Promoting Human Dignity
By Christopher Lingle
UBUD, Bali ― Each Dec. 10 marks International Human Rights Day, a concept that did not formally appear in international law until 1948. At that time, the United Nations' General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
This document speaks of equality and justice, and the sanctity of a person's rights regardless of ethnicity, religion or gender. Indeed, the first sentence states that ``inherent human dignity'' should be recognized.
Despite good intentions of its authors and fine words spoken on its behalf, the existence of the UDHR has not ended the suffering of millions of people around the globe. This is perhaps because attempts to curb assaults on the dignity of human beings contributed to continuing problems that offend a collective sense of justice.
As it is, many of the most vocal supporters of so-called human rights actually promote legal concepts that inadvertently support the sort of misconduct they wish to see ended. In particular, they often frame their demands in terms of social or collective rights that undermine the universality intended by the drafters of the UDHR.
For example, government officials frequently make promises that define rights based on economic or social characteristics. But these inevitably impose social responsibilities that come into conflict with personal and individual rights.
In modern times, ``identity'' politics emerged with leaders of group-based movements to claim to represent interests of groups defined by ethnicity, class, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other criteria.
But focusing on group ``rights'' divides communities into distinctive and separate political classes that clashes with the interests and rights of other groups.
In the first instance, granting special rights to groups contradicts the notion of universal rights wherein all humans should possess equal rights. Basing human rights upon collective concepts of ``fundamental'' social rights leads to zero-sum or negative-sum policy outcomes whereby some groups benefit while others lose.
A more consistent way to support human dignity and rights of humans is through rigorous support for individual rights and the rule of law. By ignoring the key role of individuals as bearers of rights guaranteed to autonomous humans, proponents of collective or group rights undermine the rule of law.
Indeed, the assertion of group rights over individual rights provided the basis for the injustices of apartheid in South Africa and genocide in other parts of the world. In all these instances, the assignment of group rights was a rejection of the generality condition associated with strict individual right assignments.
References to social or collective or group rights mask the fact that assignment of such rights may involve empowerment or possessions that require the action or aid of others. In the process of activating such group rights, the rights of other individuals will be violated by imposing obligation upon them.
Granting rights to some groups while imposing obligations on others necessarily limits the freedom of choice and action of some members of the community. As such, some human beings are treated as objects or servants of the community rather than being valued as unique individuals.
Whereas the assignment and enforcement of individual rights encourages coordination and cooperation, collectivized rights involve conflict and require coercion. Since many countries suffering from communal violence and sectarianism are those that implemented policies that define rights of minorities, this approach does not work well.
What is at stake is the choice of a system that serves as the means for attaining and measuring social justice. On the one hand, private property rights might be seen as essential for safeguarding most other civil rights.
On the other hand, these rights might be the most effective incentive to inspire individual effort that may lead to general prosperity of the community.
Defining human rights in collective or group terms invites an increased politicization of life outcomes. Unfortunately, politicians seldom search for private solutions to solve problems or conflicting interests in a private manner.
A focus on ``social" or communitarian rights tends to encourage the politicization of economic positions (income and wealth) of individuals. Politicizing life outcomes to promote ``social justice'' is can be exploited by special interest groups or power elites and allow the politics of envy to brew up a ghastly stew.
In the end, political arrangements arising from attempts to enforce collective rights can be seen as the principal cause of the powerlessness of individuals. Expanding the nature and direction of state intervention replaces the rights of the individual, except as a member of a group.
More troubling is what seems to be a growing intolerance of diversity due to resentment of members of groups who are perceived as recipients of preferential treatment. Members of groups identified as historical victimizers begin to imagine that they are being victimized and captive to an insubstantial logic of retribution.
For greater social harmony, political initiatives and the relentless expansion of restrictions and bureaucracy that contribute to dehumanization must be replaced by individual initiatives. As such, the best way to serve humane ends is to define rights based on individuals protected within the rule of law.
Christopher Lingle is a research scholar at the Centre for Civil Society in New Delhi and visiting professor of economics at Universidad Francisco Marroquin in Guatemala. He can be reached at CLingle@ufm.edu.