Public Law, Economic and Social Rights from Antiquity to Today - Essay Example

Arbitrary Power Since time immemorial, economics has always influenced politics. In ancient Athens, when the wheat farmers became poor because theirmismanaged agricultural operations failed, the noble and wealthy wine and olive oil producers were the ones making money which made them the richest group in the society. The unlucky farmers had to borrow and borrow from the prosperous nobility until the debt situation was already going out of hand to the extent that the former, their children and their spouses had to be enslaved in and out of Athens to pay off the obligations. This kind of situation became rampant all over and appeared headed to widespread unrest and disturbance. The government was already controlled by the affluent few who could arbitrarily use the powers to their advantage. However, the resort to might in whimsical fashions came to a pause. Realizing the hazards of a full blown revolution by the hungry masses, the nobles, then called the Areopagus, and the people covenanted to submit to the authority of one despot, Solon, a statesman and constitutional reformist, who was thus given the mission to resolve the humongous predicament then prevailing.1 In another way of saying, Solon put restraints on the use of arbitrary power which could have been used and abused by the people of wealth. Solon rescued many of his subjects out of slavery by causing the write-off of their loan obligations. In order to avoid similar circumstances in the future, he prohibited any debt with slavery conditions in case of payment delinquency. Those who became slaves outside of Athens were sent back home. The statesman tyrant promoted olive oil and wine as a general enterprise in the whole of Athens in order to equitably distribute opportunities. While the people of Athens considered Solon a hero, he actually was not able to solve the economic disarray although he succeeded in putting the government in order and making it well organized, installing mechanisms for checks and balances among the social classes. For another time, he saw to it that supremacy is not concentrated among the upper echelons of society by seeing to it that judicial courts withdrew civil and military clout from the Areopagus, the privileged few. The possible use of arbitrary power was again effectively deterred. Incidentally, this happened in Athens, one of the freest democracies four or five hundred years before Jesus Christ was born.2 In essence, no one can just act on his whim and caprice and disregard the basic human rights of the others or of his neighbours. Man has to live but he has to do so that he let lives. One cannot be arbitrary at the expense of another person’s liberty. Owing to the failure of Solon to fix the disastrous financial state of Athens and after a brief period at the helm, he was taken over by Peisistratus, a nobleman with military background. The new tyrant introduced religious and cultural reforms and also tried to neutralize the power of nobility by increasing the role in government of the poorest members of his constituency through the so-called Assembly and the courts. Nevertheless, tyrants are tyrants and the inherent characteristics of tyranny are addictive. Peisistratus became ambitious to rule in monarchy and his son, Hippias, took his place when he died. Hippias did not find comfort in the throne. He was somewhat paranoid and was always in fear. Believing he could avert any rebellion or plan to overthrow him, he attempted to lead as a strongman and to be unreasonably arbitrary. True enough, he was forced into exile by an influential family who were assisted by the Spartans. Here was another instance when efforts to restrain arbitrary power in order to protect the rights of citizens were worth the try.3 Individual Rights and Profound Inequalities As the words can be interpreted in appropriate methods under etymology, liberalism is the quality of being liberal and a liberal most likely means one who is a believer of liberty. Within that essence, liberalism connotes freedom. It is a political and social principle that upholds the state of every individual as being free to do whatever he perceives to be right and proper. There is no need to ask permission from any party and that one’s decision does not rely on the intention or purpose of another person. Freedom and liberty are therefore normal and natural. Every person has that right from birth what to do or what not to do. It is upon the one contending that there must be restraints or limitations on certain freedoms and liberties to prove and show that the restrictions or prohibitions are justifiable. In effect, if there is any dispute on the matter, the presumption shall be in favour of freedom. Within the realm of these arguments, laws and political authorities, normally legitimate constraints on liberty, have to explain why this or that kind of freedom is subjected to certain limits. Laws cannot just simply be passed and enacted and executive policies cannot just be executed outright without proper deliberations which particularly take into account freedom and liberty. For instance, one has every spontaneous right to own a gun under the benefit of the doubt that he does so for self-protection. Despite that freedom of ownership, the deadly weapon may be required by the state to be registered for the purpose of government regulation which must be explained for its reasons and justifications. Hence, except for conditions that have to be just and fair, liberty is absolute.4 Stated otherwise, liberalism is the poignant exponent of the importance of the freedom of every human being.5 On the other side of the coin is Marxism, the pillar of communism. The communist structure of government has all properties owned by the state, the individual persons having nothing to do with it except as beneficiaries of the fruits according to a specified distribution and sharing system.6 Hence, the proponents of the social system of communism argue that everyone is equal in treatment and benefits from the state. Those who oppose the communist social system disagree and counter that eighty five per cent of the wealth goes to the upper echelons of the hierarchy while the small remainder is distributed among those in the lower classes.7 In sum, both sides claim equal opportunities and each one rebuts the other. Under liberalism, it is true that all men are perceived to be equal in opportunities within their individual rights. However, truth to tell, one who does not have the resources in order to make his skills and talents productive is actually not in equal footing with another who has the means and resources to fully develop an enterprise even with minimal intellectual capabilities. Under this kind of a scenario, an individual right cannot contend with the profound inequalities which are always ever present in society, even a free one. Hence, there is actually no such thing as perfect equality among