New Social Movements and Identity Politics to Resist the Injustice and Oppression - Essay Example

?Resistance: an evaluation of the ability of new social movements and identity politics to resist the injustice and oppression found in the contemporary world INTRODUCTION One of the most key challenges of governments worldwide is to identify policies that serve effectively the public interest. In practice, an opposite trend appears: governments adopt oppressive strategies and attempt to impose rules that are opposed to fundamental rights. Current study focuses on two key issues, as related to public life: in the first part of the paper, emphasis is given on the expansion of oppressive practices as initiated by political forces in Britain. In the specific part of the paper, reference is made to authoritarianism and its relationship to the following political practices of the British government: the protection of human rights and the labour and trade union movement. In other words, the first part of the paper aims to show the level of oppression and exploitation, as related to the public life in Britain. In this way, it would be easier to check whether the above phenomenon, i.e. the expansion of oppression and exploitation, can be controlled through the intervention of pressure groups. At the next level, the second part of the paper focuses on resistance via identity politics; the role and the power of a specific pressure group, the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People is explored aiming to explain its ability to resist the injustice and oppression found in Britain, as part of the contemporary world. It is proved that the particular pressure group can play such role but its effectiveness cannot be guaranteed since the challenges involved are significant, as analysed below. PART ONE: OPPRESSION AND EXPLOITATION In order to evaluate the aspects of public life, as appeared in Britain, it is necessary to understand the relationship between politics and human rights in general, i.e. as the above relationship is commonly developed in societies worldwide. According to Boyte (2005), civil societies tend to promote human rights, at least more than other types of societies. However, even in these societies, oppressive practices may also appear; still in civil societies, where ‘free spaces are available to individuals’ (Boyte 2005, p.60), oppressive practices may be difficult to be distinguished because of the belief that such societies ensure freedom in regard to all human activities (Boyte 2005). In regard to the above, Ife (2001) explains that oppressive practices are often difficult to be controlled, mostly because of the following fact: most of these practices do not incorporate ‘a structural analysis of the oppression involved’ (Ife 2001, p.147). The specific view can be made clear by referring to the following example: many Marxists have supported inequality of gender, not intentionally but because they were not aware of gender challenges in regard to all aspects of social life (Ife 2001, p.147). According to the above, the promotion of oppression in a particular society can be unavoidable, especially when the terms of oppressive practices are not adequately explained. On the other hand, the chances for oppression and exploitation seem to be limited in democracies (LeDuc 2002). Still, even in democratic regimes, oppression and exploitation may not be avoided unless the following practice is followed: apart from securing the freedom of people to act freely, democracies need to be effective in regard to the enforcement of law, especially in regard to the limitation of the potentials of ‘government officials to abuse power’ (LeDuc 2002, p.223). In other words, the recognition of the right of freedom to individuals is not adequate for characterizing a democratic regime as effective in fighting oppression and exploitation. It is necessary for this regime to be appropriately prepared for preventing the local government ‘from abusing power’ (LeDuc 2002, p.223). At this point, the following issue should be highlighted: any individual who has power is expected to abuse this power, either more or less, using his authority for serving personal interests (Held 2006, p.67); the above fact is highlighted in the book of Locke, the Spirit of Laws (Held 2006, p.67). The above view leads to the assumption that in public life, as in private life, oppression is unavoidable being related to the human nature (Held 2006). An important aspect of oppression, as part of the public life, is presented in the study of Stillman (2009). The above researcher notes that officials in the public sector can often act similarly as the managers of large corporations (Stillman 2009, p.448). In other words, oppression and exploitation can be highly developed both in the public and the private sector and they are not related only to the public life; this fact should be taken into consideration when trying to identify methods for controlling oppression and exploitation as social phenomena. Authoritarianism, as a form of political power, has been highly related to the personal characteristics, especially the psychology, of individuals (Cottam et a. 2009). Indeed, it has been revealed that those children who are not offered adequate support in regard to their emotional needs are likely to develop authoritarian forms of communication/ socialization (Cottam et al. 2009, p.22). At the same time, Compton (2005) notes that the form of each authoritarian state is depended on the conditions in the state’s environment, meaning especially the political forces that mostly influence the practices of the political environment involved. In its most common form, the authoritarian state is characterized by the absolute power of the public officials to define the terms under which a political, social or economic event will take place (Compton 2005). In Britain, the power of the state in defining the terms of social and political life and its potential similarities to an authoritarian state can be explored by referring to two particular political practices: the protection of human rights and the development of labour and trade union movement; the forms of these practices, as developed by the British government, would help to understand the level at which the specific country can be effective in controlling oppression and exploitation. The practices of British government and British courts in regard to the protection of human rights have been often criticized. Indeed, during the last decade controversial decisions and policies have been developed in UK in regard to human rights. An indicative example is the decision of House of Lords on the validity of ‘the section 9 of British Indian Ocean Territory Order 2004’ (Turpin and Tomkins 2011, p.168). In the above case the members of the House of Lords were asked