Integration of Peace and Conflict Studies to Human Rights Study - Essay Example

Integration of Peace and Conflict studies to Human Rights study Introduction The different countries of the world practice various forms of government. Most of these forms of governance have evolved well throughout their history as governance which has suited them well. Throughout these varying types of governance is the most popular of all governments – democracy. It has been favored by most states because of its people-centered principles and because of its minimal human rights and peace violations. It cannot be denied however that even among supposedly democratic States in the Asian region, there has been widespread violations of human rights and significant breaches of peace. However, of all the political systems, it is widely argued that democracy is best suited to ensure both peace and the fulfillment of human rights. The question is now posed: do we need democracy to ensure human rights and peace? This paper shall outline the relationship between peace, human rights and democracy. It shall explain the contradictions which are detailed above, and critically evaluate the perceived weakness of democracy. Discussion Peace, human rights and democracy are often in close relations with each other (Frowein, 2006). The tenets of democracy are very much based on the peaceful relations of the people. An analysis by Savir, (2008, p. 202) sets forth that peace is a prerequisite to democracy. When people are beset by conflicts, they also have little initiative in engaging in participatory democracy. However, in times of peace, “societies are receptive to regional and international relationships that allow pluralist ideas to penetrate” (Savir, 2008, p. 202). Furthermore, when the borders of nations are open, open economies also ensue – and later they create cooperation, tolerance and peace among nations. When peaceful relations are installed in any society, more political improvements and economic reforms can be implemented (Savir, 2008, p. 202). Peace is not dependent on the establishment of a democratic form of government. The elements of democracy which include the participation of the grassroots citizens as well as the local government units are important elements which are essential in order to ensure a peaceful nation – even if that nation is not necessarily a democratic one (Savir, 2008, p. 202). A peace which is built on the grassroots level can be easily implemented and nurtured by the people because it comes from their initiative. “This citizen’s peace will encourage the support and the participation of the people, leading to the democratization of peace and contributing to greater openness, tolerance, and pluralism in the society and in the region” (Savir, 2008, p. 202). The basic principles of democracy in this case become the building blocks of peace in the state and among the citizens. In an analysis by the United Nations Human Rights Commission (2008, p. 1), the commission emphasizes that freedom and respect for human rights and universal suffrage are essential elements of democracy. “In turn, democracy provides the natural environment for the protection and effective realization of human rights” (UNHCR, 2008, p. 1). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 21) emphasizes the link between human rights and democracy. In essence, “the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of the government; this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held in secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures”. The focus here is on the right of the people to decide the direction of their government and to be given the opportunity to make an impact on their future through suffrage. The commission also sets forth important elements of democracy which make it a crucial determinant in ensuring respect for human rights. These elements include respect for fundamental freedoms (freedom of association and expression); the access to power and the exercise of such power based on the rule of law; conduct of elections by secret ballots; pluralistic system of political parties; separation of powers; independence of judiciary; transparency and accountability of public administration; and a free and independent media (UNHCR, 2008). Without these elements in the democratic process, human rights and peace can be secured in the state and among the people. Democracy in its purest implementation has the highest potential for achieving peace and for securing human rights. However, in some parts of the world, distortions or problems in the implementation of the tenets of democracy can cause problems in securing peace and human rights. In some of the countries in Asia, there have been notable human rights violations and disturbances in the peace despite the fact that these nations claim to be democratic nations. Of note are Thailand and the Philippines which have gone through various incidents of unrest and reports of human rights violations. In Thailand, the Human Rights Watch reported that it was concerned over the serious human rights abuses perpetrated by the Thai government security forces and the Union for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDCC) or the Red Shirts (Nettingtvs, 2010). The