HUMAN RIGHTS AND
DEMOCRACY
1. HUMAN DIGNITY
How to conceive human rights?
2. INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND POLITICAL
SOVEREIGNTY
To what extent is there a tension between human
rights and democracy?
3. THE PERFORMATIVITY OF THE HUMAN
RIGHTS DISCOURSE
What are the preconditions for political change?
1. HUMAN DIGNITY
TWO CORE VALUES
Human rights and democracy are two core values.
The dream of 1989 > to establish quickly a new
world order based upon both values.
The end of the dream > the genocides in Bosnia
and Rwanda.
Political abuse of both values > the justification
for the use of massive military force (Iraq).
Still it makes sense to discuss the relations
between human rights and democracy.
POLITICAL AUTONOMY
 Democracy > rule by the people (Gr. demos > people; kratos > to
rule).
 Two pillars of democracy:
1. Elections > the process of decision-making, i.e. the formation of
the will of the people.
2. Public sphere > the process of public communication, i.e. the
discursive formation of the opinion.
 Aspects of democracy:
Voting should be in accordance with the general idea of oneperson-one-vote.
Majority rule.
Citizens create the laws to which they submit themselves.
 Democracy implies political autonomy > political power is authorized
and controlled by the people over whom it is exercised, and this in
such a way as to give these persons roughly equal political influence.
UNIVERSALLY VALID CLAIMS
Human rights > claims of individuals asserted to
states, confederations, transnational institutions and
companies who are based on human dignity.
All human beings are entitled to make these claims.
These claims are universally valid, i.e. independent
of cultural differences and historical developments.
Human rights are claims of individuals and not
claims of groups.
In order to secure human rights a specific global
order is required.
ASPECTS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
 The debates about human rights are often related to the
tension between facts and values, is and ought, description
and prescription.
 In order to understand this tension, it is fruitful to analyse
the relations between law, politics and morality.
 Human rights can be seen as moral norms and judicial
norms.
 Politics > the transformation of human rights into human
rights.
 The tension between legality and morality as a trigger for
the development of the political struggle about human
rights.
FOUR CATEGORIES OF HUMAN
RIGHTS
1. Civil rights > protect the personal integrity of
people (against rape, torture, etc.)
2. Political rights > protect the liberty of people to
participate in politics (freedom of speech,
assembling, protesting, voting, etc.).
3. Economic and social rights > protect the liberty
of people via a certain standard of living.
4. Cultural rights > protect the liberty of people to
have their own distinctive culture.
EQUAL FREEDOM
The Preamble of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights starts with the idea that the
“recognition of the inherent dignity of all
members of the human family is the foundation
of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”
Individuals have the moral duty to respect each
other equally.
This implies a struggle for equal freedom.
Central value > human dignity.
THREE PHASES
One can distinguish three phases in the
conceptualisation of human dignity:
1. Roman Empire > (Lat. dignitas) the status of
politicians and members of the aristocracy who
had a specific role in public life.
2. Middle Ages > the status of human beings who
are all equal in the eyes of God.
3. Modernity > autonomy is the ground for human
dignity.
DIMENSIONS
Four important dimensions of human rights:
1. Moral dimension > normative standards that
especially states have to take into account in
the way they treat individuals.
2. Judicial dimension > the entitlements of
individuals.
3. Political dimension > defence and guarantee
of human rights.
4. Historical dimension > the sources and the
development of human rights.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN
RIGHTS
 Different processes are responsible for the development of
human rights:
1. The globalisation of human rights > the
process in the course of which moral
claims become more and more universally
accepted.
2. The localisation of human rights > the process in
which moral claims get a more local character.
 Indicators for this glocalisation of human rights > the
development of international law and the construction of
regional human rights regimes.
REGIONALISATION OF HUMAN
RIGHTS
1. ‘The African charter of human rights and
people’s rights’ (1984).
2. ‘The Bangkok Declaration’ (1993).
3. ‘The Islamic declaration of human rights’
(1993).
SOURCES OF THE GLOBALISATION
OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Tradition of natural law > the belief that God
and nature confer dignity on all human beings.
Natural law > principles of law derived from
God or nature.
It is a tradition that tries to limit rulers’
arbitrary behaviour.
This tradition goes back to Greek Stoicism,
Roman law, Europe’s Middle Ages and the
Renaissance.
2. INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND
POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY
SERIOUS THEORETICAL AND
PRACTICAL PROBLEMS
 People who struggle for human rights and democracy have to face
serious problems.
