Is Democracy Necessary for Human Rights Implementation? Eric Peterson Candidate #000853-051 Human Rights Internal Assessment W.C. Hinkley High School May 2007 1,083 Words

Candidate #000853-051

1

“Democracy is a necessary precondition for the successful implementation of Human Rights” Comment.

Before we can discuss the issue at hand, we must first understand the issue at hand—we must define some of these terms.

In particular, what is democracy?

Can a country merely claim to be

democratic and be considered accordingly, or must its policies be a direct reflection of its ideology? Certainly, a country must fall under the latter category. (Especially in times of war, nations are known for blatant misinformation through propaganda, democratic or otherwise.) Thus, a stated ideology is not enough; the ideologies which motivate policy must instead be considered. We must also consider a variety of different ideologies in determining the link between Human Rights and democracy.

Is Human Rights viable in socialist states—or perhaps even single party

dictatorships? While a single party dictatorship's policies are generally reflective of the will of one person and one person only (as opposed to the will of the people in democracy), this does not mean that the will of the dictator does not reflect Human Rights ideals, nor does it imply that the will of the people reflect likewise.

It may be best, then, to consider different cases of both historic and

contemporary significance which represent the broader political spectrum. Sweden, for example, is often hailed as the poster state for socialism, a stark contrast to the relative slaughter houses of the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Its relatively progressive policy seems reflective of this. In fact, a search of Human Rights Watch documents on the web returns only one recent violation, which was in cooperation with the United States CIA: a violation on the international ban on torture. However, that is not to say that it hasn't been a serious offender in the past. “...It was revealed that Sweden forcibly sterilized more than 60,000 people, mostly women, between 1936 and 1976 as part of a bid to improve Swedes' genetic make-up.”1 Moreover, “a total of 4500 Swedes ... were forcibly lobotomized between 1944 and 1963 ... including some developmentally impaired children.”2 Certainly, the forced sterilization of women is a violation of Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and perhaps these acts can even be considered genocidal under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

However, this is not to say that democratic

1 Kirsten Hastrup, Human Rights on Common Grounds: The Quest for Universality. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001. p.105 2 Ibid., p.105 Candidate #000853-051

2

nations are not guilty of similar violations. The United States, for example, sterilized approximately 70,000 Native-American women through the federally funded Indian Health Services Act between 1930 and as recently as the mid-1970s. These sterilizations were often performed without consent, and under fraudulent diagnoses.3 Cuba, also a Socialist state, is well known as a Human Rights violator too, being called out on a near-annual basis by the United States. Primarily, Cuba is well known for its policy regarding emigration and travel. “The Cuban Government routinely refuses to allow citizens to leave the country.”4 Very often, citizens whose occupations require travel abroad will be refused permission to take along their children. Beyond this, Cuba, like many other Socialist states, fails to offer Freedom of Expression, which the General Assembly had called a “Fundamental Human Right” even as early as 19465. “All media outlets are owned by the government or party-controlled organizations and operate strictly according to Communisty Party guidelines.

No criticism of the policies of the government, the party, or the

leadership is permitted. Artistic expression is also covered...”6 This is certainly a common theme of most Socialist states, particularly recently with the advent of the information age. China is very well known for its Internet censorship, particularly due to increased business with Google, and its requirement that Google block certain content. “China's own President, Jiang Zemin, drew attention to the dangers of spreading 'unhealthy' information and appealed to the international community to develop common mechanisms for 'safe information management' when he gave a speech at an international computer conference in Beijing in August 2000.”7 However, once again, Democratic nations too often fail to fully promote this Human Right. In 2000, France launched a suit against Yahoo! for selling Nazi Memorabilia on its auction site. “The case led to a landmark ruling in France, with a court ordering Yahoo to block Internet surfers in France from auctions selling Nazi memorabilia. French law 3 John McManus, Matthew McManus; “Native Americans.” Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. Vol 2. MacMillan, 2005. p.744 4 United States Congress House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations, Human Rights in Cuba: Hearings Before the Subcommittees on Human Rights and International Organizations of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. U.S. G.P.O., 1984. p.8 5 From General Assembly Resolution 59 (I), “Calling of an International Conference on Freedom of Information.” December 14, 1946 6 Ibid., p.13 7 Richard C. Crockatt, Christopher R. Hughes, et al.; China and the Internet: Politics of the Digital Leap Forward. Routledge, 2003. p.58 Candidate #000853-051

