I have worked as a human rights activist for a long time and have learned that the standard human rights (HR) discourse has its flaws. In particular, this discourse ignores or downplays the fundamental characteristics of Capitalism that interfere with the adequate implementation of HR principles in the real world. Here are other of the flaws that need to be explored:

  • The HR framework is there with its shortcomings and flaws, already beginning with the Universal Declaration of HR (UDHR) of 1948.

  • From its conception, the UDHR wrongly assumed that the capitalist political-economic system permits and facilitates the fulfillment of HR.

  • A successive number of UN HR Covenants followed in the 1960s and 70s and beyond. Their texts were dominated by high-powered international, mostly Western, lawyers with a legalistic approach. No surprise, then, that there is an element of perpetrators-may-be-punished-and-victims-vindicated in them.

  • Although these covenants can be credited with creating a global consent on the myriad HR injustices, they were, in a way, 'manufactured' to address these specific injustices so that, to many, the essence of the covenants was, again, lacking a more political, systemic outlook. As a result, there is an orthodox, legalistic view on HR that carries much weight globally. (It took the better part of two decades to challenge the dominance of lawyers in the pursuit of HR globally. First, it was public interest civil society organizations (PICSOs) with political clarity that started questioning this dominance rescuing whatever socialist elements the HR framework does potentially have).

  • It is no coincidence that duty bearers are mostly people occupying elite positions of power and finance who bear responsibility for the achievement of HR.

  • Claim holders are people occupying subordinate positions of power and finance and suffer because their rights are ignored or violated by duty bearers.

  • The HR discourse thus shows inherent contradictions and has limitations that limit its usefulness in achieving the needed changes to transition to a post-capitalist era. (The task I have undertaken in my work is to rescue HR by adding to the body of the HR discourse those elements that will politicize it.).

  • The HR discourse does not acknowledge, beyond lip service, the brutal history of capitalism, imperialism, patriarchy, and colonialism, whose repressive and exploitative characteristics consistently have violated HR.

  • Structural racism historically was and remains an essential feature of capitalism that condones continuing HR violations.

  • The structure of social classes means that a small group of rich and powerful people do anything they can to preserve their advantages. Therefore, these elites continue to enforce policies that do not apply human rights principles and actually block their achievement.

Due to these fundamental contradictions, I purport we must and can politicize the HR discourse and go beyond some of its key flaws and assumptions as per above. I contend that HR activism can progressively correct these unjust conditions through claim holders empowering themselves to demand their rights directly and/or through legal actions, the latter applying international human rights law, --and this is to be seen as a politically consciousness raising endeavor.

What I am exploring is possible agendas and actions to reinterpret the meaning and the role of claim holders and duty bearers under post-capitalist social conditions by mobilizing the former for political action in terms of forcefully demanding their rights. Human rights can be achieved as an essential part of moving beyond Capitalism if only we give it the needed political content it currently lacks.

On this, we cannot only plan to talk to the converts, but mostly non-convert Meer readers. I invite you to contribute to this effort; write to me.

We are way past the time where we only want to chronicle the history of HR violations. Clearly referring to the current --and a possible-- geopolitical scenario we must depart from the fait accompli that the HR framework is already there, as much as it has skipped the politically relevant contents of HR in general. We now must confront the contradictions of HR under Capitalism as our main endeavor.

Postscript

The role of human rights in politicizing development praxis

Here is my take in a bullet format:

  • The already well-established human rights framework in development work comes as a revindication to old-time radicals who have been advocating and fighting for a more political approach to the ‘maldevelopment’ we have been witnessing since the second half of the 20th century.

  • I posit that the Human Rights-based approach to development politicizes the discourse and puts rights/claim holders more in the driver’s seat of the development process.

  • The call is to mobilize more and more development workers to adopt the Human Rights-based approach. I invite Meer readers to join.

  • I argue that ignoring political and Human Rights issues will (continue to) result in non-viable development paths.

  • My bottom line is that power is the key relation in development and human rights issues: A right confers power, i.e., the power to make key changes as far-reaching as the system allows claim holders to do so. The need to struggle is both a principle of human rights and of development work overall; in this work, to be is to do.