- In world affairs parlance, often particular words, short phrases and slogans briefly (or not so briefly) become fashionable; it may seem they do little harm. But, beware, thought is dependent on words. Cooked-up slogans can cover, hide and divert from reality. Many words and phrases are symbols and reflections of conceptual frameworks and economic and political schemes that influence (and can even distort) the political discourse and practices the world over. (Do ‘”the axis of evil”, “coalition of the willing” and “pre-emptive defense” ring a bell?). With a good propaganda apparatus, these phrases can defend the indefensible.
- Human rights (HR) work is not immune to such deceptions. Governments, international financial institutions (IFIs) and many a development agency or trans-national corporation (TNC) have indeed kidnapped and are misusing terms such as “democracy and HR”, “human development”, “human security” and even plain “human rights” and “peace”. So, it behooves us to openly unmask these deceivers by denouncing the abstract and/or biased contexts in which they are using these otherwise very precise terms. After all, our disagreements with them are not only reflections of their verbal ambiguities.
- Language has been a political weapon for ages. Used as such, it is not out to prove, but to sell –and, in doing so, it can devaluate any existing intelligent political discourse. This “double-speak” can and eventually does become intellectual dishonesty at its most perverse. Beware: Those who control the language, control the agenda. (J. Stauber, S. Rampton and E. Partridge)
- Our mistake too often is that we think that facts can counter these slogans and will surely set us free…eventually! Many of us have, at some point in time, thought that if we can only get all the facts out there in the public eye, then every rational person will reach the right conclusion. But it has been and is a vain hope. When the facts do not fit the frames of important duty-bearers, the frames are kept and the facts are ignored. Frames matter; once entrenched, they are hard to dispel. A good part of the rulers’ conceptual framing is unconscious (as is ours!). The question is: How much do we have to change where-the-prevailing-values-are-taking-us to advance in our HR work? (G. Lakoff) [A good start is to say that the (new) HR framework will have to conform with what has been agreed to in the major UN conferences and Covenants over the past 20 or more years].
- I think we simply have to analyze these conceptual frameworks to uncover which biases their proponents are coming from –and that is a political act. * Such an awareness does matter. Being able to analytically dissect and then to coherently articulate what is going on in the ‘frame’ in the background can change what is going on…if we choose to engage in the needed political debate that brings the underlying motivations to the fore! Such an exercise will also help us bring clarity to those leaders who hope to get concessions from governments that (passively at least) support the neo-liberal order for lack of alternatives.___________
*: “The rich are getting richer; the poor are getting poorer”: Typing this popular slogan into Google gives over 34,000 hits.
- In HR work, we acknowledge that most governments still need to address many unresolved questions about rights. Political leaders thus have to be well briefed in advance, and persuaded of the case for HR so that, once and for all, the HR perspective enters their ‘frames’.
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City