 A few problems concerning human rights:
1. Different forms of criticism.
2. Poverty as a human rights violation.
3. New slavery as a human rights violation.
 A few problems concerning democracy:
1. Failed states.
2. Post-democracy.
 A few problems concerning the relation between human rights and
democracy:
1. The question which of the two core values is more important.
2. The right to have a right within a (democratic) state.
CRITICISM OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Human rights refer to the idea to create a
worldwide political order that is based upon
human dignity.
This idea is the object of four types of
criticism:
1. Positivist criticism.
2. Criticism of ideology.
3. Totalitarian criticism.
4. Criticism of relativism.
POSITIVIST CRITICISM
 Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) criticizes human rights, i.e.
natural law.
 Natural law is not innate in the person and discoverable by
reason.
 The best measure of right and wrong is the principle of
utility > the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
 Bentham argues that only positive law matters.
 The concept of human rights is based upon ideal (rather
than actual) law and therefore nonsense > “Natural rights is
simple nonsense: natural and inprescriptible rights,
rhetorical nonsense, nonsense upon stilts.”
 Counter-argument > one cannot get rid of the tension
between morality and legality.
CRITICISM OF IDEOLOGY
Karl Marx (1818-1883) questions human rights.
In ‘On the Jewisch Question’ (1843) he argues
that human rights are an instrument of the ruling
class.
Law belongs to the superstructure and serves
mainly the interest of the owners of property.
Counter-argument > human rights can serve the
exploited people.
TOTALITARIAN CRITICISM
Human dignity implies equal freedom.
Totalitarian thinkers argue that not all
human beings are equal.
The world population consists of different
cultural totalities that have the right of
distinction.
Counter-argument > the right to equal
freedom doesn’t imply that all human
beings are equal.
CRITICISM OF RELATIVISM
Edmund Burke (1729-1797) criticizes in
‘Reflections on the Revolution in France’ the idea
of human rights.
He accepts that citizens have the right to be treated
fairly, but what that means depends on the social
and cultural context.
The human rights declared during the French
Revolution undermine the political order.
Donnely states that “cultural relativity is an
undeniable fact; moral rules and social institutions
evidence astonishing cultural and historical
variability.”
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF
RELATIVISM
1. Historical argument: human rights are the
product of a specific phase in history.
2. Cultural argument: human rights are
imposed by the Western culture.
TWO ARGUMENTS AGAINST
RELATIVISM
1. The historical argument doesn’t make a
difference between the context of
discovery and the context of justification.
2. The cultural argument doesn’t make sense
because it overlooks the cultural
differences within a state and the fact that
different Indian thinkers articulated human
rights and brought them into practice.
TWO CONTEXTS
1. CONTEXT OF DISCOVERY >
sources of human rights, i.e. historical and
religious backgrounds.
2. CONTEXT OF JUSTIFICATION >
arguments pro and con human rights, i.e.
the public deliberation about them.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND IMPERIALISM
Period of colonialism > western nations
justified their conquest by assuming that
non-western societies were culturally
inferior and incapable of (western-style)
self-government.
Consequence > non-western cultures have
tended to view western political concepts,
including human rights, as a form of
western cultural imperialism.
DIFFERENT SOURCES
 Although the idea of human rights originated in the West,
other cultures have well-developed traditions that involve
respect for the dignity of human beings.
 Reciprocity between rulers and their subordinates > rulers
are obligated to give respect in return for the obedience of
those they rule.
 Traditions of reciprocity > Islam, Confucian China, Africa
and Hindu India.
 Example: Confucian rulers are obliged to serve the
general interest of people, but the Chines language did not
have a word for rights until the nineteenth century.
POVERTY
 Out of 6.2 billion human beings 799 million are
mal nourished, more than 880 million lack access
to basic health services and 1 billion are without
adequate shelter.
 Some 50.000 human death per day are due to
poverty-related causes and therefore avoidable.
 Absolute poverty > 2 dollar per day poverty line.
 Human poverty > poverty does not only refer to
economic inequality, but also to life expectance,
level of education, health, etc.
ABSOLUTE POVERTY
HUMAN POVERTY
POVERTY AS A HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATOPM
Thomas Pogge, author of
- World Poverty and
Human Rights (2002).
- Politics as usual. What
lies behind the pro-poor
rhetoric (2010).
Pogge argues that poverty is
a human rights violation and
refers especially to article
25.
ARTICLE 25
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living
adequate for the health and well-being of
himself and of his family, including, food,
clothing, housing and medical care and
necessary social services, and the right to
security in the event of unemployment,
sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or
other lack of livelihood in circumstances
beyond his control.”
