- As we have said in previous Readers, most democracies are sham democracies, where the exploited are easily fooled, have little money and cannot push for their own interests.
- Western-style electoral democracies and outright dictatorships both reflect conflict between the elites and the masses about their respective stake in the economic pie. Each group wants more, but it is the elites who decide how to share it. (Paul Krugman)
- Large rents are currently accruing to the elites –who strenuously resist foregoing these rents through any kind of democratization. Giving some (trickle-down) economic wellbeing to poor people and respecting some of their economic, social and cultural rights may actually be an excellent opiate; it keeps the ultimate status-quo in power relations.
- It is thus in the interest of national elites to franchise a ‘laundered-concept-of-human-rights’ rather than to maintain a shaky status-quo –since subsequent developments, they fear, could ‘equalize’ wealth through redistribution, this increasing the ultimate costs to the same elites. We have thus to be vigilant about such mock attempts at human rights (HR).
- Laws biased towards the elites simply strengthen their power, and in turn ensure that those laws are not changed. Even progressive, pro-HR laws will remain words on a piece of paper unless large and powerful constituencies in the population want to see them enforced.
- Elites may not want to cede power, but their ability to resist doing so can and must be effectively challenged by the masses in order to overcome the status-quo; groups of poor and marginalized people need to get together, organize and gain control over the resources they need and thus mount a challenge.
- Building up social pressure from claim holders to leverage change in the way their governments behave is, therefore, a must. Just talking with duty bearers has a scant chance to succeed unless there is pressure from social movements.
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City