|
journalists frequently ask:
what is the sense of working with human rights if "democracy had
already won?" They associate democracy with power of majority and
in their opinion free and fair elections are the best proof of it.
However, as history shows, power of majority can be very cruel in attitude
to certain people and different minorities. Precisely majory sentenced
Socrate to death and I doubt that we can say it is an example of good
political structure in Athens.
If we ask a group of people to write a list of 10-20 features that charcterize
them or their environment, we will see that features, typical for minorities,
will dominate in this list.
But usually majority forgets about problems of minorities and some of
these problems even arouse hostility. Therefore, unlimited power of majority
contains threat for certain individuals and groups.
And that is why in our understanding democracy - is the limited power
of majority, which is limited by all rights and freedoms, that belong
to certain individuals. Majority does not have right to violate these
rights and freedoms. <> In democratic society individual rights
and freedoms determine frameworks for the power of majority.
One of the key conceptions in the sphere of human rights is the conception
of law-based government. <>
Law-based government is such a government where there are clear, stable
and understandable to all people rules of game between an individual and
authorities.
It is a government where a person can clearly foresee how the authorities
will react on his behavior, because in such a government a clear law rules
this government, but not arbitrary officials and functionaries.
It is understandable that law-based government is not always democratic,
and democratic one is not always law-based. Human rights and responsibilities
are entirely in relationaships between an individual and a government.
< > And even though family, love, friendship or relationships with
neighbours are sources of a whole line of rights and responsibilities,
conception of human rights does not apply to them.
Human rights are not collective, but individual < >
There are two main groups of human rights: material rights and procedural
rights.
Material rights cover concrete rights and freedoms that belong to the
person: freedom of speech, consciousness, choice of place for living,
right for education and other of this kind.
Procedural rights - these are modules of operation and institutions related
to them, using which an individual makes authorities adhere to human rights
and respect them. < >
Material rights cover rights and freedoms. Rights that sometimes are called
"positive rights" are active responsibilities of authorities
regarding each of us.
For example, right for education makes government responsible for creation
of schools where all children will be able to study. < > Just as
the right for court foresees responsibility of authorities to build a
network of court establishments where every individual can go to solve
some important case.
Freedoms that sometimes are called "negative rights" are prohibitions
made for authorities to prevent them from intruding to some spheres of
our life. Freedom of speech and consciousness - these are prohibition
for authorities to intrude in these vital individual questions. In other
words, if I have rights for something, then authorities must do something
for me. If I possess some freedom, then authorities (government) must
refrain from some actions. < >
Some rights are considered to be inhere (natural). These are rights that
an individual can not refuse from. A signed document, where a person refuses
from personal freedom and becomes someone's slave, does not have any legal
consequences; it is senseless. But we can deal with our property, because
rights for property are not inhere (natural) to individuals.
Because everything related to rights and freedoms is happening on the
line of relations between an individual and authorities, it is worth to
mention three absolutely different approaches to nature of these relations.
First approach: government is paramount and government itself gives people
rights. It means that people have as much rights as government wanted
to give them. Such approach is represented in constitutions of all communist
and some European countries, ratified in the XIX century.
Second approach is based on the model of public agreement. Public agreement
is "signed" between the government from one side and people
as a union of individuals from the other side. People who are under the
rule agree to give money to authorities, for example, to pay taxes, and
authorities from their side are responsible to do something for this people:
adhere to their rights and not to intrude in some spheres of people's
life, which means to admit its rights. Such an agreement, more or less
favorable for one of the parties, is often called the Constitution.
Third approach is peculiar to American thinking. People who have natural
rights and freedoms decide to create a State and appoint a government
so that people will live better and easier. They agree to limit some of
their rights and give them to the government so that it can work. For
example, they agree to limit their rights for property and pay taxes or
limit personal freedom and when needed agree to serve in the army.
The last approach is totally different from the first one. In the first
approach people have only the rights that the government gives them. In
the third approach government has only the rights that people agreed to
give to it < >
The base for the conception of human rights is innate human dignity. <
> Human dignity comes from the essence of humanity, it is peculiar
to a newborn as well as to an experienced criminal. Human dignity is not
the same as personal dignity. Personal dignity we earn ourselves, it increases
if we behave nobly and decreases if we act mean. < >
Our rights and freedoms are like a shield that covers us, covers our human
dignity from intrusion of the government. Human rights can not guarantee
that we will be loved and cherished, they can not guarantee happiness
in our lives, nor can they guarantee justice or the least wellbeing -
they only protect us from insults and infringement upon our dignity. And
they protect us only from one side - from the most powerful abuser - government
and its power that in democracy means power of majority. < >
The mere fact of recognition of human rights and freedoms would not be
so important if there were no procedures that help people to protect their
rights from being violated. Government always tends to violate rights,
because it is easier to rule this way and achievement of ideals seems
easier. This tendency of the government is not related to some structure
and that is why it is very important to create procedures that would prevent
such actions, halt government's attempts to neglect its responsibilities
and evade rules.
In countries with democratic traditions in protection of rights and freedoms
people participate in court processes, exclusively, constitutional and
administrative courts, ombudsmen. Institutes of legislative initiative
and referendum, institute of individual constitutional claim and petition,
straight usage of constitutions and international agreements on human
rights, non-governmental organizations - all these institutions are made
for achievement of the same goal.
Some material rights, for example, freedom of speech, right to access
information about work of governmental institutions, freedom of gatherings
and associations, should be considered not only as values that must be
protected, but as instruments that help to protect other rights.
Finally, it is worth to say, that it is easier to protect human rights
if there is an appropriate political institution in the government, and
if there is separation of power - legislative, executive and judicial,
that control one another. < >
Inclination to limit individual's rights is an immanent feature of the
government itself.
Therefore, it is true about power of majority as well. That is why there
will always be necessity in public movement in protection of human rights.
Today we know that the stronger democracy is the stronger public movement
is, the more organizations that protect individuals from intrusion of
government there are.
In the countries with long history of democracy people noticed that it
is much easier to fight collaboratively. I observed it in Norway. Ordinary
Norwegian is a member of 22 or 23 non-governmental organizations. He may
be an unofficial member but join the work in other ways. There is a large
amount of organization, starting from skiing clubs and finishing with
the ones that fight with owners of the stores where vodka is sold. And
it is crucial that government helps organizations of such type.
Sometimes a term Grass Roots Activity - activity of the
grass root, is used about non-governmental organizations. Grass roots
are weak, it is easy to break it, but if there are a lot of similar organizations
- a lot of "grass roots" - they can unite and come up with something
that will be very hard to break, that will protect people from majority
and the government, that represents this majority.
|
