society, to cite in verbatim the provision of Article I that confirms the empowerment stating that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights; they are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood” (UN.Org., 2008).
It is evident that the fundamental elements of human rights is central to all forms of human functions and interactions in a society, wherein whatever “interests” it deals with must be reflective of values affecting the way of life. Therefore, the rationale of the fundamental elements must always “transpire” progress and development in a community, empowering the human life.
Contemporary theories
Over the years, rapid developments occurred in the circumstance of socio-cultural, economic and political changes. In the aspect of political geography, many countries have stirred the emergence of new democracies, governmental leadership and popular participation of the citizenry in state affairs. However, the geopolitical landscape of global economies is central in the emerging cultural and political change. Through this indication, the contemporary theories on human rights are noteworthy to examine.
In the article of Jason Mark (2001), entitled: ‘At the Millennium, a Broader Definition of Human Rights’, he quoted that “human rights faces the challenges of the new millennium where globalization depicts inequality”, wherein this rhetorical expression capsulate the situation of human rights in the emergence of globalization. Accordingly, one-half of the global population struggles for two-dollar daily earning while the other half for one dollar and one-fourth billion children’s population between ages 10-14 are part of the labor force, and frequent cases of death is a result of hunger and diseases at a rate of ten people dying in every minute (Mark, 2001).
The essence of social justice
Described as a fundamental element of human rights, the essence of social justice attributes empowerment to human dignity. Many political theorists literally define social justice as partly within the system of a government where the rules of law and jurisprudential faculties of state policies enact “civil justice”.
On the other hand, international human rights organizations, like Amnesty International and the UN Commission on Human Rights, defines social justice as the equal sharing of social benefits or institutionalized welfare in a governed state. Meaning, the widest coverage of social justice in the promotion of human rights is founded on impartiality, non-discriminatory or just and generally provides the liberalist concept of fair labor treatment, due compensation and human development.
The contemporary theories on social justice dictates the ethical concept of upholding human dignity through the perseverance of the state in providing the three basic components of human needs, such as food, clothing and shelter. However, it may not solely the three basic components of human needs that would manifest human dignity but the sustainability of social justice to providing the right to work, education and ensuring security to life and properties, wherein “civil justice” promulgate the protection of law.
At this juncture, Article 22 provision of the UDHR can be quoted word-for-word, stating that “everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality” (UN.Org., 2008). It is clear that human rights are founded in the promotion of social justice, being one of the fundamental elements that empower human dignity.
The relevance of social justice can be also viewed in the global perspectives. Mark (2001) implied that globalization affects the domestic affairs of government in a country dominated by the foreign powers. It may be reflected that the perception of Mark (2001) is not a latest theory attributed to colonization, but a contemporary analysis on the new genre of colonial powers.
In other words, social justice must be upheld at the international level, wherein the exploitation of economic resources is blindly seen and hidden in the stem of geopolitics. As cited, how a government of poor and undeveloped country can promote social justice when its economic development is dwarfed and governmental affairs are dominated by compelling foreign policies (Mark, 2001).
Social justice at the global landscape is perceived to influence the state of affairs of every country and government. This contemporary theory of Richard Perkins and Eric Neumayer (2008) in ‘The Organized Hypocrisy of Ethical Foreign Policy: Human Rights, Democracy and Western Arms Sales’ acknowledges the conceptual basis of Mark (2001). Perkins and Neumayer (2008) claimed that constructing the “state morality” to uphold social justice must address the global liability of foreign powers over its “geopolitical interest” in the domestic affairs of allied government. To cite, the “universal value” of social justice affecting the promotion of human dignity can be futile when “hypocrisy” of a supposed mediator of peace facilitates in the acquirement of arms, wherein life security of innocents are threatened (Perkins & Neumayer, 2008).
What Perkins and Neumayer (2008) refers about is the “ethical commitment” of superpower countries [described as “Western governments”] who must guarantee to reconsider the human rights situation in the “third world” or poor and undeveloped countries, wherein having “lesser sanction” or with consent to receive armaments.
It can be explained that what it pointed out as “hypocrisy and liability to social justice” (Perkins & Neumayer, 2008) constrained and restrained the lawful promotion of human rights as a result of providing and making available the potential threat to life and property, relating the assistance of superpower countries to aiding the conflict situation in poor and undeveloped countries. In a sense aiding the conflict situation with potential bear of arms will not resolve a political-economic problem, but rather lingering the vulnerability to lesser life and questions of unsecured social justice system (Perkins & Neumayer, 2008).