THE IMPORTANCE OF ECONOMIC
AND SOCIAL RIGHTS
The debates about global justice are most often
related to economic and social rights.
However, the focus was for a long time on civic
and political rights.
Economic and social rights deserve more attention.
Thomas Pogge argues that the fulfilment of human
rights requires an institutional approach to global
justice.
TOWARDS A NEW GLOBAL
INSTITUTIONAL ORDER
The current world order contributes to severe
poverty.
Severe poverty is a human rights violation.
Wealthy states have a negative duty to refrain
from contributing to harm and rectifying the
damage caused.
Moral universalism > certain moral principles
should be held equally by all persons.
Global justice demands structural changes in the
global institutional order in order to alleviate the
continuation of severe poverty.
NEW SLAVERY
Most of the people think that slavery is abolished.
However, there are good reasons to speak about new
slavery.
Definition of slavery by Kevin Bales: “Slavery is a
social and economic relationship in which a person
is controlled through violence or its threat, paid
nothing, and economically exploited.”
The estimation of new slavery: 12 million (ILO) to
27 million (Bales).
Old and new slavery have in common that they are
based on violence and exploitation.
OLD SLAVERY
NEW SLAVERY
Legal ownership asserted
Legal ownership avoided
High purchase cost
Very low purchase cost
Low profits
Very high profits
Shortage of potential slaves
Surplus of potential slaves
Long-term relationship
Short-term relationship
Slaves maintained
Slaves disposable
Ethnic differences important
Ethnic differences not
important
DISPOSABLE AND CHEAP
Kevin Bales argues that modern slavery has two
key characteristics:
1. Slaves are disposable.
2. Slaves are nowadays cheap
For instance, an enslaved fieldworker who cost the
equivalent of 40.000 dollar in 1850 cost nowadays
less than 100 dollar.
Slavery is one of the classical human rights
violations.
SOVEREIGNTY
A precondition for democracy > the sovereignty of
the state.
Sovereignty: a state has legitimate authority over its
members if it has the consent of all members.
A social contract where all citizens consent to the
authority of a monarch or assembly makes an end to
the state of nature, i.e. a world without a common
source of authoritative power where individuals
compete against each other.
Democracy is based upon political autonomy > a
right to self-government, entailing either the creation
of a sphere of autonomy within an existing policy or
secession from it.
FAILED STATES
 Failed state: a state that lost its sovereignty and cannot
provide for its citizen’s basic needs.
 Demographic pressures in which the population outstrips
resources like food and water.
 Refugees and internally displaced persons who have
grievances against the government.
 Vengeance-seeking groups with grievances based on the
belief that they are unfairly treated.
 Chronic and sustained flight from the country by highly
trained and educated citizens.
 Uneven economic and social development.
 The rule of law and human rights are applied unevenly.
POST-DEMOCRACY
 Presupposition of democracy > people have the
opportunity to influence the decisions that are made by
others and affect their quality of life.
 Several scholars question whether capitalism is
compatible with democracy.
 The influence practised by the more powerful companies
and nation-states limits popular sovereignty.
 Colin Crouch in his book ‘Post-Democracy’ (2004) >
global capitalism has produced a self-referential political
class that is more concerned with interest of the wealthy
than with pursuing a political agenda which meets the
interests of ordinary people.
THE RELATION BETWEEN THE TWO
CORE VALUES
 Some people argue that only a democratic government
respect the full range of our human rights.
 They refer to several human rights articles that give
expression to democratic ideas.
 For instance article 21: “Everyone has the right to take part
in the government of his country, directly or through freely
chosen representatives… The will of the people shall be the
bass of the authority of government; this will shall be
expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be
by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret
vote or by equivalent free voting procedures”.
THE TENSTION BETWEEN HUMAN
RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY
Liberalism: the priority of human rights >
tyranny of the majority.
Democracy is based upon state sovereignty;
only citizens have the same rights
Citizenship rights who are exclusive.
Human rights are inclusive.
THE LIMITS OF CITIZENSHIP
CITIZENS´ RIGHTS HUMAN RIGHTS
Exclusive
Inclusive
Particularistic
Universal
THE RIGHT TO HAVE A RIGHT
 The experience of being a so-called illegal migrant
(displaced person) is important for the Arendt.
 Problem: how to guarantee human rights?
 Arendt > the most important right “the right to have rights
(and that means to live in a framework where one is
judged by one’s actions and opinions) and a right to
belong to some kind of organized community.”
