Should Democracy Limit Human Rights or Should Human Rights Limit Democracy - Literature review Example

Should democracy limit human rights or should human rights limit democracy? Democracy and human rights have close relationships. It is an accepted fact that in democratic countries, human right problems are less whereas in totalitarian or socialist countries, human right violations are more. For example, UK and America are two prominent democracies in the world whereas China is a socialist country. When we consider the statistics of human right violation in these countries, it is evident that China outscores both UK and US. It is impossible for the Chinese public to express their views against the communist regime which was evident from the Tiananmen Square incident whereas in UK or US, the public have the freedom to express their views and opinions against any of the polices of the government. In fact, the government itself is elected by the public in UK or US whereas in China such voting rights are prohibited. Even the terrorists caught alive in UK or US will get a fair trial before they will be punished. At the same, such terrorists may not get any mercy if they performed their terrorist activities in Chinese territory which underlines the value of democracy in protecting human rights. The questions, “should democracy limit human rights or should human rights limit democracy” is a popular one among political analysts historically. Some people believe that democracy should limits human rights whereas some others believe that human rights should limit democracy. Moreover, many social scientists believe that democracy helped a country to respect the human right issues whereas some others believe that belief in human rights forced the people to opt for a democratic regime. This paper briefly analyses the relationships between human rights and democracy and answers the question “should democracy limit human rights or should human rights limit democracy” Democracy and human rights 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—whether in homes, in jobs or in communities (Norman 2005). On the other hand, Abraham Lincoln has defined democratic government as a government of the people by the people and for the people. In other words, in a democratic set up, public has more power than anybody else. The essential characteristics of a democratic government are A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.   Protection of the human rights of all citizens.   A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens (What is Democracy?, 2004) The third point mentioned above clearly shows the importance of protection of human rights in democracy. It is not necessary that all the governments elected through ballots might be democratic in nature with respect to their functioning. For example, the handling of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) by the Sri Lankan government in the recent war against them is criticized by many neutral political analysts. Even the LTTE fighters who were ready to surrender were killed brutally by the government forces which are against the principles of a democratic government. Freeman (2002) has argued that democracy and human rights are mutually supportive or related to each other by definition (Freeman, 2002, p.71). In a democratic country, the citizens have the right to keep their own beliefs and spread it. Moreover, the citizens in a democratic country can believe in any religion and can spread their beliefs. Media can operate freely in a democratic country and the people can assemble freely either to support or protest against the governmental policies. In short, people have every right to engage in any activity which is not causing any inconvenience to others in a democratic country. Freeman, (2002) has argued that democracy is considered to be the best form of government for protecting human rights (Freeman, 2002, p.71). In a democratic set up people has more power than the administration. In other words, in a democracy, it is possible for the people to elect or reject a government through ballot if their country follows democracy. On the other hand, such things are not possible in any other forms of governments. The power of people in democracy is immense and hence the governments forced to respect human rights. Freedom, respect for human rights and holding periodic, genuine elections by universally acceptable means are some of the elements of democracy. In fact, democracy provides environment for the protection of human rights. The link between democracy and human rights is mentioned in article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures (DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS, n. d, p.1) Clapham, (2007) has mentioned that political values like democracy and human rights can be powerful sources of attraction (Clapham, 2007, p.69). It is a fact that nobody wants to be ruled by a totalitarian administration. Everybody wants to lead a free life without any barriers or restrictions imposed upon them. The communist administrations in Europe and Soviet Union disappeared because of the people’s thirst for democracy and human rights. China is desperately trying to suppress the call for freedom and human rights from its people. In short, democracy and human rights are the two sides of the same coin. It is difficult to observe democracy in a country where human rights are denied. Same way it is difficult to observe human right recognition in countries other than democratic countries. For example, Saudi Arabia is a country ruled by the religious leaders and human rights have least importance there because of the power of religion in politics. On the other hand, in most of the democratic countries, human rights are preserved. “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). Liberal democracy emphasizes the importance of individuals rather than the community or culture. For example, UK is a representative democracy and a liberal democracy (Democracy, 2010). In other words, in Britain, the people have more power than the government and the elections are conducted through free and fair means. Moreover the government in Britain is focussed on removing the barriers which hinder the well being of the public. The intervention of the UK government in the economic market is minimal and only when required, the government enters the market. In short, in a liberal democracy like Britain, people have more power than the government as they decide how they should be ruled or who should be the administrators. Same thing cannot be said about a country like China or Saudi Arabia. Henderson found that when less democracy prevailed, chances of poverty are more, greater the inequality and worse the repression (Freeman, 2002, p.140). Democracy can ensure equal rights to all and hence the chances of poverty are less. On the other hand, if the democracy weakened in a state, poverty may gain upper hand. When we compare the democracies in UK and Pakistan we can understand the differences in having less democracy or more democracy. In UK, public enjoys every citizen right because of the strong democracy whereas in Pakistan because of the weaker democracy, public is not getting the benefit of actual democracy. The influence of religion and military in politics weakened the democracy in Pakistan which forced the Pak administrators to keep a blind eye towards the core issues like poverty. It is the fundamental right of a person to live in a country with adequate facilities. States have the moral responsibility in