Proper Way for a Democracy - Essay Example

? Proper way for a Democracy Introduction Communism and democracy are two of the most prominent political systems in the current world. The destruction of communism from Soviet Union and Eastern Europe propelled the growth of democracy all over the world. At present, communism confined within the territories of China, Cuba and few other small countries alone. Even though democracy is popular in most part of the world at present, it exists in different forms in different countries. In India and America, constitutional democracy is prevailing whereas in UK, a constitutional monarch is prevailing. Judiciary, Parliament and Executive are three of the pillars upon which the roots of democracy are established. “Constructive relationships between the three arms of government—the executive, the legislature and the judiciary—are essential to the effective maintenance of the constitution and the rule of law” (House of Lords, 2007, p.7). In recent times, the constructive relationships between these three arms of many democratic governments are changing rapidly because of the changes happening in the society and governance. For example, in Pakistan, judiciary and the executive are engaged in constant fight and hence democratic principles and values often sacrificed. Moreover, many democratic governments are thinking that it is their duty to interfere in the internal matters of other states if human right violation occurs in those states. The intervention of America in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan happened because of the above belief. Humanitarian intervention is a controversial topic at present since the stronger countries make use of this principle to interfere in the internal matters of other countries. Many people argue that UK and US like countries trying to challenge the sovereignty of independent states in the name of humanitarian intervention. On the other hand, many others believe that humanitarian intervention is necessary in certain circumstances. This paper analyses the proper ways for a democracy like UK to deal with human right violations in other states. What is the proper way for a democracy like UK, to deal with human rights violations in other states? “The link between democracy and human rights is mentioned in article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (Democracy And Human Rights, n. d, p.1). Freedom, liberties, human right protection, fair elections etc are some of the basic elements of a democratic system. However, in many of the so-called democratic countries, human right violations are taking place continuously. Pakistan is the best examples for this. Malala, a teenage girl from Pakistan is currently struggling to save her life. Pak Taliban or Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the fundamental Muslim group shot her because of her activities to encourage teenage girls to acquire education. “Malala was attacked by Taliban gunmen on October 9 when she was on her way from school. The TTP said that they will target her again if she survives because she was a “secular-minded lady””(Web Desk, 2012). Pakistan is a democratic country on papers, but in practice, none of the democratic principles observed in Pakistan. Even the elected government is only a toy government in the hands of Pak military. Pak military on the other hand gets immense support from the fundamental groups and hence they will not act against the will of the fundamentalists. In Pakistan, democratic institutions such as judiciary, executive and parliament often clash each other. For example, the removal of Pak Supreme court judge by the former Pakistan president Pervez Musharaf has created lot of political problems in Pakistan. According to Tomuschat (2008), “An independent judiciary prospers only in countries where democracy, human rights and in particular a free press, set a general framework stabilizing the rule of law” (p.308). In short, the existing political system in Pakistan is incapable of protecting human rights because of the lack of cooperation between different institutions in the country. In a civilised society like ours, seeking education is not a sin, but a necessary act for human development. It is a human right issue also. If the domestic government is incapable to protect the rights of the citizen, nobody can blame other countries if they try to interfere in such countries. According to Massingham (2009), “The Responsibility to Protect is being touted as a new approach to protecting populations from mass atrocities. Certainly it would be encouraging to believe that an end to genocides, large scale ethnic cleansing and large scale loss of life were within humanity's reach” (p.803). Who can blame the interventions of western powers in Afghanistan?. Who can forget Bibi Ayisha, whose nose and ears were cut off by Taliban. In Libya, Egypt and Tunisia like countries, Islamic dictators violated human rights in many ways. In many other Middle Eastern countries, dictators are ruling the people using iron fist. In all these countries, religious beliefs exploited for the violation of human rights. How a democratic government like the one in UK can keep silence on these issues? Central Africa is another region in which internal agitations and human right violations are common. The problems in central African country Rwanda resulted in the mass murder of