1. These days, international politics is too fragmented to achieve much, especially asso many political leaders are guided by corporate interests. (H-J. Luhmann) As a consequence, nationstates,rich and poor, have had less and less ability to lead independently from that influence. In the zero-sum game we live-in, compromise is hard to achieve, because the success of one party (the one with more corporate backers) is almost assured.* This is why unregulated markets continue to miserably produce consumer goods that nobody seems to need, and fail to produce in sufficient quantity and quality those badly needed, such as medicines, simply because private investment in these goods does not pay.
*: As Warren Buffett said, “There’s been a class warfare going on for the last 20 years and my class as won”.
2. The productivist paradigm above is reinforced by an all-too-complying mix:
– of scientific knowledge (that adds the rational justification needed),
– of ideological/political positions (proclaiming that private enterprises are more efficient than the public domain),
– of dominant values (asserting the consumers’ absolute sovereignty and the survival of the fittest),
– of popular myths (e.g., the one of the individualist, self-made man),
– of false knowledge (e.g., genetically modified organisms or GMOs will improve production and combat hunger), and
– of overvalued facts (e.g., the contributions of the dominant elites to each historical period). (adapted from Jose LuisVivero)
Without public interest civil society engagement, politics is a top-down process that disregards grassroots reality (KatjaDombrowski)
Giving access to the right information for these groups is a vital element of democracy, and the loss of information is one of the reasons for the decline of politics and political engagement.
3. It would be fair to say that the politics of development has been tied to the ‘conventional’ Euro/US-centric notion that basically supports capitalist patriarchal reasoningstemming from religion and spilling over to the law and to commerce.Among other, this has meant favoring theeconomy over the planet’s ecology, favoring capital over labor, masculine over feminine, North over South and, last but not least, favoring basic needs over human rights(HR).For quite a while now, we have been carrying out a successful political contestation that rejects these hierarchical assumptions,because such a framing is, by definition, antagonistic to the goal of protecting HR and the right to life itself.
‘Liberal politicians’ campaign from the left and rule from the right
-Politicians are good at this kind of thing, i.e., hiding the human costs of policies adopted and being polite about ideas that just have no place in polite company. (Naomi Klein)
-Liberal leftism often uses leftwing rhetoric as a cover.
4. The concepts advanced by liberal politicians typically span between ethics and economics.** From that polarity, they specifically try to exclude ‘the political’by labeling itmerely as the domain of conquering power.***(C. Schmitt) But, of course, there is much more to it. The great weakness of the liberal understanding of ‘the political’ is that it neglects the inherent function played by power and conflicts of powerin the struggle for HR. (C. Askheim)
**:This happens largely by conflatingthe political discourse with the moral discourse, through the reduction of political questions to mere technical issues to be solved by experts. (C. Mouffe)
***: The theorists who want to eliminate passion from politics and argue that democratic politics should be understood only in terms of reason, moderation and consensus building show their lack of understanding of the dynamics of ‘the political’. (C. Mouffe)
5. Mind you, no politician ever is the worst; no one ever is. For every bad leader, there is a worse one. (Except Adolf Hitler, perhaps.) As the ancient Romans would have said: “Sweet and fitting it is to lie for the fatherland.” (UriAvneri)Truth can have many versions, especially when lies aren’t challenged. (Jerome Koenig)
6. When consensus agreement is reached among politicians in opposing political matters, it is usually because something or someone (claim holders?) is/are left out. This unfortunately also is the ideological picture of many a negotiation in the UN –so painfully clearly when it comes to HR matters. (C. Mouffe)
Way too often, political parties of the left have evolved into mere electoral machines. (Albino Gomez)
7. Traditional political parties have become more and more centered around personalities rather than around ideas and vision. They have lost the classical structure of party affiliation, increasingly becoming movements of public opinion, with campaigns closer to ‘brand launching’ than to political programs. A true democratic consensus is largely missing. As a result, democracy as a concept is becoming brittle and, certainly, HR are getting schortschrift.Should we, for instance, not agree that ethnic fears and greed are not pillars for democracy? Worse, a growing number of citizens are showing to be ready to accept a non-democratic system. Projecting this to the international sphere, what is clear is that we do not have even a minimum system of global governance. [Just ask yourself: Would it be possible today to adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?] (RobertoSavio)
8. It is time to realize that political disaffection with traditional political parties is not only increasing xenophobic and right wing parties, but also sapping the prestige of democracy as an undisputed modern value. In times of crisis, people are more interested in their security and work, than who is in power. Many traditional voters for the left, like workers and the unemployed, now vote for the right wing parties, and believe their promises of going back to the golden past. They are no longer interested in ideologies or political visions.They think that right and left does not exist any more. They are disillusioned with the classical party system, and they are ready to try anything new, anything that is not part of the establishment. The real problem thus is that we are in a crisis of political vision –lest of a HR vision. When ideologies are discarded as relics, and the following step is to adopt pragmatism as a solution, in fact you are making of politics a collection of ad-hoc solutions, without any final view of the society; each action is chosen as the most useful for that specific issue. That is not pragmatism; it is mere utilitarianism, one thatdowngrades policy to administration. Democracy is under attack, not only from ISIS and terrorism, but also from leaders elected by their citizens. In Marxists terms, this means that people have lost their sense of class and they, therefore, do not resent inequality as they did before. And this means that the political class does not feel inequality and HR are crucial issues. It is not by chance that the term ‘social justice’ has disappeared from the political debate. But how long will this last?* (RobertoSavio)
*: Both justice and injustice share one thing: the need for authority and sometimes (especially in the case of injustice) for force to be applied. (A. Gomez)
Of political terms, tasks and momentum in human rights work
When economics has ceased to strengthen social bonds and its prescriptions are actually further pauperizing millions, it is time to start thinking in political terms again. This is one of my cherished iron laws.
9. To make the HRframework and approach concrete and giving it substance is a political task. Their enforcement and holding governments accountable for their HR records can only be achieved through political action. Soft approaches will not do. This is why targeting social interventions from the top down, as we still so often see, badly misrepresents complex realities, involves big costs in monitoring and destroys the political momentum for critically needed structural changes.
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
schuftan@gmail.com