Critical Appraisal of the Integration of Human Rights into Development.

Despite the fact that the integration of human rights into development sound very interesting and attractive as a solution to developmental challenges, however the integration of human rights into development is not without some criticisms. putting on the critical lens, the first question one is bound to ask is, how can an independent edifice like human rights be ushered into development so easily without restrictions. This act some have argued would only lead to the extinction and dilution of the main interests and principles of human rights and in some quarters, eyebrows have been raised regarding even the possibility of implementing the right to development. The doubts being casts as to the union of these concepts are most times fuelled by the perspective that development is purely an economic enterprise, discipline or phenomenon. Hence the criticism of human rights in development is also an indirect criticism of the change in development perspective from economic to human centred.

But with or without these criticisms, this integration nevertheless possesses key solutions to developmental challenges as development and human rights reinforce one another. But to give one the benefit of the doubt, it is necessary to undertake a critical appraisal of human rights as a whole and then its integration into development discourse. Therefore, questions like what are human rights? Who is a human being?  What do we mean by rights? Are critical questions to be answered? The philosophy of human rights offers us a proper platform on which to undertake an inquiry of human rights. The concept of rights itself connotes ambiguities as there are many descriptions and definitions of rights. 

It is not possible to get a clear understanding of human rights without first analysing the concepts that make up human rights. Hence the need for a clear definition of human rights away from the globally wide accepted definitions i.e. by going to the roots of human rights to bring out a clear meaning devoid of political attachments. Rights emerge from the Latin word jus which means what is right in accordance with justice,Kusumalayam (2008:25) and justice implies rendering to everyone their due, as such human right entails doing justice to the human being, rendering to humanity its due i.e. giving to humanity that which belongs to it. That which belongs to humanity is that which makes humanity what it is. As such, through the nature of the human being we can deduce that human beings desire happiness, mankind moves towards progress, towards freedom, as philosophers have long emphasized. Hence to deprive human being of that good life, happiness and self-fulfilment and actualisation which they seek, is to do injustice to humanity a violation of the highest order.

Holfeld described the ambiguity of defining the term right by designing four things that are covered by the term right, which are: claims, liberties or privileges, powers and immunities. Thus we have claim rights, liberty rights, power rights and immunity rights. Kusumalayam (2008:26).  Many philosophers have identified rights with claims. According to Feinberg (1989:68) “a right is a kind of claim and a claim is an assertion of right”. Rights have also been viewed by some as entitlements. Rights are essentially rights to not rights against “we speak of our right as being rights to as in rights to life, liberty and happiness not as rights against as has so often mistakenly been claimed” McCloskey (1965:118). Rights have also been equated with liberties or freedoms this can be found in “the history of most struggles for human rights which is largely an account of a fight for freedom against oppressive laws and governments” Kusumalayam (2008:31). Thomas Hobbes considered right as the liberty each man had to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature. Rights are sometimes seen as a protected interest because the content of a right consists of some good or interest to the right holder.

What do we mean by ‘human’?  ‘The term human being is generally used to refer to the individual as a biological entity, a member of a certain species, growing and living according to the biological laws which govern such processes. If one has the biological characteristics of a member of the species Homo sapiens, then he or she is identified as a human being”. McCall (1990:12). From the very inception of fundamental bills of rights starting  with the French declaration of the rights of man and the citizen in 1789 and the declarations of the North American colonies there have been “a major bone of contention over the ‘human’ versus the ‘rights’. While certain valued rights were outlined and specified, the debate has been on clarity over the individuals or groups entitled to them i.e. who qualifies to be called human to qualify for the rights entitlement, how do we know them” Keita(2011:39). The question as to who should be considered human and not in certain instances springs from the violation of rights which has rendered some humans inhumane. “The process of human rights empowerment shows that large numbers of people have become collective non persons who have been treated inhumanely and deprived of their rights.” Keita (2011:39).

 However, instead of going deeply into anthropological excavations to try to decipher who is and who is not human, it should be noted that what has facilitated this dimension of scepticism “lies in the historical tendency for tyrants and dictators to dehumanize entire groups of people” Keita (2011:39). The humanity of certain groups of people have been put under question mark as a result of inhumane treatment meted out to them based on wrong perceptions. E.g. slaves during the time of slavery were considered as lesser humans or not human enough and as such were treated in dehumanising ways to reduce their humane features, but this view was based on wrong conceptions fuelled by racism and prejudice. In line with the human rights principles and standards, it is noteworthy to emphasize that a human being’s humanity or the human status of certain collections of human beings only comes into question where either one of two of their basic, fundamental human right and human dignity has been stripped from them. Putting it simply, humanity only comes under question where human dignity is absent.  Some critics have used the conditions and culture of the marginalised to argue for the credibility of their oppression by saying that they choose to live that kind of life as that is what their culture stipulates. Therefore to drag them away from their culture is a violation of their cultural right. Indeed the ambiguity of the concept of rights has exposed it to various manipulations and complexities.