 In Europe, not only the so-called illegal migrants
experience what it means that their human rights are not
respected.
 Especially the human rights of Roma have become more
and more violated.
ROMAPHOBIA
 Europe > an increase of populist and racist violence against Roma.
 Examples:
The expulsion of Roma from France in 2010.
Threatening Roma in Hajduhadhaz (Hungary) by neofascist/
The upheavals against Roma in Katunitza (Czech Republic)
in 2011.
The house burning of Roma in Bulgaria last week.
 Anti-Roma measures are met throughout Europe and supported by
the populations.
 The Dutch philosopher and social scientist Huub van Baar argues
that the transformation of a discourse that sees Roma as a ‘European
minority’ into a discourse that conceives them as a ‘European
problem’ “depoliticizes the socioeconomic, political, and historical
reasons that have contributed to the Roma’s marginalization.”
3. THE PERFORMATIVITY OF THE
HUMAN RIGHTS DISCOURSE
CONTEXTUAL UNIVERSALISM
1. Combination of a sense of reality and a sense
of possibility.
2. One should talk in terms of universalisation:
the struggle to make norms more and more
universal.
3. Universalism doesn’t imply insensitivity for
differences between contexts.
4. Democracy is all about a legitimate way to
transform abstract norms in concrete laws.
TO DO THINGS WITH WORDS
Language cannot only be used to describe what is
going on in the world, but also to move people
and things.
Performativity > the commitment to the human
rights discourse can put those who violate human
rights under pressure.
The more human rights are accepted as
international norms, the more they can lead to
domestic change.
The peformativity of the human rights discourse
depends on transnational networks of activists,
NGOs and domestic activists.
FROM DOMESTIC TO GLOBAL
JUSTICE
 The past thirty years show a growing interest in issues of
global justice.
 Shift in interest from domestic to global justice.
 The problem of liberal political philosophy:
a. Theory > all individuals are entitled to equal
moral concern in virtue of their status as a human
being.
b. Praxis > this egalitarian principle is traditionally
applied within the confines of the nation state.
 To routes to go to deal with this tension between theory and
praxis: a kind of national patriotism or a kind of liberal
cosmopolitanism.
ARTICLE 28
“Everyone is entitled to a social and
international order in which the rights and
freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be
fully realized.”
A COSMOPOLITAN POLITICAL
ORDER
A just cosmopolitan political order should be
based on international public law.
The emergence of international public law and a
transnational civil society (NGOs).
The creation of opportunities for political
participation at a transnational level.
Self-determination through legislation is also an
important criterion of democracy at the
transnational level.
At a transnational level governance can only be
indirectly democratic.
WORLD DOMESTIC POLICY
 The focus of Habermas > a world domestic policy without world
government (‘eine Weltinnenpolitik ohne Weltregierung’).
 World government > the danger of despotism.
 A world domestic policy based upon a multi-level governance
approach:
1. Supranational level > the reformation of the United Nations in the
direction of an agent that should have the power to control the
fulfilment of democratically legitimized decisions concerning
peace, security and human rights.
2. Transnational level > multinational companies, nongovernmental organisations and international organisations and
regional regimes (for instance the EU) that are responsible for the
implementation of a powerful economic and environmental
policy.
3. National level > citizens give expression to their political
autonomy by critique towards those who represent them.
THE CONSTITUTIONALIZATION
OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
International law should regulate the relations
between actors who operate on the three levels.
The constitutionalization of international law is a
necessary condition for a democratically
legitimized world domestic policy.
The current international law is still state-centric,
and should be transformed in a cosmopolitan law
(Kant > Weltbürgerrecht) that guarantees the
fulfilment of human rights.
PRECONDITIONS FOR POLITICAL
CHANGE
In order to strengthen the performativity of the
human rights discourse some preconditions for
political should be met:
1. A public sphere that discusses seriously human
rights violations again and again.
2. A strong civil society that consists of many
human rights activist.
3. A world domestic policy without world
government.
4. A constitutionalization of international law.
RECOMMENDED LITERATURE
On human rights: Thomas Risse et al. (1999) The
Power of Human Rights: International Norms and
Domestic Change.
On poverty: Thomas Pogge (2007) World Poverty
and Human Rights.
On new slavery: Kevin Bales (1999) Disposable
People and his (2007) Ending Slavery.
On Roma: Huub van Baar (2011) Europe’s
Romaphobia: problematization, securitization,
nomadization [this article is available on the
website of Studium Generale]