Human Rights Watch cited violations on both sides which include: denying of access to emergency medical personnel and firefighters; unlawful use of lethal force; denying safe passage for people trying to flee violence; targeting of journalists; unlawful and unaccounted arrests by the government; denying counsel for those arrested; media censorship; and using children as human shields (Nettingtvs, 2010). These human rights violations are rampant in the country and they violate the very essence of democracy. This is the main issue in Thailand and it is an issue which has created much discussion in the field of democratic debate. In a forum held in the Philippines, Thai representative Siriyuvasak declared that the government did not consider the Red Shirts as a legitimate movement for democracy – that it was only formed by citizens who were loyal to the former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra (Militante, 2010). Siriyuvasak further explains that this group was seeking to bring back into power the corrupt reign of Thaksin; this opinion is apparently shared by other countries and by the international media. However, it is important to note that these Red Shirts are mostly composed of the urban poor from the north and northeast regions of Thailand; they are also composed of some youth and student activist groups (Militante, 2010). Since many of them benefited through populist policies and programs during Thaksin’s reign, they were firm in their support of reinstalling him into power. These Red Shirts however assert that their fight is being done in the name of democracy and against the dominance of the elite – the elite who was said to have supported the coup which later put the military into power (Militante, 2010). In applying the democratic peace theory in the case of Thailand, analysts are not so keen in favoring the applicability of this theory or of democracy as an effective tool in achieving peace in the country. Thailand has gone through countless incidents of civil unrest, despite the fact that it is a nation which is very much Westernized in its views on democracy. However, the best way of assessing the situation is to compare the social construction of Western and Thai political culture and evaluate whether a Westernized democratic system actually applies to Thailand (Hongsakul, 2007). The ideals of the Americans which include the rule of law, liberty, participation, welfare, active debate and heroic role are deeply ingrained in their culture that the principles of democracy are already very easy to carry out and implement among the people and within the government (Hongsakul, 2007). This is not a similar picture in Asia or in the eastern philosophy which largely emphasizes on the role of the people, not so much the structure of ideas; the non-giving in to society, not so much the individual rights and freedoms of the people (Hongsakul, 2007). Although the Thais want to achieve what the Americans have managed to achieve for their country in terms of democracy, the concept of self in relation to others is different for the Thais and the Americans. When problems exist in the American society, they debate the applicable laws in public forums in order to address the problem. However for Thais, due to their role-based focus, they prefer to change the leaders of their government (Hongsakul, 2007). And they do so through elections, and if they cannot afford to wait – through a coup. They regard the coup as the primary remedy which they can resort to in times of transition. And they avoid conflict or believe they can change the problem by simply changing the people in power. For the Americans however, coups are signs of unrest, of general chaos (Hongsakul, 2007). The Americans reacted to the military coup in September of 2006 and the subsequent tearing up of the constitution with an expected horror. The Americans regard their own constitution as a sacred document and its provisions as strict impositions for its citizens. Their views are couched in terms of black and white, but the Thais favor their own style of democracy – one which permits coups as a means of creating transitions in governance (Hongsakul, 2007). Various analysts of Thai democracy claim that democracy may not always mean peace and a respect for human rights, especially when the standards of the western nations are used in order to measure democratic elements. In this case, there are barriers in the implementation of democratic elements in Thailand because of the inherent Thai culture (Hongsakul, 2007). The Western democratic culture has been hinged on doing something about problems they encounter and in contrast, the Eastern culture is usually based on drawing truth from experience. Consequently, “Westerners set up systems and then start the job; Easterners start the job, and then set up systems” (Hongsakul, 2007). When it comes to debate and political participation, Westerners consider themselves as equals and are expected to express their opinions and preferences – and peace ensues when their opinions are heard; however, among the Easterners, they come from a hierarchical culture which does not expect them to express their opinions – and peace results when the ruler is able to manage the people appropriately (Hongsakul, 