DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

PREPARED BY

UMAIR

HUMAN RIGHTS (THE DILEMMA)

Despite the propagation of declarations, covenants, and other international agreements in the majority of countries in today’s world, human rights still are an ideal rather than the norm.

Likewise, the presence of human rights in constitutions does not translate into actual respect for all human rights

It depends primarily on the character of a political system and on the social conditions and beliefs about the political system that prevail among the elites and common citizens

PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Historical experience and a review of the violations in today’s world suggest that human rights are better protected in political systems that are based on the principle of separation of powers

without separation of power the rights of individuals and minorities cannot be effectively protected

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS

• INDEPENDENT COURTS– One such check consists of independent courts to which

citizens can bring complaints about violations. – Federal judiciary serves as an additional safeguard for the

separation of power and for the rights of individuals and minorities.

Accordingly, the 1789 French Declaration stated that “any society in which the guarantee of rights is not assured or the separation of powers not

settled, has no constitution” (Article 16). 70

• INDEPENDENCE OF THE MEDIA AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH.– Human rights are also enhanced by the

independence of the media and freedom of speech.

– Right to information prevents concentration and abuse of power under the veil of secrecy.

• Since the end of World War II, human rights have been considered an essential element of democracy.

• Conventional opinion holds that human rights cannot exist in the absence of democracy and democracy cannot exist without human rights.

Democracy and human rights

Democracy assures participation whereas rights protect dignity Dignity can hardly exit without participationTrue democracy is not possible without the recognition and protection of individual dignity Democracy and human rights are interdependent

Rights: foundation of democracy

There can be no democracy without such political rights as the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs

Democracy requires freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of movement etc

In democratic state, human rights can flourishBy definition, human rights are equal for everyone regardless of distinctions of sex, race, wealth, hierarchy and so onDemocracy entrenches such equality because government provides a mechanism for control over those who exercise powerState have to be made accessible to individuals

Individual rights emerged as protectionThey are as important in democracy as under autocracyHuman rights protect individual from majorityGovernment acting with a support of a majority Individual rights protect a person againt the

will of the majority

protection of individual rightsHuman rights also protect the individual In other words, rights protect the individual

when the majority wants to pursue its happiness at the expense of this individual

Legitimate interests clash with the interest of the majority

“A right is a claim that is wrong for the government to deny an individual even though it would be in the general interest to do so”

Principles of democracy and the public good

Constitutional

Democracy

Democracy

Whereas Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or indirectly through elected representatives.

Constitutional Democracy• A constitutional democracy is a government

system that is based on popular sovereignty. It is a democracy because the government is based on the consent of the people. The government operates according to the principle of majority rule. In a constitutional democracy, the structures, powers as well as limits of government are set out in a constitution.

Constitutional  Demoocratic

Constitutional Democracy

The Constitutional IngredientThis ingredient relates to:• how political authority is defined, limited, and distributed by law• the basic law of the political community, • the power of government• the limitation of the will of the majority, as well as the protection of

constitutional democracy.

In particular, constitutions protect such minority and individual rights that can be threatened by a majority under interest or passion. Such constitutional rights differ from statutory rights and benefits because they cannot be curtailed by democratic legislators.

Statutory rights

“Statutory rights are a person's legal rights granted by local and national government. These rights are based on cultural customs and differ from one country to another. A key example of a statutory right is the right of employees to be paid for the work they perform”.

Although statutes protect individuals and minorities against executive power, they leave them helpless vis-`a-vis legislature that can change a statute at will. In countries where the separation of powers and constitutional courts do not exist, a temporary majority can take certain rights away.

• Enabling Act” of March 23, 1933, gave the veil of legitimacy to Nazi rule and to the subsequent Nurnberg laws directed against Jews was adopted by a majority of votes in the German Reichstag.

• Constitutions also offer protection of rights against legislatures. Legislators may adopt any bill except for such that may be in conflict with the constitution. Therefore, a statute cannot violate the rights of national minorities ,the rights of believers or nonbelievers, even if the majority is in favor of such a law or not.

Democratic Ingredient• It define the way in which social decisions are made,• The limitations of such decisions • Who holds and exercises political authority and • How political authority is acquired and retained.

