Although the indications are that Human Rights almost everywhere are being steadily and unconscionably undermined by governments, it is in the fitness of things to celebrate Human Rights Day every December 10th the world over with exceptional zeal and alacrity. Minus their rights people are veritably ‘in chains’ and in a state of ignominious slavery. On this, democracies are bound to be in agreement.
Accordingly, there is no disputing the continued relevance of the International Declaration of Human Rights, which encompasses the totality of ‘the rights of man’. However, the challenge before humans is to make their rights continuously relevant in their existence and to be defined by them. Publics the world over need to stand up for their rights and do so with the utmost dynamism and courage.
From this viewpoint, democrats and Human Rights adherents the world over are obliged to salute the courage of those sections of the Iranian, Chinese, Russian and Sri Lankan publics, for example, that have taken it upon themselves to protest the unjust and arbitrary use of power by their respective governments. Hopefully, more and more rights-conscious people would emulate them. They have helped to underscore most clearly that Human Rights continuously matter.
‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.’
Thus proclaims Article 1 of the ‘Universal Declaration of Human rights’ and these words encapsulate some of the most enlightened and noble thoughts to come off the pen of modern man. They set the most hallowed and exalted standards for governments, states and civic publics. The latter ‘stand or fall’ to the extent to which these standards are kept and sustained by them or violated by them.
However, needless to mention, most contemporary governments observe the afore-mentioned standards more in the breach. Whereas the above words should form the guiding principles of governments, the latter tend to become a law unto themselves once they come to power and acquire a taste for all that accompanies positions of authority.
Most of the above irregularities and governance abnormalities meet in Sri Lanka today. If the latter is a veritable international pauper at present it is because governments over the decades have been notoriously prone to practise misrule and self-aggrandizement. The proof of this is the fact that, among other things, Sri Lankan governments are being held accountable by the international community for economic crimes.
In short, the country has been pauperized by their self-aggrandizing governments and power elites. It is difficult to perceive how the country could be put right in the absence of an effective legal process that ensures the bringing to justice of economic criminals.
However, oppressed publics react against repressive governments. State coercion and rights suppression are not endured patiently by self-respecting publics for long and this is borne out in the countries above mentioned. The evidence is that humans do not bear affronts to their dignity indefinitely. Turmoil-hit present day Iran is just one case in point.
The unrest in Iran was sparked off by sections of the country’s women reacting to perceived indignities that have been visited on them over the decades. Female resentment over a rigidly enforced dress code could be a mere symptom of a deep-seated sense of grievance among Iranian women. At bottom, the revolt could have much to do with male-domination and patriarchy.
The Iranian woman’s sense of dignity has apparently been violated as a consequence of the latter social features and the time is ripe for a frank and constructive dialogue between Iranian women and their governing authorities for evolving a just solution to their antagonisms. Such a dialogue emerges as a must in all those societies where male domination has led to recurring unrest among their female populations.
The essential requirement is the recognition of the dignity of women by governments and other sections that figure in the administration of states. The principle that needs to be recognized as sacred and inviolable in the resolution of these conflicts is the equal dignity of humans. This is the starting point for a fruitful dialogue among the parties that matter in these situations.
However, people of conscience everywhere would have been revolted and horrified by the sight of dead bodies of young men who had been accused of wrong-doing by the Iranian authorities in the present unrest, hanging from beams in central Tehran. Such abominations are unlikely to quieten the on-going unrest. On the contrary, they would have the effect of increasing anti-state resentment among the people.
Some of these broad trends are manifest in the Chinese, Russian and Myanmarese situations as well. Whereas the authorities of such states should dialogue with those sections that are hostile towards them with the aim of evolving democratic solutions to their problems, they prefer to deal with them through an unconscionable use of armed might. In the short term, state coercion would seem to be effective but in the long term there would be a steady build-up of popular resentment against the relevant authorities, resulting in future volcanic eruptions of hostility against the latter. Such developments would lead to no-win situations for the states concerned.
All the troubled states in focus and more need to realize that the world is dipping steadily into an economic recession. The latter phenomenon is only likely to compound their internal crises. Increasing economic hardships for the people would only drive more and more of the latter into the streets in groundswells of anti-government protests. Implosive nation-breaking violence could be an end result of these deleterious tendencies.
Accordingly, governments would be ignoring democratic solutions to their conflicts based solidly on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights only at their peril. Solutions based on Realpolitik considerations may win some respite from their domestic turmoil for governments, but such relief would at best be short term. They would not be solutions based on the best interests of the people. To enable the emergence of solutions of the latter type governments have no choice but to dialogue with the people, based on a recognition of the latter’s worth and dignity.