ensuring, food and shelter to its citizen. In most of the countries, administrations fail to ensure these basic things to the public because of their negligence towards these core issues and over emphasize on other relatively unimportant issues. Thus the failure of an administration in eradicating poverty is one way a form of human right violation. Osiatyński,( 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 (Osiatyński, 2010). In many democratic countries, the governments have problems in guiding the country towards prosperity because of the human right issues. In democracy the things were determined on the basis of majority. Even a wrong policy or strategy can be implemented in a democratic country if the majority of the members of the legislative body support it. For example, Bush’s plan to attack Iraq was supported by the majority of the republicans in the legislative body even though the minority democrats opposed it. Thus the major political blunder of attacking Iraq was committed by Bush with the blessings of the majority republicans. Steiner et al, (2007) have pointed out 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). America is blaming China for the human right violations there. Freedom of expression, human right violations and religious freedom are limited in China which forced America to blame the communist regime for such things. The massacre at Tiananmen Square was exploited heavily by the American media to blame the communists. At the same time what was happened in Iraqi jails to the prisoners captured by the American military forces operating in Iraq, is definitely a black mark at the face of America. America always pretends as the saviours of human rights and they always blame others for human right violations. 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 (Donnelly, 2003, p.1). Human rights don’t have different norms towards different cultures, religions, races or gender. All the humans have equal rights irrespective of which country or culture they belong to. 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 (Tomuschat, 2008, p.308). In fact judiciary, parliament and executive are the three major entities of a democratic administration. Judiciary can function independently only when the political interferences are less. In fact, in many democratic countries, the question of who holds the supreme power; judiciary or executive is a prominent one. In UK like democratic countries, judiciary, parliament and executive are working in harmony without raising any questions about who holds more power. But in a weak democratic state like Pakistan, the case is different. In Pakistan, president Musharaf dismissed the Chief justice of Pak Supreme Court and lot of legal questions faced by Musharaf about his authority to dismiss the Supreme Court chief. Norman (2005) has mentioned that democracy includes the presence of political and civil rights for citizens like freedom of expression, association, assembly, liberty and security etc. Moreover, there has been recent debate on the necessity of economic, social, and cultural rights as conditions of democracy (Norman 2005). Political, civil, economic, social, and cultural rights are related to the human rights and it is important that in a democratic society people should enjoy all such rights. Iran is a Muslim country which elects their leaders through ballot. But we cannot say that Iranian public enjoys human rights. Iran’s democracy is more culturally oriented. Religious leaders are controlling the Iranian politics according to the principles of Islamic administration. Same way Nepal is the only Hindu country in the world which also relies on ballot to elect their administration. But it is difficult to say that Nepal is a good example for a democratic state because of the Hindu religion domination in administration. So far we have discussed the association or similarities of democracy and human right. But democracy and human rights have certain differences also. Democracy always looks for the collective growth of the people whereas human right look for the individual growth. Moreover, human right directly associated with the how of ruling, and not just the who (Norman 2005). In short democracy is a much wider term than human right as it focuses the well being of a community whereas human right always look for the well being of an individual. The needs of a society and the needs of an individual might be often contradictory and hence democracy cannot always guarantee human rights. For example, UK is a secular democratic country and some of its policies are against the norms of democracy at present. For example, in UK airports most of the passengers are forced to undergo strict body check ups as part of the security measures. In other words, passengers were forced to allow the security people to examine their private body parts as part of the security measures. UK has their own argument for justifying such measures. For them such checking is essential to ensure the safety of the UK public. In short, UK forced to violate human rights in order to protect human rights. Thus in some cases, even democratic countries forced to engage in violation of human rights. Conclusions The question “should democracy limit human rights or human rights limit democracy” is a difficult one to answer. Democracy looks for the well being of a community whereas human rights always focus on the interests of an individual. Interests of an individual and the interests of the community need not be always compatible with each other and hence it is difficult to answer the question “should democracy limit human rights or human rights limit democracy”. Even though both democracy and human rights have close relationships, it is not necessary that democracy guarantees human rights or human rights guarantee democracy. Democracy should be defined in a much broader sense. It should not be confined within the boundaries of a country. Democratic principles should be universal and it should not be diluted outside a democratic country. If democracy can be integrated to a global perspective in which the human rights of all the people are equally treated, then we can safely say that democracy should limit human rights. Other wise the above question may remain as a confusing one. References 1. Clapham A (2007), Human Rights: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2007) 2. Democracy (2010), Retrieved on 1 June 2010 from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/democracy.htm 3. DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS, (n. d) Retrieved on 18 may 2010 from http://www.unis.unvienna.org/pdf/Democracy_Human_Rights_2008.pdf 4. Donnelly J, (2003) Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (Cornell University Press, 2nd edn., 2003). 5. Freeman M,(2002) Human Rights: An Interdisciplinary Approach (Polity, 2002). 6. Norman J (2005), Human Rights and Democracy, Retrieved on 18 may 2010 from http://www.phrmg.org/human_rights_and_democracy.htm 7. Osiatyński Wiktor (2010), Human Rights and Their Limits, Retrieved on 18 may 2010 from http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521125239 8. Steiner J, Alston P & Goodman R (2007), International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals (Oxford University Press, 3rd edn. 2007) 9. Tomuschat C (2008), Human Rights: Between Idealism and Realism (Oxford University Press, 2nd edn., 2008) 10. What is Democracy?(2004), Retrieved on 18 may 2010 from http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/WhaIsDemocracy012004.htm Read More