to decide whether the exile of the Chagossians from their land,’ the Chagos Islands’ (Turpin and Tomkins 2011, p.168), as derived from the section 9 of the above Order, was lawful or not (R (On The Application of Bancoult) V Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, 2008). The majority of the Court held that the section 9 of the above Order was valid, a decision that was considered as a significant violation of human rights (Turpin and Tomkins 2011, p.168). No initiative was taken by the British government to overturn the above decision, a fact that implied the consent of the British government in regard to the limitation of the rights of Chagossians. Another critical indication of the oppression of human rights in Britain has been the following one: due to the expansion of terrorism worldwide, the British government has passed two orders aiming to prevent the activities of terrorists in its territory. Reference is made specifically to ‘the Al Qaida and Taliban (Asset Freezing) Regulations 2010 and the Terrorist Asset Freezing etc Act 2010’ (Turpin and Tomkins 2011, p.170). The British courts have characterized the above legislative texts ‘as so oppressive that lead people to feel as prisoners of the state’ (Ahmed and Others v HM Treasury, 2010, UKSC, in Turpin and Tomkins 2011, p.169). The initiators of these orders have supported their decision claiming that such right, i.e. the right to control the assets of suspects for terrorism, is derived from the United Nations Act of 1946 (Turpin and Tomkins 2011, p.169), a fact that has been strongly doubted by the Court, as explained above. The above decisions reveal that oppressive practices in regard to human rights in Britain are not unusual. This phenomenon also reveals the inability or the unwillingness of British government to support these rights. On the other hand, Dalrymple and Burke (2006) note that the protection of human rights in Britain has been effectively promoted through the Human Rights Act 1998, which is based on ‘equality, liberty and justice’ (Dalrymple and Burke 2006, p.69). Still, the decision of the House of Lords in the Chagos-Islands case, and the legislative texts introduced for the confrontation of terrorism, as presented above, indicate that the effectiveness of Human Rights Act 1998 is rather limited, or at least lower than expected. In 1997 the Amnesty International published a report focusing on the treatment of asylum seekers in UK (Hegarty and Leonard 1999). According to the report, since 1980s the British government has initiated a series of oppressive practices in regard to asylum seekers across the country (Hegarty and Leonard 1999, p.395). It is further noted that these policies ‘aimed to limit the number of refugees entering UK for seeking asylum’ (Hegarty and Leonard 1999, p.395). In other words, the British government is likely to employ oppressive practices against human rights; this trend should be criticized and cannot be justified even if it is often related to the need for protecting other rights, such as the health and safety of the public. Ottaway (2011) has highlighted another important characteristic of the practices of British government in regard to human rights: these practices are often aligned with the practices of the British government related to other sectors of public life, such as the international commerce, meaning especially the commerce between British organizations and foreign states/ enterprises (Ottaway 2011). However, as the Foreign Secretary has verified, no such case exist; the protection of human rights and the promotion of ethics are among the priorities of British governments (Ottaway 2011). It is also noted that British values are considered as more important than the commercial activities of the country (Ottaway 2011, p.37). Thus, no oppression measures, as opposed to human rights or British values, are likely to be promoted by the British government for promoting commerce (Ottaway 2011). These arguments can be criticized though as being controversial with the legislative texts and the court decisions supported by the British government, a practice that denotes the British government’s willingness to ignore human rights when having to deal with certain issues that are considered as of high value, such as the protection of British territory or the protection of public safety, in the context described above. According to the above, oppressive practices related to human rights in Britain are likely to appear when certain terms, as decided by the British government, are met. The use of oppressive measures related to the public life in Britain can be also traced in the practices of British government for managing labour and trade union issues. The control on trade union movements has been a common challenge for authoritarian states internationally (Compton 2005). Many authoritarian states face the particular problem in the following way: efforts are made so that trade unions are ‘affiliated with the state’ (Compton 2005, p.100). In this way, the power of trade unions to intervene in employment disputes is significantly decreased (Compton 2005). Moreover, Tang (2000) notes that ‘the stifling of independent labour’ (Tang 2000, p.168) is among the key characteristics/ elements of an authoritarian state. This means that authoritarian states are, by nature, opposed to the trade union movement. The particular phenomenon seems to exist also in Britain, a country the history of which has been related to the establishment of the trade union movement (Marx, Engels and Lapides 1990). Indeed, the protection of employee rights in UK has been traditionally promoted through strong conflicts between employers and trade unions. The ‘Equal Pay Act of 1970’ (Tomlinson and Trew 2001, p.7) can be considered as an example of the above practice, at the level that the specific legislative text has been established in the context of the efforts of ‘women organizations to secure equality in payment for women in all industrial sectors’ (Tomlinson and Trew 2001, p.6). The White Paper promoted by the British government in 1973 for confronting discrimination in the workplace is another indication of the willingness of British government to support the labour and trade union movement (Tomlinson and Trew 2001, p.6). According to Lavalette (2011) the power of the trade union movement in UK has been verified through the promotion of a series of legislative texts that aim to secure the employee rights. Reference is made, for example, to the ‘Equal Pay Act and the Race Relations Act’ (Lavalette 2011, p.87). In other words, the labour and the trade union movement in UK has been, traditionally, supported by the British government. Still, oppressive practices by the British government in regard to the labour and trade union movement have not been avoided. These practices