[TLDR (too long didn’t read): If you are reading this, chances are you care about HR. This Reader is about how associating HR with economic modeling is a dead-end while the HR framework must become the collective wisdom that will gainfully oppose the marketplace of neoliberal ideas. The Reader also debunks the question whether HR are passé and comments on how masses of popular movements representing millions of people are publicly defending their rights. For a quick overview, just read the bolded text]. Traducir/traduire los/les Readers; usar/utiliser deepl.com
—While governments have the right and the freedom to ‘legally’ do all the things for which we the people go to prison, nothing will change. (Alberto Portugheis)
1. Human rights (HR) can be understood as a kind of reference narrative for all of humanity –a story that is an expression of our collective realistic expectations. But too many governments fail to uncouple HR imperatives from their association with free market capitalism and globalized neoliberalism. In doing so, they renege to abide by the HR framework that they solemnly ratified. This gives claim holders the moral power to respond collectively in ways that are more likely to give them greater control to effectively deal with the shared risks they face.
2. We assume that governments generally base their choices on rational calculations. While this assumption about their political behavior is often patently false, many conventional economic theorists insist that their models can nonetheless yield valuable insights for decision-maker duty bearers. Well, but conversely, many of us favor the value of other forms of decision-making beyond numbers and dubious (devious?) models.
3. Modeling based on the past simply cannot tell us what the future will hold. Too much econometric modeling unfortunately explains away some of the growing backlash that actually comes from global marketization and neoliberalism. The future is more likely to turn out the way claim holders need –only if economists instead share realistic expectations about such a future.
4. Human rights and democracy go hand in hand, but they do not necessarily go with modelled economic theories. [You would agree that freedom and justice have always been delayed for minorities, no?]. Instead of associating HR with economic models that exceed the limits of probabilistic reasoning, we would do better to deepen our understanding of HR as a framework that helps us to guide decision-making in the face of uncertainty. Over time, applying the HR framework will become the collective wisdom that will gainfully compete-in and oppose the marketplace of neoliberal ideas. (adapted from G. Meintjes)
Let me get back to the issue of whether human rights protections are seemingly inadequate?
Back to an old and stale question: Are human rights passé?
5. Over the last decade, many commentators have speculated: has the HR discourse lost salience, and is the HR movement in a crisis? They have also speculated that the HR regime no longer empowers the claim holders it aims to protect, especially in the Global South [Am I selling an old product here that no one wants to buy anymore?]. There is one problem though. Most claims about waning demand for HR are based on impressions, not systematic evidence; no evidence that people are becoming less interested in HR. Facts: a) The HR language is more popular than it was a decade ago. b) Today, people search for information on HR far more than they search for other political concepts like social justice, inequality, or national security –and c) interest is far more pronounced in the Global South than in the Global North. The reason for this is simple: People become concerned about rights when they face regular state violence and oppression.
6. The global HR movement is not ‘top-roots’ anymore; it is more grass-roots; it is less captured by professionalized elites who are obsessed with law, but disconnected from the needs of claim holders.
7. Northern scholars much too often adopt the posture of self-appointed representatives. From their university positions, they speak on behalf of communities to whom they do not belong and, in the absence of valid data, they use selective interviews and anecdotes to offer far-reaching conclusions. So, critiques of the HR framework more often come from Northern quarters.
Red flags we have to be keenly aware of (Grainne de Burca, Katherine Young)
8. An array of efforts at concerted legal change in the HR field has sprung up in different parts of the world, on the basis of a supposedly ‘reformed’ characterization of HR. This reformed characterization of HR includes a novel emphasis on particular rights, such as family rights and the rights of the unborn and an exclusion of others, such as gender equality and LGBTQI+ rights, as well as a highly selective use of particular sources of international HR law while ignoring others.
9. These arguments and moves must be described as misappropriations when using HR language in the service of ends that are exclusionary, repressive, retrogressive and/or reversing of previous commitments. They are basically used to consolidate authority and to avoid accountability by coalitions of religious and extreme Right political actors that are set to propel an illiberal agenda into international fora.
These are all clearly attempts:
- to create or assert a hierarchy of rights, wherein some rights are supposedly more fundamental, while others are treated as subordinate or of secondary importance;
- to scapegoat certain groups or to identify groups or categories of persons who are said not to be entitled to claim rights;
- to impose restrictions on civil society, whether on funding, organization, or other activities; and
- to deliberately polarize.
10. The above just represent some of the red flags we have to be keenly aware of. As HR advocates and activists, we should thus ongoingly examine and challenge these moves. (G. de Burca, K. Young) But hope is not enough here. Hope must be understood as compromise. (Luis Weinstein) This, because just channeling good intentions, we end up hitting our heads against too many walls. Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) was right: “With charity, recipients do not have claims on givers”. Therefore, needed is to pursue our social obligations more militantly. Among other, we need to share positive political news and accomplishments –no matter how small.
Bottom line
–For governments, it is not only a matter of protecting the rights of individuals, but also of guaranteeing the social/collective rights of their citizens. The role of claim holders is to push in this direction and to change history.
11. Granted, the world is not collectively moving-on fast enough towards/with a HR approach; this is not a change that will be made easily. This notwithstanding, the language of HR and actions on the ground are far more popular today than other alternatives being thrown on the table.* (Geoff Dancy and Christopher Fariss)
*: There are masses of popular movements, millions of people who publicly defend their rights, even facing death. When this is going to make a difference is the pertinent question. (Alberto Portugheis).
12. Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. (Martin Luther King) How many of us are prepared to really influence and shape the future?
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
Your comments are welcome at schuftan@gmail.com