Overall, the contemporary political theories of Mark (2001), Perkins and Neumayer (2008) indicates the relevance of social justice as an essential component of human rights, wherein the global governments, communities and societies must guarantee the universal foundations of world order.
Democracy: backbone of human rights
US President Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) once said: “the care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government” (Lewis, 2008) The care for human life and happiness is under the stewardship of a good government from which democracy tie the bond of social-economic and political-civil rights. Democracy is defined as “for the people and by the people” that links the creation of government to uphold the rule of law and orderliness in a society. Without democracy and establishment of a government, the human life is in peril. Therefore, the human rights may not exist in the absence of a democracy, from which democracy is the backbone and unfolds the “hidden virtue” of human rights that may not be restricted and suppressed.
However, how human rights can genuinely prevail in a democratic society when the structure of governance fails to provide social-economic and political-civil rights. In many poor and developing countries where political corruption is rampant, the social-economic requirements are devoid of the population. Poverty due unemployment, diseases due shortage of medicines, ignorance due inability to educate and restiveness due unsecured political system are only among of the few alarming condition in a “democratic country” of corrupt government.
Contemporary political theories address the situation of “popular democracy” to genuinely promote the character of democracy as the backbone of human rights. One is the strictest promotion of state policies that “confirms and legitimize” the human rights partly enveloped by constitutional laws of every country. The constitutional law defends the bulwark of democracy [being the people itself].
As an example, the Community Legal Services (CLS) in the United Kingdom disseminate a leaflet on Human Rights Act of 1988 to enable the popular democratic awareness of the citizenry. CLS explained that the government must be obliged to make transparent its functions and reach out the public with the awareness how democracy works within their welfare and according to their interests.
To cite, CLS emphasize encourage for all governments [especially those in the poor and undeveloped countries] to advocate socio-civic campaigns, stirring the public consciousness about their constitutional, judicial and legal rights so that the relevance of democracy may transpire the human rights (CLS, 2008).
In Canada, the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development (ICHRDD) has earlier campaigned for institutionalization of democracy. The ICHRDD has aimed to promote individual awareness on the basis of clarifying the issues on fundamentalism and human rights. As cited, it remained a challenge for human rights advocates to consolidate the diverse understanding about fundamental rights, in which “extreme right” movement also campaign for human rights but turned out to be the violators (ICHRDD, 2005). The ICHRDD has described fundamentalism of the extreme right movement and wrote the following:
“Fundamentalist group is a political movement of the extreme right in the context of globalization which forcefully promotes international economic exploitation, extensive capitalism, influence religion and cultural traditions, to achieve vested political interests”. (9)
As explained, the fundamentalist group (extreme right) can be found in every government that proliferate the wrong notion about rights and democracy through influencing the governmental leadership in its domestic and foreign affairs.
It may be perceived that the institutionalized undertaking of ICHRDD as a “watchdog” of rights and democracy indicates the significant role of the civil society or non-governmental organization and cause-oriented groups to redefine the policy of the state and examine the functions of the government and as well the “interest groups” that surround the governmental interactions. Thus, the continuing institutional and community mobilization for human rights education may sustain the public consciousness on the democratic processes that interlink the human rights.
The corporate-social responsibility
Another contemporary political theory can be assimilated with the role of the corporate sector, addressing who benefits and loses in the protection of human rights. It is a common knowledge that emerging markets are the potential targets of global industrial repositioning or diversification of international capital investments. Leading transnational companies or capital-driven enterprises competes in influencing the governments from home country and abroad.
In retrospection, the present activities of transnational companies in potentially emerging global markets are expected to share national development, equating poverty enhancement beneficial for the right to work and decent living of the unemployed.
In ‘The Right to Development as a Normative Framework fro the Human Rights Obligations of International Financial Institutions’ by Mesenbet Assefa Tadeg (2008) has found that the “right to development” is partly a component of human rights in a country where sub-human condition occur due absence of economic development, like in South Africa. Based on the results of the conducted study-research, high incidence of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa [coupled with the outbreak of pandemic AIDS and other diseases] is an indescribable phenomenon yet at the advantages of foreign financial capitalists (Tadeg, 2008).