2007). Considering the above norms, the type of leadership which can work best for Thailand is one which considers the culture of the country. The culture of Thailand is based on government bureaucracy that is based on seniority, not so much on skill and innovation. “When foreign support and interventions put in place people and technologies that are drastically different from what the Thais are used to, they become defenseless against the potential pitfalls of the new entities” (Hongsakul, 2007). The people also have to learn new characteristics and new ways of doing things or just discard the notion of democracy. If they fail to do so, there will always be a gap between culture and government and the very essence of the country will be lost in the midst of the civil unrest in the country. In the Philippines, a similar revolution was seen on two occasions: in 1986 to depose Ferdinand Marcos, and in 2001 to force Erap Estrada’s resignation (Democracy Web, 2009). The Philippines is also a democratic nation which patterns its governance mostly on the United States government. Free elections were held in the Philippines from 1946 until 1972 when Ferdinand Marcos of the Nacionalista Party imposed martial law. In the process he became the dictator until 1981 (Democracy Web, 2009). He held court for about 20 years until he was deposed in the 1986 historic and peaceful People Power revolution. And from 1986 to 2001, free elections were again held in the country through the successive terms of Corazon Aquino and Fidel Ramos. President Estrada was also elected into power; however reports of massive corruption also forced another peaceful revolution to remove him from power. President Arroyo later took over Estrada’s remaining term (Democracy Web, 2009). In both relatively peaceful revolutions held in the Philippines, the elements of democracy on suffrage and order were hardly secured. Nevertheless, it was democracy at its purest and most basic application. Both revolutions represented a triumph over the abuse of political power and the political institutions which were set-up to protect and ensure the people’s interests. “People power therefore was the ultimate testimony of how the citizens of a country – even in the worst circumstances – could muster the will to exercise their right to withdraw political support from a leader and an administration that had lost its legitimacy to rule” (Caballero-Anthony, 2004). It is important to note that the democratic processes in the Philippines before the peaceful revolution was filled with political problems which included political cleavages, flip-flopping national policies, political instability, widening gap between the rich and the poor, and the brain drain of human resources (Caballero-Anthony, 2004). Upon the turnover of the Philippines to Philippine rule, President Quezon declared how it was better for the Philippines to be run “like hell” by Filipinos, rather than for it to be run “like heaven” by the Americans. This is more of a statement against colonialism, not so much on nationalism (Cabellero-Anthony, 2004). However, even after the first, second and third Edsa Revolutions held in the Philippines, the fight for true freedom and democracy remains unresolved. The Philippines, like Thailand still displays the same issues which were seen in the previous problematic regimes (Caballero-Anthony, 2004). These problems include: preponderance of money politics; personalities rather than political parties; allegations of electoral fraud (Caballero-Anthony, 2004). There are however positive signs of democratic consolidation in the country which help to ensure that the essence of democratic processes are secured in the overall political scheme. These signs and trends include: new actors in the political arena which have managed to depose political dynasties in some provinces in the country; new voting patterns with more informed political choices and less personality driven voting of the politically maturing electorate; establishment of institutions which help govern electoral systems through civil society watchdogs; and growing impact of overseas voters (Caballero-Anthony, 2004). Hannum’s (2006, p. 582) analysis on peace versus justice sets forth that even as peace and justice are essentially based on the same goals, the short-term goals of their advocates are actually different from each other. In the large-scale setting such as those seen in the military coup in Thailand and the People Power revolutions seen in the Philippines, pursuing peace and justice can be a major challenge. Those who seek justice and peace need more humility and less arrogance in order for them to attain peace (Hannum, 2006, p. 582). In Thailand, the Red Shirts represent those who seek to put Thaksin back into power, however, they also represent the oppressed and the poor citizens who are largely neglected by the government. In seeking justice for them, the peace of Thailand is often disturbed. This is the crux of the democracy and peace dilemma in Asia and in Philippines and Thailand. However, as explained by Hannum (2006, p. 582), the two sides – those seeking justice and peace “need to build on shared values of impartiality and independence, while maintaining the distinctive features of each