A criticism of the integration of human rights into development could as well be approached from the development discourse itself. The development discourse has over the years witnessed an array of intellectual activities as the concept of development has taken up various garments soaked in the politics of the day. This is evidenced in the fact that the concept has been used as a platform to propagate certain ideologies of the developed world. As such, the integration of human rights into development could yet be another one of such political gimmicks of the international community to constrain the development theories and practices of countries along lines that suit their political interests. Of course human rights is the first port of call seeing its global acceptance and global popularity. Hence we begin dancing to the tune of the new song before we even discover the realities on ground.

This integration of human rights into development could well be another political project of the US led world economy and the United Nations in trying to globalize and impose their Eurocentric and western ideals in development practices across the world, Seeing that the concept of human rights bears within it principles and standards that are easily catch phrases in the development lexicons of development aspiring countries. It could possibly be used as another form of neo-colonialism or colonisation of ideas and strategies to subject ‘third world’ countries to the principles and dictates of the international community (a means of controlling sovereign independent nations). Moreover, the United States which was a major flag bearer of the rights campaign starting with its declaration of independence that ‘all men were created equal’ and its role in the drafting of the United Nations declaration of human rights, was a United States which had at its backyard an institutionalised slavery and consequently perpetuated a legalised segregationist policy and racism towards its non-white citizens, so what rights exactly were they championing?

Therefore, the debate as to the integration of human rights into development begins first with the examination of and acceptance of human rights itself before we talk about its integration. One of the central doctrines of human rights is universalism. However the growing consensus in the west that human rights are universal has been fiercely opposed by critics in other parts of the world. The philosophical question of the possibility of any universal thing in a universal world, and whether human rights are an entirely western concept cannot be dismissed. Hence why has human rights been mostly identified as a western concept and not something universal.

The major criticism of human rights is centred on the universality of the concept. The various disagreement and contention regarding the concept of human rights is reflected in the level of the general acceptance of the human rights doctrine. Regarding the universality of the human rights doctrine, Tharoor(1999:4) asks “don’t human rights as laid out in the international covenants ignore the traditions, religious, social and cultural patterns of what used to be called the third world”? Most people see the universality of human rights as the colonising sceptre that is used to impose alien western values on them. The internationally endorsed document of the human rights which is the UNDHR has been classified by some as an entirely ethnocentric project evidenced by the fact that most countries were still colonies in 1948 when the declaration was drafted and endorsed. “They argue that the concept of human rights is really a cover for western interventionism in the affairs of the developing world and that human rights are merely an instrument of western political neo-colonisation” Tharoor (1999:4).

However, the case for the contention and debate as to the legitimacy of human rights becomes dissolved when we look at human rights based on the principles of humanity rather than principles of euro-centrism and westernization because it goes without a doubt that humanity itself is undisputedly universal, as such it is a reality that cannot be denied.  Thus the universality of human rights only becomes a matter of contention when humanity is ascribed with various badges and attachments which distinguishes and classifies human beings. Human rights should therefore be viewed with the lens of the principles of humanity which includes equality, freedom, dignity and much more. It is a perspective of humanity devoid of cultural and political classifications.  In like manner, the integration of human rights into development should not be viewed as the integration of the politics of human rights into development but as the integration and incorporation of the principles of our common humanity as enshrined in the principles and standards of human rights into the development edifice, recognising that the goal of development, social progress and change is one of the inherent goals and desires of the human race.

 It is appalling that certain sensitive issues regarding the health, human condition and wellbeing of individuals like child marriage, widow, inheritance, female genital mutilation which constitute gross human right violations have been argued for and defended by some based on the idea of their right to culture and their stance against the universality of rights. It is worthy of note that this barbaric acts are mostly perpetuated amongst the poor, illiterates and uneducated of the society while the so called authoritarian leaders impose and institutionalize them merely to use them as a reason for not adopting the human rights system because, they don’t see its violation as a threat to human beings but see its institutionalization as a threat to their continued stay in power. Most of these so called critics of human rights have their wards based abroad living not only the western lifestyle that they so abhor back home, but are even beneficiaries of the human rights system in place over there. So what is the case against human rights? The criticism of human rights is rather a result of failed governments and leadership who use the contention against the universality principle of human rights to hide their heads regarding the simple truths of humanity so as not to amplify their leadership failures.