• In a constitutional state, the conditions under which human rights can be limited or suspended are spelled out in the constitution. Statutory limitations of rights are allowed to protect values such as national security, public safety, public health, and, sometimes, public morality.

• Even during emergencies, constitutional rights cannot be left to the arbitrary will of the authorities. Constitutions usually define the situations in which an emergency can be invoked and the authority and procedure by which this emergency can be declared.

• Rights that are upheld during an emergency and cannot be abridged within the process of constitutional change can be considered “supraconstitutional.”

The Logic of Democracy and the Logic of Rights

This conflict reflects the different principles governing political process and legal adjudication. Society sets its priorities via democratic process.

When there is a simultaneous need to build schools, roads, and bridges in conditions of inadequate resources – all three at the same time – priorities must be set. A public DEBATE ensues, in which some people (usually parents, teachers, and others with astake in education) suggest that schools be built first. Others (usually the car industry and car owners, particularly those who do not have school-age children) press for the roads and bridges to be built first – in part, they argue, so that children can be takento schools by way of these new roads and bridges.

FOR EXAMPLE

Of course, despite what these examples may suggest, such a debate is not restricted to self-interests, involving more general principles and an examination of alternate visions of the future (e.g., the benefits of an educated society vs. the benefits of mobility for economy and personal freedom)

The rights to assembly and to form political parties, the freedoms of expression and association, and political rights are in place to protect the debate; to assure everyone an opportunity to participate and to secure that both the debate itself and its results are fair.

The debate may lead to one group prevailing over the other

or, more often, to a compromise, with the law

stating that some schools and some roads be built

simultaneously. But a compromise is not written in stone. Laws can be changed, particularly after elections; budgets change every year.

In cases of choice between public policy goals and of the allocation of resources, a compromise between

interests and goals is set for one year only. This compromise takes the form Of a state budget, which

cannot look too far ahead for many reasons, including uncertainty about future availability of resources and

changing perceptions of public needs.

But constitutions are not written for one year. Once adopted, their provisions are not subject to debate and compromise. If I claim that I have a constitutional right to something, I go to court. The judge decides whether I have this right and if this right can be applied in the given situation. There are no compromises in constitutional courts – either I win or I lose.

When we put something into a constitution, we limit the legislators’ choice;they cannot violate the constitution. This essentially means that the more principles, values, rights, and goals we include in the constitution, the less room is left for democratic political process and the fewer resources are available to be freely allocated or redistributed by legislators.

Only after it has put aside the money for all these expenditurescan a government begin the political process of bargaining and arguing aboutthe allocation of whatever is left. In this way, every constitutional right takes awayresources that could otherwise be available for democratic debate and compromise.

Here, we have what appears to be a paradox of modern constitutionalism: themore there is in the constitution, the less room there remains for democracy andfor compromises within society and, consequently, the less power for parliamentand more power for those courts in which constitutional claims are settled.

A slightly different perspective is that a constitutional right can be compared toa veto power. A right-holder is entitled to say to the majority: “No, you cannot gotrampling over my right.” In most cases, this is justified by the basic character ofrights: they protect the values and resources necessary for the security and dignity of an individual. However, when constitutional rights go beyond these limits to protect the whims of individuals or group interests, they can disrupt the political community by providing too many people with too broad a veto power. Consequently, citizens and pressure groups can end up disrupting necessary cooperation in pursuit of their own selfish interests.

Excessive constitutionalization of rights also affects the character and content of political debate. Political conflicts are, after all, necessary to offer voters a choice. People would not know for whom to vote if everyone agreed with all other contenders.

The complex interplay between rights and democracy suggests caution in defining what ought to belong to a constitution and what should be left for democratic public policy. Some matters should simply be set and adjusted in the political process and not be framed as constitutional rights.

Similarly, the interests of particular social groups, even those of the most powerful or numerous (be they workers, peasants, capitalists or politicians), should be left out of the constitution to be deliberated in a democratic political process.

Constitutions should be limited to necessary institutions, procedural rules, and the very basic rights, without gettinginto matters of public policy that benefit from being left to open debate and political solutions. All this is because the inflation of constitutional rights can weaken democracy. That deserves to be the guiding principle during the process of constitution making.