approach, including their concern with ensuring that the less powerful are adequately protected and represented” (Hannum, 2006, p. 582). The focus of both groups must be on not tolerating injustice – of collaborating with each other and of being mutually appreciative. For the opposing factions in the Philippines and Thailand, this is a process which is at an impasse as the Red Shirts claim their own rights for relief from injustice and the government regarding the Red Shirt’s position as another power-grabbing scheme. For the Philippines, as was previously mentioned, the fight for freedom and democracy remains unresolved as the political processes which set-up the Estrada and Marcos regimes remain deeply ingrained in the government. An analysis by Lutz, Babbitt, and Hannum (2003, p. 192) puts into perspective the elements as discussed above. The authors pointed out how important human rights and conflict resolution are – and that they are separate matters which address violent conflicts from varying perspectives. But those who seek resolution for their issues have to work with each other. “Where violent conflicts or massive violations of human rights are occurring, all interveners are likely to feel pressure to act urgently to reduce the likelihood of continuing bloodshed or abuse; to react to events rather than to anticipate them; and to be impatient with those whose aims or philosophies diverge from their own” (Lutz, Babbitt, & Hannum, 2003, p. 192). In both the Philippine and the Thailand context, the violations of human rights and the civil unrest induced the revolution and the military coups in the country. The factions saw a need to react to the violations in civil society. And after reacting accordingly, the solution adopted by both nations was “not to return to autocracy but to consolidate democracy through rule of law, civil society involvement, allowing a free press and ensuring competent representative governance” (Rich, 2004). This has made the transition to better governance peaceful and more enlightened. In the overall context, democracy as a formal type of government is not entirely needed in order to achieve peace and avoid human rights violations. Nevertheless, democracy is crucial in governance because it makes possible the implementation of principles and practices which eventually help secure peace and prevent human right violations. Further abuse was avoided in the Philippines, when the power of the masses and of the people deposed human rights violations led by Marcos and Estrada. This was the same for Thailand through the military coup. And yet the basic tenets of democracy are very much intact and serve as guide for both nations in achieving order, peace, and in preventing human right violations. Democratic nations in Asia cannot be expected to strictly work under the principles of US-branded democracy because their culture is different. However, working on the basic elements of democracy, peace and human rights can be secured. Works Cited Caballero-Anthony, M. (October 2004) Where on the road to democracy is the Philippines? Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, viewed 19 June 2010 from http://revistas.ucm.es/cps/16962206/articulos/UNIS0404330007A.PDF Democracy Web (2009) Accountability and Transparency: Country Studies – Philippines, Law: Magazine for the Ultimate Insider Analysis, viewed 19 June 2010 from http://www.democracyweb.org/accountability/philippines.php Frowein, S. (2006) Inter-religious Co-operation in Peace Making: Address by Ambassador Stefan Frowein, Head of the Delegation of the European Commission, Delegation of the European Union to Bangladesh, viewed 19 June 2010 from http://www.delbgd.ec.europa.eu/en/about_us/ambassador_speech/Stefan_Frowein_speech_-_20_December1r.doc Hannum, H. (2006) Peace versus Justice: Creating Rights as well as Order out of Chaos, International Peacekeeping, volume 13, issue 4, pp. 582-595 Hongsakul, P. (2007) Democracy & Thailand: Does the Shoe Fit? Hongsakul.net, viewed 19 June 2010 from http://hongsakul.net/law01/en/law_pamela01_en.html Lutz, E., Babbitt, E., Hannum, H. (2003) Human Rights and Conflict Resolution from the Practitioners’ Perspectives, The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, volume 27, issue 1, pp. 173-193 Militante, C. (2010) Thai intellectuals grapple with issues of democracy and civil unrest, Focus Web, viewed 19 June 2010 from http://www.focusweb.org/content/thai-intellectuals-grapple-issues-democracy-and-civil-unrest Nettingvs (26 May 2010) Thailand: Rights Abuses by Government Forces and the Red Shirts, ASEAN Youth Movement, viewed 19 June 2010 from http://aseanyouthmovement.org/2010/05/26/thailand-rights-abuses-by-government-forces-and-the-red-shirts/ Rich, R. (2004) Democratic Peace Theory: What relevance to East Asia? The Centre for Democratic Institutions, viewed 19 June 2010 from http://www.cdi.anu.edu.au/CDIwebsite_1998-2004/activities/activities_downloads/Democratic%20Peace%20Theory.rtf Savir, U. (2008) Peace First: A New Model to End War, California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers United Nations Human Rights Commission (2008), United Nations Information Service, viewed 19 June 2010 from www.unis.unvienna.org/pdf/Democracy_Human_Rights_2008.pdf Read More