Tadeg (2008) argued that the strong corporate-social responsibility must be employed by transnational capitalists as its share in the renewal of communities to benefit from a foreign-facilitated domestic development. The argument of Tadeg (2008) is indeed valid in the point of view of generating the “effects” of national development brought about by the presence of international capital investors.
It may not only the benefits of providing employment opportunities that can transpire development but the impact of economic sustainability through corporate-social responsibility of transnational companies to promote livelihood support to the overall members of the communities, wherein the families of the laborers may as well benefit the corporate-social share.
One of the sustainable means can be achieved in the framework of income-generating projects by organizing small-scale livelihood programs to support the families of the labor force and to augment the family income. This kind of framework of corporate-social responsibility manifests the promotion of human rights at the minimum expense of providing additional source of income, in which forms the social investment to communities (Tadeg, 2008).
In most cases, corporate-social responsibility is refused by transnational companies for the simple reason of losing the revenues. From the article ‘The Concept of Human Rights and its Relationship to Trade and Investment’ by Basil Fernando (2004), it cited that the rationale of human rights is corrupted between the relationship of labor, trade and investments. Foreign traders absolutely deny the idea of labor unionism by way of tenured-contract hiring. In other words, a short-term contract of employment [of 3-6 months] waives the right of the employee to the preference of the employer, whether to renew the employment contract or not.
As partly an “economic right” of the employee [aside from the right to work] is to secure a stable employment that would ensure the welfare and benefits effective of the liability of the employer as mandated by labor laws. In which case, the tenured-contract hiring denies the economic right of the employee to sustain the purpose of life-stability or sustainability of the family as well.
In sum, corporate-social responsibility can be described as a fundamental faculty in upholding human rights. The significant role of the state and its stakeholders of national development must assimilate the value of sharing the profitable means of industry to the rest of the shareholders of economic resources. The nationalization of economic development must coherently manifest in the lives of the tillers of the land and toilers of the manufactured goods, and as well the families.
Sadly, the roadmap of globalization tends to control the development of emerging economies for the sake of profitable ventures in the free market. What has then left in the “roadmap” of backward development are despoiled environment and displaced economic bases. Then human rights could be lost in the archetype of flawed development.
Conclusion
Human rights may not only be a personal preference or a philosophical basis of existence in a society but underscores the essentiality of being human. Humanity is the co-existentiality of life with other living things. Therefore, humanity must be complemented with the needed and required sustainable means of life, in which the “right” can be described as the only suppository to live.
Removing the “suppository” would mean to extirpate the essence of being human. It may be said that the concept of human rights is a broad and complex understanding, yet can be explained in the strictest exemplification on how a child is nurtured, loved and valued by the parents; from which human rights is like a child that needs the formative and normative guidance. In conclusion, human rights are a universal essentiality where men and women alike must possess the virtues of life and live with dignity.
References
Community Legal Services. (2008). ‘The Human Rights Act of 1988’. Retrieved 02 April
2009 from http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/media/808/FC/leaflet07e.pdf.
Fernando, B. (2004). ‘The Concept of Human Rights and its Relationship to Trade and
Investment’. Asia Pacific Research Network. Retrieved 02 April 2009 from
http://www.aprnet.org/conferences-a-workshop/45-regional-economic-cooperation-and-human-rights-in-asia/177-the-concept-of-human-rights-and-its-relationship-to-trade-and-investment.
International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development (2005).
‘Fundamentalisms and Human Rights’. Retrieved 02 April 2009 from
http://www.dd-rd.ca/site/_PDF/publications/fundamentalism_hr.pdf.
Lewis, J.J. (2008). ‘Democracy Quotes’. Retrieved 02 April 2009 from
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_democracy.html.
UN.Org (2008). ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights’. Retrieved 02 April 2009 from
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html.
Perkins, R. and Neumayer, E. (2008). ‘The Organized Hypocrisy of Ethical Foreign Policy:
Human Rights, Democracy and Western Arms Sales’. Department of Geography and
Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Retrieved 02 April 2009 from
http://www.perc.plymouth.ac.uk/pisc/PIP/HypocriticalForeignPolicy.pdf.
Tadeg, M.A. (2008). ‘The Right to Development as a Normative Framework fro the Human
Rights Obligations of International Financial Institutions’. Faculty of Law,
University of Pretoria. Retrieved 02 April 2009 from
https://www.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/2263/8062/1/tadeg.pdf.