The Challenges of Democratic Constitution Making

The pressure to entrench in the constitution not only the rights

but also the interests of society’s various groups has been

particularly strong – and often irresistible –during constitution

making in the transition countries

As a rule, any simultaneoussystemic shift to both constitutionalism and democracy seems to obey the following principle:

The more democratic the framing process, the more rights are insertedinto a constitution, and, consequently, the less room for future democracy is left in the new constitution.24

This problem is further exacerbated by the dynamics of transition itself. Usually,during authoritarian rule, demands for

change are formulated in terms of rights.People living under a dictatorship believe that every right put into the constitution

will further limit the dictator’s discretionary power, so strengthening the

society

Human rights seem especially attractive to the excluded, because those who areexcluded generally do not hope for access to decision making. When such access is ,in fact, possible, people tend to put their hopes in democracy instead. “When we arefinally permitted to freely elect our government, it will be a good government andit will take care of our needs” – so goes the common hope at the beginning of anydemocratization process. Such expectations, however, almost inevitably end up asfrustrations for a number of good reasons. The most common is the lack of adequateresources to meet all needs and expectations fast enough. Conflicting interests,contests among new elites, corruption, and other factors magnify the frustration.What follows are new attempts at social mobilization on the one hand and thereturn of human rights claims on the other.

ILLIBERAL AND POPULIST DEMOCRACIES

ILLIBERAL DEMOCRACY

Definition:-

“An illiberal democracy, also called a pseudo democracy, partial democracy, low intensity democracy, empty democracy or hybrid regime, is a governing system in which, although elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties.

It is not an 'open society'.

POPULIST DEMOCRACY

Definition:-

“A supporter of the rights and power of the people.”

(Historical Terms) history US a member of the People's Party, formed largely by agrarian interests to contest the 1892 presidential election. The movement gradually dissolved after the 1904 election

Conflicts between rights and democracy have resurfaced with many recent transitions to democracy. A single crucial element of the so-called promotion of democracy by the United Stated and its allies is the requirement that states hold popular elections, seen as a precondition for international recognition of a regime as well as for any foreign aid.

According to democratic theory, free elections provide the necessary legitimacy to elected authorities. In fact, however, in many countries lacking democratic traditions or prior social and institutional structures conducive to democracy, the choice provided by elections has often been illusory. And even in more mature democracies, elections have often done little to help voters exercise control over elected officials

A common characteristic of these illiberal and populist “democracies” is a conviction shared by their leaders that electoral victory gives them unlimited power. Many of them have attempted to weaken the separation of powers and have sought to control all independent institutions, including the judiciary. Usually, populist leaders use all accessible means to spread fear among citizens, precisely so that they will be seen as the ones who are able to save the voters from real or imaginary threats.

Fear is crucial for both dictatorships and populist democracies. The difference is that a dictator’s message is “fear me or I will harm you.” A populist, instead, says “fear them and I will save you.” In practice, both illiberal and populist “democracies” justify violations of human rights by quoting the alleged interest “of the people.”

Populist leaders say that they respond to opinions and preferences of a majority of citizens. With time, however, they almost inevitably depart from democracy itself.

The examples of Iran under Khomeini, and Russia under Putin should be convincing. Poland under the rule of the Kaczynski twins came dangerously close to this line, too. The last example proves that even membership in the European Union (EU) does not guarantee protection from populism. Interestingly, the EU has been the most important agent of change in favour of human rights in Central Europe, upholding rights among the preaccession criteria. As a result, all accession countries have had to adjust their legislation and institutions to human rights standards.

Conclusion:-

It can be said that populist politics essentially replace rational arguments with appeals to fear and other emotions. However, a similar shift away from rational discourse is also present in most well-established democracies.

E-Democracy

Democracy

Government of the people, by the people, for the people

What is E-Democracy?

e-Democracy is…• e-voting • e-political campaigning• e-participation

Defining e-democracy

• E-democracy is:– the use of information and

communication technologies and strategies

– by “democratic sectors”

– within the political processes of local communities, states, nations and on the global stage.

Political Groups

Private SectorGovernment

Media and Commercial

Content

Application Of E- Democracy

• E-democracy can be applied within the political processes of local communities, states/regions, nations and on the global stage. Democratic actors and sectors in this context include, in order of importance, citizens/voters, political organizations, the media, elected officials, and governments.

E- Democratic Sectors:

• Representative Institutions• Representatives• Political News• Political Groups • Campaigning Online