an estimated 800,000 people in 1994. Rwandan government failed miserably either in preventing this massacre or in giving proper protection to human life and properties. Okechukwu (2011) pointed out that “the people were abandoned, neglected, and allowed to kill themselves for others, particularly neighbors to pick and count” (p.581). The problems in Rwanda and Congo are interconnected. It is necessary for the governments in these two countries to settle the problems through bilateral talks. David Blair, Diplomatic Editor of the Telegraph mentioned that “Britain's efforts to address the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo drew a rebuke from Rwanda when President Paul Kagame's government denied any responsibility for the bloodshed”(Blair, 2008) “Democratically elected governments would tend to have greater legitimacy, because democracy, political freedom and civil liberties were among the most important aspirations of the people of those countries” (Dethier et al, 199, p.5). We are living in a globalized world in which the wellbeing of global community is an important factor. Because of globalization, problems in one country can affect other countries. It should be noted that global economic systems are highly interconnected. For example, the economic problems in America has created lot of problems in other parts of the world as well, Same way political problems in one country can cause problems in other countries as well. Under such circumstances, it is difficult for UK like democratic countries to stay as a silent witness while human right violations in taking place in other countries. After the destruction of communist regimes in East Europe, many of the eastern European countries like the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia tried to establish democratic governments. “The high speed of democratization reflected not only the desire of these countries’ to live in democracy, but also the encouragement or outright pressure from Western governments, international organizations and especially the European Union, which made democracy an explicit precondition for accession negotiations” (Fidrmuc, 2003, p.584). Being a prominent player not only in Europe but also in the world, Britain cannot stay away from helping countries, which seek democracy. At present America is conducting war on terror in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq with the help of UK like countries. Moreover, UK and US like democratic countries are supporting the agitations against the autocratic governments in all parts of the world. Democracy and human rights are two sides of the same coin. In other words, human right protection is one of the major objectives of any democratic government. However, the morality of interfering in other states, for the protection of human rights is often questioned, by sociologists and philosophers. Norman (2005) has explained that human rights are associated with safety from chronic threats like hunger, disease and repression and protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life unities (Norman, 2005). Moreover, Freeman (2002) has argued that democracy and human rights are mutually supportive or related to each other by definition (p.71). If this definition of human right and its relation with democracy are true, then many of the interventions in the name of human rights cannot be justified. For example, Iran is comparatively a better country as far as human right protection are concerned. On the other hand, China is a country which is often accused for human right violations. At present, many people believe that America and UK are trying to attack Iran because of Iran’s ambitions to acquire nuclear power. If acquiring nuclear power is a genuine reason for intervention, why UK and America are staying away from interfering in other nuclear powers such as Pakistan, India, North Korea, Israel and China? The handling of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) by the Sri Lankan government in the recent war against them is criticized heavily by many neutral political analysts. Many of the LTTE fighters who offered readiness to surrender were killed brutally by the government forces. No western powers raised any questions about these massacres. Neither UK nor America rebooked Sri Lankan government for this mass massacre. Even in wars, certain laws have to be observed strictly. But in Sri Lankan internal war none of the war laws were observed and western powers never raised the human right violation issue there. According to Human Rights Watch (2012), “The Sri Lankan government failed to advance justice for the victims of the country’s 26-year-long civil war in 2011. While Sri Lanka’s war-ravaged North and East became more open, the government deepened repression of basic freedoms, notably limiting the right to free speech” (Human Rights Watch, 2012) Can humanitarian intervention be justified? The main in Military Humanitarian Intervention problem is relevant to the level of coherence and connection between human rights law, legislated by many regional and international agreements on the one side, and the basic principles for the international law which are included in the United Nation Convention, and affirmed by many international conventions like Equity in sovereignty , Peaceful Compromise for the International Disputes, Prohibiting Force Use in International Relationships, and not Intervening in internal Affairs. It has also led to political and legal disputes regarding how legitimate and justified is the Military Humanitarian Intervention legally, politically and ethically (Haj, 2012, p.76) There are plenty of question marks regarding the humanitarian intervention in sovereign countries by major powers. For example, India interfered in Sri Lankan crisis in the 1980’s. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi sent a peace keeping force to Sri Lanka. However, India’s interference in Sri Lankan matters was indigestible to LTTE and they murdered Rajiv Gandhi in a bomb blast. It should be noted that it is impossible for a peacekeeping force or a country to safeguard the interests of all the people in the country where human right violation is going on. In other words, interfering countries always support one group while oppose other groups. Impartial interventions are impossible in most of the cases. According to Welsh (2011), the use of force for humanitarian purposes has become acceptable in very exceptional circumstances, however, the manner in which it has been legitimized and the depth of the consensus around its appropriateness illustrate lingering skepticism among states about infringements of sovereignty (Welsh, 2011, p.1193). There are certain international laws regarding the intervention of a foreign country in a sovereign state. International bodies such as UN always try to uphold the sovereignty of a country. However, it is impossible for UN to keep silence when human right violations taking place at different parts of the world. The problems with the humanitarian intervention by superpower is that they interfere only in their enemy countries. They will keep silence if the culprit is their supporting country. For example, international community strongly condemned the human right violations taking place in Middle East. Israel is keeping no ethics or morality in their actions in Middle East. However, neither UK nor America seems to be interested in blaming Israel or interfering in these matters. Humanitarian laws and international laws should be applicable to all. No country, under any circumstances shall able to escape from such laws and restrictions. Clapham (2007) argued that political values like democracy and human rights can be powerful sources of attraction (p.69). A civilized like ours always likes to lead a free life. As long as the freedom does not cross certain limits, everybody likes the concept of free life. However, it is impossible to lead a free life in certain countries. For example, it is impossible for Muslim girls to drive or go out without covering their entire body with cloths in Saudi Arabia. One of the woman driver who uploaded her picture of driving in internet, got severe punishment in Saudi Arabia recently even though later she was freed from the jail. As mentioned earlier, there are plenty of women in Muslim world, who fail to get even basic education because of controversial religious customs. Libya, Egypt and Tunisia give us the lessons that people are against all kinds of human right violations. It should be noted that people in these countries supported the interventions of foreign powers to free their country from dictatorship. Many people believe that an intervention is inevitable in Syria and it may happen in near future itself. It is often argued that when less democracy prevailed, chances of poverty are more, greater the inequality and worse the repression (Freeman, 2002, p.140). For example, India and Pakistan are neighboring democratic countries. However, India is one of the most rapidly emerging nations in the world and many people believe that India may become another superpower within next twenty years. India’s economic growth is attributed to stable administration and less internal problems. On the other hand, Pakistan is haunted by internal problems, human right violations and violence. It is believed that many of the terrorists are operating from the soil of Pakistan. Pakistan’s economic growth is extremely weak compared to that of India. It is accused that America is currently interfering in Pakistan’s internal matters. It should not be forgotten that American commandos killed Osama Bin Laden who was hiding in a Pak city, without seeking the consent of Pak government. Even though Pakistan protested against this intervention, international community supported America’s action. Steiner et al, (2007) mentioned that many human right experts and religious leaders spoke out against a recent series of US reports on China’s human right violations, urging Washington to take a closer look at its own army’s abuse of Iraqi prisoners (Steiner et al, 2007, p.5). It is a fact that human right violations are taking place in China for a long period. However, nobody dares to interfere in China because of China’s superior military power. America and UK like countries always talk volumes about human right violations in China. However, they often forget what was happened and happening in the war fronts in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The massacre at Tiananmen Square was exploited heavily by the American media. But those media keeps a meaningful silence about what was happened in Iraqi jails to the prisoners captured by the American military forces. Abu Ghraib prison incidents clearly show that even democratic forces are ready