3

bars the display or sale of racist material.”8 Similar injunctions have been put forth in numerous other nations, more recently with the Google's YouTube service in the countries of Turkey9 and Brazil10. More surprisingly, however, is the strong evidence that Human Rights can flourish in states ruled by single-party dictatorships. While certainly these benevolent dictators are equally imperfect in Human Rights appreciation as Socialist nations, they are often times more exemplary than some democratic states. Julius Nyerere of Tanzania is the best example. “It was argued by many that development would bring economic rights, which in turn would meet the needs for human dignity by emancipating the masses from colonial exploitation and dependence. Julius Nyerere in Tanzania ... prominently espoused this argument.”11 This is not to say that Rights were not violated. Under Ujamaa, a series of Social and Economic development policies, land was taken away from Tanzanians. In turn, these Tanzanians would seek compensation, however this was denied by judicial representatives.12 Nevertheless, Nyerere was very supportive of Human Rights in other realms, especially in its application to Africa.13 However, it's important to note that the United States is widely recognized to have done similar to the Native American population under Manifest Destiny throughout its history just as Nyerere did under Ujamaa. In consideration, it appears clear that no state, regardless of ideology, has a perfect Human Rights record. The general trend is that Democratic nations hold Human Rights in higher regard, and from this some may conclude that there is a fundamental link between Democracy and Human Rights. However, as demonstrated, this is not necessarily the case.

Democratic nations have been serious

Human Rights offenders historically and even recently, while Socialist and Single-Party states have even promoted them to a greater degree than the Democratic nations.

Therefore, Democracy is not a

necessary precondition for the successful implementation of Human Rights. Perhaps it is more likely to promote successful implementation, but it is not necessary. 8 Richard S. Rosenberg, The Social Impact of Computers. Elsevier, 2004. p.330 9 “Turkey blocks YouTube over video.” CNN.com. 8 March 2007. http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/03/08/turkey.youtube.ap/index.html Accessed 14 March 2007. 10 “YouTube blocked in much of Brazil.” CNN.com. 8 January 2007. (No longer available, see Google Cache): http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:9r99e3-8FHwJ:rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/edition_world/~3/72869011/index.html Accessed 14 March 2007. 11 Carol Rae Hansen, Human Rights: The Essential Reference. Greenwood Press, 1999. p.128 12 Brendalyn P. Ambrose, Democratization and the Protection of Human Rights in Africa: Problems and Prospects. Praeger/Greenwood, 1995. p.92 13 Bonny Ibhawoh, Imperialism and Human Rights: Colonial Discourses of Rights and Liberties in African History. SUNY Press, 2006. p.27 Candidate #000853-051

4

Bibliography 1. Ambrose, Brendalyn P. Democratization and the Protection of Human Rights in Africa: Problems and Prospects. Praeger/Greenwood, 1995. 2. CNN.com (“Turkey blocks YouTube over video,” “YouTube blocked in much of Brazil”) 3. Crockatt, Richard C., Hughes, Chirostpher R., et al.; China and the Internet: Politics of the Digital Leap Forward. Routledge, 2003. 4. Hansen, Carol Rae. Human Rights: The Essential Reference. Greenwood Press, 1999. 5. Hastrup, Kirsten. Human Rights on Common Grounds: The Quest for Universality. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001. 6. Ibhawoh, Bonny. Imperialism and Human Rights: Colonial Discourses of Rights and Liberties in African History. SUNY Press, 2006. 7. Rosenberg, Richard S. The Social Impact of Computers. Elsevier, 2004. 8. United States Congress House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations. Human Rights in Cuba: Hearings Before the Subcommittees on Human Rights and International Organizations of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. U.S. G.P.O., 1984. 9. McManus, John, McManus, Matthew; “Native Americans.” Crimes Against Humanity. Vol 2. MacMillan, 2005.

Encyclopedia of Genocide and

Notes on Sources The above sources are all fairly recent. All of them, with the exception of CNN.com and the United States Congress House Committee... are scholarly and reliable. CNN.com is a member of the Associated Press, and the US Congress is a governmental body, which provide for the credibility of the two. US Congress..., though, may be somewhat biased, considering its current foreign policy in relation to Cuba. However, this is a primary source, and may be considered more valuable in that regard. Unfortunately, all but the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, and perhaps CNN, are very wide in range, and only relate specifically to the topic presented herein somewhat—a limit. However, the breadth of these are also valuable in that they consider numerous aspects of the topic beyond, but still related to, the focus.

Candidate #000853-051

5