DISCUSS ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST UNIVERSALISM OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Introductioni
The universality of human rights emerged during the 20th century with the UN Declaration of
Human rights on the belief that the basic values and principles underlying the concept of
human rights are of a universal nature. These values and principles included the concept of
individual liberty and freedoms, the belief in democracy and political rights, the
acknowledgement of social and economic right. Prior to these the idea of human rights has
been restricted to class of individuals depending on status e.g. individual rights for white male
in America.
Currently there have been various debates both from scholars and government that human
rights are not universal but that cultural diversity influences what obtains as human rights in
non-western states. They argue that human rights put the individual above the community
which goes against the communitarian values. My argument and examples will be pulled from
the African context.
Are Human Rights a Western concept?
This argument takes its basis on the fact that human rights are individualist and was imposed
on non-western states as a condition for independence. It also that third world countries
especially sub-Saharan Africa were not yet independent and not represented in the United
Nations.
Taken from the sub-Saharan African argument of non representation, this is almost a moot
argument considering the fact that they have subsequently in future and present instruments
confirmed and affirmed the universal declaration of human rights. Take for example the
African Declaration for peoples and human rights, the preamble acknowledges drawing from
universal declaration. The charter itself takes pride in blending universalism and cultural
relativism at least in theory. The African Union constitutive Act and other instruments
1
enacted all makes reference to affirming universal declaration of human rights. It is important
to point out that the African Charter was not an imposition from the West nor was the AU
Constitutive Act. These were documents purposely drafted and supervised by African leaders
most of them dictators at the time.
The other argument especially with the introduction of duties in African Charter was the curb
the far reaching effect of individualism. This takes from the concept that the individual is
been placed above the community. Human rights do not place the individual above the
community but sets limits of the coercive powers. It is true that the idea of human rights first
originated from the west but so did other things like technology and industrialization. The
non-western states have not raised any arguments rejecting technology transfer; in fact they
push for it and claim it as their right to development.
So what is the actual problem? Does human rights as individual rights affect the cultural
values and existence fro example in Africa. On a factual basis the African values has been
deep into communal living, the individual been part and parcel of the community. So yes
human rights as exercise by individual do have an impact on cultural values and communal
leaving. For example in Africa the decision to marry is not that of the girl but that of the
family and clan, sometimes the community at large depending on the status of the family.
Individual exercise of free choice in this respect will be seen as a flagrant disrespect for elders
and family. To claim such a right would affect bonds established in family and society.
Another example is refusal to marry a choice of the family, say in Northern Nigeria a girl
from the Sultan’s family no matter how educated cannot marry below her status and cannot
marry outside her religion.
One can also say that claiming right goes against the reconciliatory norms of African Society.
On reflection claiming rights can not be held responsible. The current trend of conflict and
violations such as ethnic cleansing, rape has not yielded to such reconciliations. This is
2
because these leave no one accountable for such grave violations, resulting in impunity. In
such circumstances rights need to be claimed and boundaries set.
On the other hand Universal Human rights in the relationship between the individual and state
can not be in conflict with cultural values and norms. I am looking at the present day African
society and state. The State is mostly a political structure and cannot invoke cultural or
communitarian values in instances of torture or denying citizens right to participate in
government. There is also no communal justification to arbitrary detention of anyone. States
only raise these arguments to avoid been monitored and held accountable for there actions.
The communal values is one based on sharing, these can not in anyway be in conflict with
freedom of information or expression.
Do cultural values and norm conflict with Universal Human rights?
There are various cultural practices that violate human rights, these alone if prohibited does
not take away from communal leaving. For example in Ghana and Togo the traditional
practice of Trokosi is a gross violation of rights of a child and women. Trokosi is the pledging
of girls, sometimes from infancy as payments for crimes committed by male members of the
family. The girls serve traditional priest, work on their farms and bear their children in a slave
like manner. This takes away freedom of choice; she is in slavery and made to pay for another
crime. In such circumstances that community needs to be educated to use the court system
and get justice for whatever offence or the adequate compensation. The State also needs to
take legislative measures of prohibiting such practices.
Another example in the Almanjiri practice in Northern Nigeria, this is the process of giving
up children as young as 4years old to the Iman or spiritual leader, they are taught the Koran,
and made to beg for alms in the street. They carry bowls and beg for food, sometimes eating
leftovers from people’s plate at restaurants. This practice takes away the essence of childhood,
is a form of slavery and against the dignity of the human person. In such situations there are
3
both religious and cultural conflicts at play. This is usually a volatile area and one needs to
tread cautiously but there needs to be a compromise, one that will ensure removing the
children from the streets, having the get both the forms of education (religious and western).
There is also the cultural domination and subordination of women; this would be seen as key
issues in rejection of universal human rights. It was on this basis that Suadi Arabi absented
from the UN Declaration because equality in marriage was seen as against the Islamic
religion. This is similar values held by African countries, the women have no say and the man
is head. This perpetuates violence against women, denial of inheritance rights and so on. In
some part of Igbo tribe in Nigeria, women are made to drink the water used to wash their
husband corpse to prove their innocence as regards cause of death.
All the cultural values enumerated above are not justification for rejection of universal human
right. The issue is that these in facts play no active roles in deciding what States adopt as their
cultural relativism ideology. Cultural violations of human rights often do not lead to gross or
mass violations of human rights such as genocide and mass murders. It can be tackled with
gradual and cautious measures. It will in no way detract from the cultural heritage of the
people when completely abolished.
State stance on Universalism
The particular stance adopted by States on universalism is more a war of ideologies and
philosophies. The ideology postulated by States on cultural relativism is geared towards
countering Western philosophy of rights or Western cultural model. Universal Declaration of
Human rights was not based on any particular ideology but on comprise and practice. It takes
its basis on the dignity of the human person, that rights are inherent. This means that there are
certain fundamental rights that should not be subject to been violated by any government.
Both western and non-western ideologies agree on the dignity of human person. No
arguments should therefore emanate as regards to genocide, rape, torture, arbitrary detention,
4
right to participate in government. Equality and limitations on government powers or
interference with the individual, these are fundamentally applicable to all human and therefore
universal.
Abusive governments do not have any shield to hide behind for human rights violation and in
failing in their obligations to enforce human rights horizontally.
Another issue is while States make arguments for socio-economic rights and rights to
development been relegated to the background, they also do not take any positive measures to
enforce social rights. In Nigeria for example, the government is filled with corrupt officials
who squander the nation’s resources. So what stops them from enforcing these rights? This
goes to prove that States are really not interested in respecting or fulfilling human rights but
rather are seeking for legitimate excuses.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are points in cultural practices where conflict may exist between human
rights and cultural values. In some instances there needs to be positive actions to eradicate
such violations while in some there needs to cohesion and reduction in claims to build the
bonds of community. The cultural values on their however does not form the thrust of the
universalism debate. The debate is more focused on States and respect for human rights and
individual freedom.
According to Prof. Osaitynski, in restoring the universality of human rights we should
disconnect two ideas, the universality of human rights from universality of the philosophy of
human rights.
For me, I would suggest a more practical approach where the ideologies should not be
formulated by states alone. The voice of the people, the civil society within these non-western
states should be added to the debate. The philosophies and ideologies are a coat that should be
5
shed off both by west and non-west. No one will agree to been tortured as part of his cultural
heritage.
i
Most of my ideas derived from Wiktor Osiatynski: The Universality of human rights In Individual and Human
Rights Central European University Reader 2008 page 187.
6