Human rights principles entail principles that act not to the destruction of humanity but the preservation of humanity and the preservation of its goals and happiness. The Nobel prize winning philosopher and economist AmartyaSen have pointed out a number of generally agreed lists of human rights based principles and standards that are helpful to economic development like, “openness to competition, the use of international markets, a high level of literacy and school education, successful land reforms and public provision of incentives for investments, export and industrialization” Tharoor (1999:4). Integration of human rights into development entails the employment of human rights principles and standards in countering those things that directly affect the preservation of mankind through the violation of his means for survival and daily living therefore, “when one hears of the unsuitability or inapplicability or ethnocentrism of human rights, it is important to ask what the unstated assumptions of this view really are” Tharoor (1999:4). This implies that deep within the criticisms of human rights are unspoken assumptions and selfish interests which do not have the progress of the human being in mind.

Bringing holistically into perspective rights as enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) which has been so highly criticized as ethnocentric, time will not permit to single out these rights one by one in defence of each of them but looking specifically at some rights like say the rights to freedom, the right to life, the right not to be enslaved, physically assaulted and so on. From a rational point of view, how can anyone who is a rational human being speak out against such basic truths and rights as this, as not to be granted because they were not conceived along his cultural lines of thought. These are basic truths that supersede cultures and traditions and therefore should not be constrained by them. The culture and tradition of humanity becomes in this case superior. These basic rights are reasonable enough to be promoted by even a primitive man because no matter how primitive he is, he will certainly do all in his power to preserve his life.

As Kofi Annan the former Secretary General of the United Nations asked at a speech in Tehran University in 1997, “when have you heard a free voice demand an end to freedom? Where have you heard a slave argue for slavery? When have you heard a victim of torture endorse the ways of the torturer? Where have you heard the tolerant cry out for intolerance?” Tharoor (1999:4). To this cluster of questions I will answer except only by coercion. Therefore the intellectual justification for the incredibility of human rights is framed based on the fact that it is groomed and nursed by selfish ambitions and interests rather than reason. According to Tharoor (1999:4) “where coercion exists rights are violated and the violations must be condemned whatever the traditional justification. So it is not culture that is the test. It is coercion”.

It is important to stress that the universality of human rights does not translate to universality of cultures. Philosophical, cultural and religious differences can be appreciated but the universality of human rights reflects our common universal humanity from which no human being must be excluded. Human rights are derived from the mere fact of being human and should be analysed as such. “It is a universal idea of human rights that can in fact help make the world safe for diversity” Tharoor (1999:4). The principle of a universal moral order on which the rights claim rests on can be traced to ancient philosophical works. This moral order it is argued has a legitimacy that precedes contingent social and historical conditions and applies to all human beings everywhere and at all times. Plato had earlier postulated the existence of an eternal moral or natural order. Aristotle in his Nichomachean Ethics put forth an argument for the existence of a universal natural order which provides the basis for the systems of justice and provides a set of comprehensive, universal criteria for evaluating the legitimacy of manmade legal systems.  The stoics (Roman stoics like Seneca and Cicero) argued for the existence of a universal moral code which compels the duties on all to obey the will of God. John Locke and other enlightenment philosophers’ arguments for natural rights was based on or derived from natural law which was universal.

The concept of human rights and the concept of development share a common history, background and origin. In reality only those who have a means for survival can fulfil their right to life. “The idea that human rights could be ensured merely by the state not interfering with individual freedom cannot survive confrontation with a billion hungry, deprived, illiterate and jobless human beings around the globe. Human rights in one memorable phrase start with breakfast” Tharoor (1999:4). The integration of human rights into development is majorly facilitated by the economic and social rights. Civil and political rights becomes useless and unfulfilling without social and economic rights these two generations of rights have been described by Tharoor (1999:4) as, ‘Siamese twins’ inseparable. But on the other hand some have argued that civil and political rights can be used to enforce social and economic rights.

Another criticism of the integration of human rights into development lies on the fact or argument that it is not possible or realisable for everyone to have a uniform condition or to have a uniform human condition and status. This idea is often backed up with the idea that you can’t expect everybody in the whole world to be equal, there are bound to be poor and rich, and there are bound to be lords and serfs in every society. This idea however is notably propounded in ancient philosophical works like that of Plato’s Republic in which he theorised that individuals are divided into three classes, and Aristotle’s justification of slavery but they were however rejected during the enlightenment period. After having seen the benefits that come with synergizing human rights with development, another criticism of the integration of human rights into development is the argument on how a right like the right to development which is an offshoot of the integration of human rights into development, would be legalised and put into practice. The question here is, who is to be taken to court as a culprit if such a right is legalised? This argument questions the possibility of legally implementing the right to development.