to violate human rights whenever they get opportunities. Donnelly, (2003) argued that if human rights are the rights one has simply because one is a human being, as they usually are thought to be, then they are held universally by all human beings (p.1). According to Norman (2005), human right directly associated with the how of ruling, whereas democracy associate with the who of ruling (Norman 2005). In other words, it is possible even for a dictator to function in accordance with the wills of the people. At the same time, it is possible even for a democratic country leader to function against the wills of the people. So, humanitarian interventions can be justified or criticized in terms of the governance is going on in a country. “In liberal democracies citizens have no obligations to respect each other’s culture, but rather they have obligation to respect each other” (Freeman, 2002, p.120). In such countries human right violations may not take place if the administration is strong. For example, in India, people from all religions are leading a peaceful life even though there are some exceptions. It is easy for the people to spread their belief and worship their God in India. On the other hand, such things are impossible in Saudi Arabia. In other words, definite human right violations are taking place in Saudi Arabia. However, nobody will support if UK or America tries to interfere in Saudi in the name of human right violations. On the other hand, when western powers interfered in Libya and Egypt, people supported it. From the above discussion it is evident that humanitarian interference can be justified only in certain cases; not in all cases. Osiatynski,( 2010) has argued that although rights are a prerequisite of freedom, they should be balanced with other values that are indispensable for social harmony and personal happiness (Osiatynski, 2010). Conclusion Humanitarian interventions can be justified in some cases only. Stronger powers often justify their actions in other countries in terms of humanitarian intervention. Once they entered another country, they also do the same thing or humanitarian violation. UK like democratic countries should stay away from interfering in the internal matters of other countries in the name of humanitarian intervention. Only after getting the consent from UN like global bodies, interventions should be done. References Blair, D. 2008. UK intervention in Congo earns rebuke from Rwanda. The Telegraph. 04 Nov 2008 Clapham A 2007. Human Rights: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2007) Democracy And Human Rights, N.d. [Online] Available at: http://www.unis.unvienna.org/pdf/Democracy_Human_Rights_2008.pdf [Accessed 26 October 2012] Donnelly, J. 2003. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (Cornell University Press, 2nd edn., 2003). Dethier, J., Ghanem, H. and Zoli E. 1999. Does Democracy Facilitate the Economic Transition?. POLICY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER 2194. The World Bank Europe and Central Asia Region Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Sector Unit. October 1999. Fidrmuc, J. 2003. Economic Reform, Democracy and Growth During Post-communist Transition. European Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 19 (2003) p.583–604 Freeman, M. 2002. Human Rights: An Interdisciplinary Approach (Polity, 2002). Haj, A. A. 2012. Military Humanitarian Intervention for Human Rights Protection: Legitimacy and Legal, Political and Ethical Dimensions. European Journal of Social Science. Jun2012, Vol. 31 Issue 1-3, p76-91 Human Rights Watch. 2012. Sri Lanka. [online] Available at: http://www.hrw.org/asia/sri-lanka [Accessed 26 October 2012] House of Lords. 2007. Relations between the executive, the judiciary and Parliament. Select Committee on the Constitution 6th Report of Session 2006–07 HL paper 151. Published by the Authority of the House of Lords London : The Stationery Office Limited. Massingham, E. 2009. Military intervention for humanitarian purposes: does the Responsibility to Protect doctrine advance the legality of the use of force for humanitarian ends? International Review of the Red Cross. Dec2009, Vol. 91 Issue 876, p803-831 Norman, J. 2005. Human Rights and Democracy, . [Online] Available at: http://www.phrmg.org/human_rights_and_democracy.htm [Accessed 26 October 2012] Osiatynski W. 2010. Human Rights and Their Limits, . [Online] Available at: http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521125239[Accessed 26 October 2012] Okechukwu, G.P. 2011. The Politics and Failures of Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention in African Conflicts. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences. Dec2011, Vol. 3 Issue 3, p581-606. Steiner J, Alston P & Goodman R 2007. International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals (Oxford University Press, 3rd edn. 2007) Tomuschat C. 2008. Human Rights: Between Idealism and Realism (Oxford University Press, 2nd edn., 2008) Tomuschat, C. 2008. Human Rights: Between Idealism and Realism. (Oxford University Press, 2nd edn., 2008) Web Desk, 2012. Malala incident: Rehman Malik offers $1m bounty for TTP spokesman. International Herald Tribune. October 16, 2012 Welsh, J. M. 2011. A normative case for pluralism: reassessing Vincent's views on humanitarian intervention. International Affairs. Sep2011, Vol. 87 Issue 5, p1193-1204. Read More