have been clearer during the governance of the country by Conservatives. Indeed, the Labour Party has been proved to be more willingness to support ‘employment and wages’ (McIlroy 1995, p.413). In opposition, the Conservative Party has been always skeptical in regard to the protection of the rights of employees; this trend is reflected in ‘the Employers and Workmen’s Act of 1875 that made the breach of employment contract a civil offence’ (Dorey 1995, p.18) and the ‘Conspiracy and the Protection of Property Act’ (Dorey 1995, p.18) that introduced certain limitations in regard to the right of strike (Dorey 1995, p.18). In other words, the British government has not managed to avoid oppressive practices towards the labour and trade union movement. The potential elimination of these practices, or even their limitation, could be possibly achieved through the initiatives developed by pressure groups, as explained below. PART TWO: RESISTANCE VIA IDENTITY POLITICS The initiatives of pressure groups have been proved to be quite important for controlling oppression in regard to various aspects of public life in countries internationally. In Britain also, pressure groups have, traditionally, played a key role in the limitation of the government’s oppressive practices. Reference can be made for example to the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People. The above organization aims to support people with disabilities in asking for their rights in regard to their daily activities, as derived from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Equality Act 2010 (British Council of Organisations of Disabled People 2012). The organization provides to people with disabilities important information on existing legislation, as related to the rights of people with disabilities, including any updates and issues for consideration, as for example, the existing employment law as related to people with disabilities (British Council of Organisations of Disabled People 2012). It should be noted that the above organization offers important information to people with disabilities; still, its ability to promote the respect of rights of these people, is rather limited. Indeed, the particular organization seems to operate rather as a source of information relevant to the rights of people with disabilities; it does not incorporate any mechanisms for securing the protection of rights of these people. Just suggestions are made for law firms specializing in such disputes but no reference is made to any potential success of the organization in terms of the increase of awareness of the government in regard to the rights of people with disabilities (British Council of Organisations of Disabled People 2012). Still, the importance of the specific pressure group cannot be doubted; its power thought to respond to the demands of its role, as a pressure group, is not as high as would be normally expected. At the same time, oppression and injustice in regard to the practices of British government have been proved to be common phenomena. In this context, the pressure groups supporting the rights of people with disabilities would be capable to develop strong and long – term conflicts for protecting the rights of their members, a mission that cannot be achieved by the particular pressure group, because of the issues explained above. CONCLUSION The efforts of the British government to secure human rights and promote the role of trade unions cannot be ignored. Still, the review of the literature developed in this field has led to the following assumption: under specific circumstances, the British government has used oppressive practices aiming to secure certain rights that have been considered as of high importance, compared to other rights that have been violated by these practices. Still, this approach cannot justify the promotion of oppression and injustice. In this context, pressure groups in UK have a critical role: to ensure that the incorporation of oppressive practices in the policies promoted by the British government is eliminated. At this point, the following fact has been revealed: the value of pressure groups in confronting oppression and injustice cannot be can be significant. However, their ability to respond to the expectations of the public, or groups of people, in regard to the protection of human rights and the promotion of justice can be doubted. The case of the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, a pressure group for protecting the rights of people with disability, fully verifies the above view. References BCODP - British Council of Organisations of Disabled People (2012) Available at www.bcodp.org.uk Boyte, H. (2005) Everyday Politics: Reconnecting Citizens and Public Life. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Compton, D. (2005) Neoliberal Democratization And New Authoritarianism. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. Cottam, M., Dietz-Uhler, B., and Mastors, E. (2009) Introduction to Political Psychology. New York: Psychology Press. Dalrymple, J., and Burke, B. (2006) Anti-Oppressive Practice: Social Care And the Law. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill International. Dorey, P. (1995) The Conservative Party and the Trade Unions. London: Routledge. Hegarty, A., and Leonard, S. (1999) A Human Rights: An Agenda for the 21st Century. London: Routledge. Held, D. (2006) Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press. Ife, J. (2001) Human Rights and Social Work: Towards Rights-Based Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lavalette, M. (2011) Radical Social Work Today: Social Work at the Crossroads. Bristol: The Policy Press. LeDuc, L. (2002) Comparing Democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting. London: SAGE. Marx, K., Engels, F., and Lapides, K. (1990) Marx and Engels on the Trade Unions. New York: International Publishers. McIlroy, J. (1995) Trade Unions in Britain Today. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Ottaway, R. (2011) The role of the FCO in UK government: seventh report of session 2010-12, Vol. 1: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. London: The Stationery Office. Stillman, R. (2009) Public Administration: Concepts and Cases. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Tang, K. (2000) Social Development in Asia. New York: Springer. ?omlinson, D., and Trew, W. (2001) Equalising Opportunities, Minimising Oppression: A Critical Review of Anti-Discriminatory Policies in Health and Social Welfare. London: Routledge. Turpin, C., and Tomkins, A. (2011) British Government and the Constitution: Text and Materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Case law Ahmed and Others v HM Treasury [2010] UKSC 2 R (On The Application of Bancoult) V Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2008] UKHL 61 Read More