|
December 9, 2017 - No. 40
Supplement
International Human Rights Day, December 10
Rights: A Modern
Definition
- Hardial Bains -
PDF
  
TML Weekly is reprinting the following important
article
by Hardial Bains, originally published in TML Daily Vol. 22
nos. 61-63, December 11-13, 1992. It has been slightly edited for
grammar.
* * *
A right as it pertains to human beings is, by
definition, something which appears at a definite stage in the
development of human beings and human society. Rights appear only
in history and are the concretization of all qualities which make
individuals and society human at that particular time. There can
be no right which can transcend such a requirement both of
history and of human beings and human society. Rights, in this
sense, are the expression of the nature of society. To be
formalist about this matter obscures the study of the conditions
in which rights exist. The fight for human rights at the present
time only reveals that the societies are advanced enough to
express these rights, and human beings are extremely anxious to
overcome their absence. Still, there are conditions which are an
obstacle to their growth and development. Human beings are
striving to change those conditions.
When it comes to human beings, rights are not expressed
by
the fact that they are given by this or that economic or
political power, this or that social or cultural institution. It
is necessary to study these rights as they exist within a
particular society or internationally, so that the extent to which
the society has to advance can be ascertained. Of course, human
rights, like all other rights, have to be guaranteed, but this
cannot be the case unless the conditions exist which favour their
development. For instance, it is not possible to speak of human
rights if even the right to a livelihood does not exist in a
society or if that society is in constant threat of being taken
over by another. The socio-economic level of a society, the
relations between states and the overall national and
international conditions have to be taken into consideration if
the extent to which human rights prevail in a society is to be
ascertained.
A right, by definition, is something which can neither
be
given nor taken away. In the sense of reflecting a definite stage
in the development of a society, a right is; its
recognition exists by virtue of that society. Various states on the
world scale, especially the most powerful such as the U.S., do
not want to provide human rights with a guarantee. In the first
place, they cause confusion over the definition of human rights,
making them dependent not on the quality of being human
but on some other quality -- whether political, ideological,
religious, cultural or moral. On the basis of their definition,
they interfere with these rights and make them a target of
legislation, without paying any attention to the conditions which
prevail in the society. Such states do not recognize human rights
by enacting legislation which provides them with a guarantee.
Instead they guarantee that which benefits the economically and
politically most powerful in the society. The case of Ross Perot
who, because of his wealth, can have more right to elect and be
elected than nearly all other Americans, flies in the face of the
claim of the American state that it is thoroughly democratic.[1]
Privilege and wealth and its use in the political process stand
in contempt of the right of all citizens to be equal in the
political process and to participate in governing their own
affairs.
When a human being is born, she or he is a person
strictly in
accord with the stage of the society to which she or he is born.
Her or his human rights will be recognized only to the extent the
society favours. A study of such a society can tell us what this
newborn person's fate is likely to be. There is hardly a state
at this time which begins with the study of rights as they are,
as they exist in society. Furthermore, there are states which
even forbid the recognition of rights, even though there is no
impediment to their existence in terms of the level of social
development. Such is the case of Kuwait where even universal
suffrage has yet to be established. Why is this the case? What
reasons can there be to deny the people of Kuwait universal
suffrage? Is it the privilege and power of the Emir which acts as
an impediment? The study of the conditions of other countries
would show that, as in Kuwait, there are very definite obstacles
to the practice of universal suffrage. Most of the countries
which are divided between rich and poor have universal suffrage
in name only. It is the wealthy who decide the kind of
government, its composition and its policies.
Is there a reason why rights as is are being
denied
people on the world scale at this time? What is this reason? Why
are human beings denied rights as is at this time? Why is
there no society in the world today where human rights exist in
their entirety? Rights as is is an abstraction, a
definition of a character of the society which affirms that its
members can have demands on the society by virtue of their being
human. The individual member of the society, however, cannot
enjoy this right, cannot make a claim upon society, if the
conditions for it do not exist. The main and decisive condition
has to be for the entire collective, the society itself, to fight
for the general interest of the society and for the individual
interest of each member. What belongs to the individual, in the
first instance, rights as is, now belongs to the
condition. Unless such a condition exists, there is no
possibility for rights as is to become a
reality.