the peoples in a given democratic and liberal society. Economic and Social Rights Economic and social rights are not novel features among fundamental privileges and freedoms in the United Kingdom. These are already mentioned in the Human Rights Act 1998 and in the European Union Treaty and confirmed in several case laws or jurisprudence although not yet clearly set forth and delineated in a specific organic law or statute. As a matter of fact, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although not statutorily binding, already includes economic and social rights and the United Kingdom is a member signatory to the declaration. There is no need to list down a litany of those related laws and legislations. It is a matter of common layman knowledge. At this juncture, it appropriate to point out that the fundamental rights to property and the pursuit of happiness are, in effect, economic and social rights respectively. It is only a question of terminologies and literary approach. Nevertheless, even if it is to be presumed that economic and social rights are new notions in the British legal framework which will be made part of a legislated bill of rights, those economic and social rights must immediately become justiciable, that is, any such right can then be charged and settled in a court of law or can be an item of justiciable dispute or litigation. The reason is very simple. Once a right is particularly defined in a law for practice, implementation or execution, it has to become justiciable at once in order to give meaning and spirit to the very law which created that right. Otherwise, there would have better been no law at all. The Joint Committee on Human Rights of the House of Lords and the House of Commons which deliberated on the feasibility of having a bill of rights for the United Kingdom expounded in length regarding the inclusion therein of economic and social rights. The matter of including the said rights in the bill appears to be no problem. The more pressing concern is whether or not to make the issues on the subject economic and social rights justiciable once these become part and parcel of the bill of rights. Those who are against the idea of justiciability advance the apprehension over the looming situation when it will be more for the courts to decide on the social and economic benefits. This is precisely because those citizens who will feel aggrieved by the lapses and perceived neglect of the government in the supposed distribution and availability of the benefits will surely go to the courts for redress and relief. Necessarily, the judicial process will determine if rights are violated and if the complaining party is entitled to the remedy prayed for. As a matter of course and of procedure, the suit will not stop there. If indeed the claimant deserves to be awarded anent the plaint he lodged for the benefits, the court has to adjudge or resolve in his favour and to render a decision for the award. That is where the chain of problems will arise. Will the state have the resources? If so, will the same be sufficient and enough to cover any and all assertions? The joint committee cited actual situations in the experience of Africa. It must be noted though, and this has to be admitted, that the financial capacities of the African governments are very much behind than the humongous economic power of the United Kingdom. There is also the view that a demarcation line be drawn for ceilings up to which the court may decide on the grant of award for the subject benefits. However, the latter might give more complication than order and convenience because, for instance, there can be difficulty in determining the parameters of the judicial intervention as against the fiscal policy of the executive branch of government. To illustrate, suppose that A needs a wheelchair which is well provided for in the list of social benefits under the new bill of rights. He fails to get one because the nearest public health care provider does not have available stocks. Let it be presumed further that in a case like that, the new bill of rights mandates that the patient may proceed to the next nearest commissioned provider until the claimant gets one. Following that process, A still is not able to obtain the needed merchandise. He thus files a claim in court. However, as per the limits of the new bill of rights, the authority of the claims court is only within its territorial jurisdiction. What then will be the remedy of A? Go to another city, county or town of a different judicial venue and file a new claim with a new court? Will such procedural matters or rules like res judicata not interfere in the course of the suit? Things like this can happen and will do more harm than good to the citizens and constituents who happen to be those in need. It will also adversely affect the operations of the bureaucracy and even of the courts. It is opined that the best option is to maintain the status quo for, say, five years. During that interregnum, a comprehensive and exhaustive study and research have to be made and conducted to ponder on the feasibility of the government handling the organizational and operational aspects of the service units and instrumentalities which will specifically cater to the needs of the receiving beneficiaries. Thereafter, the rules of procedure in the filing of claims can be streamlined in the same research and study which can even consider the establishment of special courts for the purpose. With these objectives in mind, drawbacks and exceptions may be minimized while efficiency in the mandated services is maximized. For the authorities of the United Kingdom to plunge into this undertaking for economic and social benefits without careful preparations can become disastrous. While public sentiments on the issue are valid as to suggest immediate legislation and a rush into action, a purported quick solution might not be a solution at all. References Athens. Ancient Greece. [internet]. Accessed December 18, 2009. Available at: Communism. New Advent. [internet] Accessed December 18, 2009. Available at: Economic and Social Rights. A Bill of Rights for the UK? House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights. pp 43-53The Stationery Office Limited. 10 August 2008 Liberalism. Wikipedia. [internet] Accessed December 18, 2009. Available at: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism> Long, Roderick T. The Athenian Constitution: Government by Jury and Referendum. [internet] Accessed December 18, 2009. Available at: Solon. Wikipedia. [internet] Accessed December 18, 2009. Available at: The Debate About Liberty. Liberalism. r September 10, 2007. [internet]. Accessed December 18, 2009. Available at: < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/> What is the communist agenda for America? Is It Liberalism Or Marxism Thats Destroying America? [internet] Accessed December 18, 2009. Available at: < http://www.angelfire.com/al3/libertieswatch2000/Marxism.html> Read More