From the time of the Renaissance to the development of
the
democratic revolution in the eighteenth century, the bourgeois
society was the condition for the expression of such a right. As
it developed, however, the same society became the obstacle to
its expression, and the affirmation of the collective in the
society emerged as the condition for the further development of
rights. Society, in this period, has gone through great changes.
From the freedom of free enterprise to the rise of monopolies and
oligopolies, bourgeois society no longer accepts its expression.
It is acting like the old society which it overthrew, the feudal
society which had concentrated privilege and power in the hands
of the nobility who used it to deprive everyone else of enjoyment
of their rights. Modern society is quite similar to the old
society in this respect.
If the bourgeois society is not the condition for the
expression of rights as is, then what is the condition of
its expression? It cannot be said that rights as is will
find their expression with the destruction of the society.
Speaking generally, it can be said that their expression will
take place with the destruction of the bourgeois character of the
society. But there is more to this than meets the eye. Just as
under feudalism, free enterprise emerged as the weapon against
feudal absolutism and the feudal aristocracy, so too something
quite specific to the modern society has arisen which is the
expression of rights as is. This is the collective or, in
political terms, a basic cell through which individuals fight for
the expression of their rights as is. In economic terms,
workers aggregate in the form of their own associations, unions
and organizations and so do individuals. The collective has
emerged as the condition which will eliminate that character of
the society which is obstructing the expression of rights as
is for all.
The Problem as It Exists on the World Scale
At
this time, whether the discussion of rights concerns Canada,
India or any other country, the problem is posed in a specific
fashion. In other words, by virtue of this consideration, it is
posed in the same fashion everywhere. It is not uncommon to hear
the question asked whether a government has the right to
do such and such a thing. There is an acute awareness of what an
individual should or should not do, but the focus today is on the
state. Does the state have the right to suppress those who rise
against it? This has arisen as one of the most important
questions. Or, do the people have the right to overthrow a state
or a government which is oppressing them? It is generally
accepted that if there is no other recourse to oppression, then
the sword is the only way. But in modern times, this argument is
used by the most powerful nations when it suits them.
The problem as it exists on the world scale is
that
the conditions which prevail in various parts of the world speak
about the plight of a definite class or strata of people. These
conditions tell us that an uncurbed tendency has developed in
which the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. Do the
rich have the right to become richer or the poor the right
to not become poorer? How should such problems as they
exist be looked at? Does an employer have the right to shut
down a plant because it is no longer profitable? Do the workers
have the right to not be unemployed? Conditions point out that
economic developments have given rise to the very economic and
political superstructures which make it impossible for rights
as is to express themselves. In its place, there is the
expression of problems as they exist. The definition of a
right which clearly begins from right as is gets totally
consumed in the problems as they exist. What do the
specialists on rights have to say about this matter?
There are rights which have assumed a general and
universal
character, as in the case of universal suffrage. There is
universal suffrage in Canada. All those who have attained the age
of eighteen can, by law, elect and be elected. But there is a
collective discontent with the inability of everyone to enjoy
this right. The electorate does not reap the fruits of this
universal suffrage as do those who enjoy the right to get
elected, especially if they belong to the Executive. Does the
electorate have the right to change the mechanisms which give the
elected the mandate to do whatever they please? Does the
government have the right to give or take away this right from
the electorate? Such are the problems as they exist. And
there are many more. In such circumstances, how will a right be
defined? Its definition must necessarily be a modern one, given
that the conditions as they prevail today nationally and
internationally did not exist before. Generally speaking, these
are conditions in which the concentration of capital and
production has become extreme. There is a massive deployment of
the productive forces which, when directed, can give rise to
results which could never have been imagined before. The
exploration of space is one such example. Examples can be given
from every facet of life.
Solutions Present Themselves in the
Course of Defining
the Problems as They Exist
There is a quality
which belongs to all human beings, that power through which what
is absent in their conditions and is necessary for their
well-being can be abstracted. At this time there is a general
feeling about what is absent in the sphere of rights. The
solution is found by changing the conditions, but there is more
to it than this. The solution is that the rights as is of
all human beings should be recognized. Once this is done, then
one of the major problems of our times will be sorted out. But
how can it be achieved? Can there be a system which would, as a
matter of fact, recognize that rights as is need not be
enshrined in a constitution? If they can be enshrined in a
constitution, they can also be taken out, proving that such a
thing will not solve the problem either.
The solution will be to begin not from rights as is,
but
from
the
right
of
the
collective to fight for the rights
as is of the individual in the general interest of the
society. Just as all of production is carried out on a collective
basis and the society functions in every field in a collective
manner, the work to establish rights as is has to be
realized on a collective basis. In other words, the first step is
to recognize the rights of the collective. For instance, as a
collective, human beings have a right to flourish as human
beings. The flourishing of the human aspect will determine the
extent to which this right prevails in the society. Such a right
will forbid anyone committing any act which does not enhance the
human aspect. The right of all human beings to be recognized as
being equal in the political sense must be given a political
guarantee, so that they can benefit from universal suffrage. The
right of people not to face famine or the devastation of war, or
to live in a healthy environment, must also be given political
guarantees. In other words, rights must first be defined in terms
of individuals as they constitute a collective.
The conception that as a living being man is equal to
all
others of like kind first appeared in the thinking against feudal
privilege and power but this conception was not turned into
reality. Solely men of property acquired equal rights, including
those whose ownership over their labour power was recognized so
that they could enter into contracts with the owners of capital
over the price of their labour. Neither rights nor equality were
recognized until much later for women, black people or colonized
peoples. In other words, rights were not recognized by virtue of
people being human. Equality was given a political guarantee to
men of property.
The modern definition of rights has to begin on the
basis of
the quality of being human, as human beings appear in the form of
collectives within the present conditions. All human beings must
be equal in front of the law within a state both as individuals
and in terms of their collectives. All women as they constitute
one gender of human beings must not be discriminated against
because of their sex. Such a definition has to also enter into the
domain of the economy as well as in the sphere of culture. It has
to enter the national and international spheres also, which means
in the relations within a nation and between nations.
In modern times, rights can only be recognized by a
collective. By definition, such a right which a collective
guarantees must not, in any shape or form, hurt the general
interest of the society or the interest of the individual within
that collective or society. Such a definition of rights begins
from what must not be done, that is by abstracting that
which is causing the problem, hurting the general interests of
the society and the interest of the individual. No movement for
rights can remain aloof from these cardinal points. No longer can
the definition of a right remain an abstraction or be given by an
individual. It has to be concrete and it has to be given by the
collective. Secondly, the collective must pay utmost attention to
ensuring that all that which goes against the general interest of
the society is undone and all that is needed to ensure that
interest is done. The individual interest has to be looked after
on the basis of the same care and consideration.
A Clear
Definition of Rights:
The First Requirement of Modern Democracy
Modern democracy cannot be satisfied with a mere
recognition of
universal suffrage. The conditions as they prevail in the U.S.,
Canada, Britain, France and elsewhere prove that these countries
are using universal suffrage to deny the right of all human
beings to govern their own affairs. The lynchpin of a democracy
has to be the collective interest which must ensure the general
interest of the society and the individual interest of its
members. Modern democracy, if it is not to be in contempt of
human rights, must empower the collective to exercise this
right.
The world has witnessed various struggles for democracy
in
the recent period. However, has a collective come to power which
is serving its interests by ensuring the general interest of the
society and the individual interest of its members? There are
claims to this effect, but the conditions convey something else.
In the sphere of the economy, what is in the general interest of
the society? What is in the interest of the individual member?
The same question requires an answer in the sphere of politics,
especially in relation to the political process, and in the
sphere of culture. Even a cursory examination of the situation
worldwide indicates that such a requirement is not
satisfied.
A rights group does not constitute a collective in the
strict
sense of the word. A collective emerges generally out of common
interests from within the conditions which prevail in the
society, be they economic or other. A rights group also has
common interests but only in so far as rights are concerned. It
does not go any further. A collective mirrors the objective
condition. The collective of workers faces the same conditions as
does the collective of small farmers or small fishers or
professionals and intellectuals. A collective will fight for the
general interest of the society and the interest of the
individual members if it is in its own interest to do so.
Different political parties lead different classes,
strata
and groups of people and their interests clash within the
existing conditions. What makes the difference is not when this
or that political party or group of political parties comes into
power but, in the final analysis, when a collective in whose
interest it is to defend the general interest of the society and
the interest of its members comes into power. It is such a
collective which would finally proclaim that rights are as
is. They will require no further definition.
Note
1. Ross Perot is a U.S. billionaire
and one of the richest people in the United States. He ran as an
independent candidate in the 1992 U.S. presidential election, and
subsequently established the Reform Party to run as its presidential
candidate in the 1996 election.
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
