Will liberal Democracies always be the champions of Human Rights?
Delving into the origins of the modern concept of Human Rights, it is hard to ignore their roots in the Judeo-Christian philosophy which serves as the very basis of Liberal Democracy. Beginning in the period of European enlightenment, the idea behind “the rights of man” was the belief that everyone was to be treated as an equal being with basic privileges as prescribed by god. These “natural rights” were held in higher regard than laws which could be created by men, as anything going against the teachings of Christianity could not be considered legitimate in the eyes of the majority Christian states of Western Europe.
The 17th and 18th century brought about the most profound evolution of the concept of individual liberties and universal legal protections which have formed the foundation of modern liberal democracies. However, this seemingly Judeo-Christian concept has faced challenges in its implementation on a global scale as it has grown to include specific economic, political, and social declarations initially developed in western Countries.
While the modern concept of Human Rights no longer proclaims its legality as bestowed by religious authority, rather democratic institutions and international law, the establishment and enforcement of these ideals was/is done primarily by liberal democracies. The justification being that their authority comes from the will of the public, something which can only be respected by democratic systems of government. While this may sound like a reasonable source of legitimacy, democracy and liberalism are very much western creations based in European culture and values. This is the defining link between the concept of Human Rights and liberal democracy which cannot be ignored, further reinforced by the democratic parties which established the universality of such rights in the early 20th century.
In the 21st century, democracy is no longer an institution exclusive to western nations, as it has spread either through natural adoption, or foreign coercion. However, with the wider adoption of Human Rights values and democracy, the interpretation of such institutions has become further complicated as it encounters cultures and societal structures which do not have a basis in traditional “western values”. This has created a divide between parties which have various interpretations on the authority and definition of Human Rights, with liberal democracies championing the traditional concept.
The reasoning behind traditionally liberal institutions leading the promotion of Human rights on an individual level is their philosophical development of where societal authority is rooted. This criticism and even rejection of certain definitions of Human Rights falls under the concept of cultural relativism, something which establishes a connection between international enforcement of Human Rights as a new form of primarily western imperialism. If a society and culture don’t have a history of individual rights being ordained by an authority higher than the state itself, what is their motivation to pursue such a rapid departure from their own tradition?
This is where absolute universality becomes more and more unrealistic as a characteristic of Human Rights, whether by intention of its supposed guarantors, or rather the inability of both international and/or domestic institutions. Nearly all nations have agreed to the seven core treaties on Human Rights, yet the implementation of every aspect of each treaty has remained elusive to nearly all those who have ratified them. This has provided further ammunition for non-liberal/democratic critics of traditional Human Rights to challenge the legitimacy of its proponents, namely, how can liberal democratic governments criticize others about traditional Human Rights when they routinely fail to uphold themselves to their own standards?
The concept of modern Human Rights is not only being challenged by non-liberal/democratic systems, but also ongoing internal debate among traditional supporters of the system. While many attribute this phenomenon to the growth of populism and the decline of liberalism among certain portions of the traditionally liberal population, this is an easy way to dismiss any real critic of the concept and its failures. Poverty, lack of access to medical treatment, prevention of equal and fair justice are problems which still exist among the most prominent Liberal Democracies, despite their institutional guarantees.
The same conflicting adherence to international law has led many to question who has the real moral authority to act as the champion of Human Rights? China may be violating the rights of much of its domestic population, but it has not carried out a full scale invasion of another country with the purpose of regime change, committing thousands of individual human rights violations in the process. Asking individuals around the world which country is the greatest violator of Human Rights will result in a very diverse selection of answers.
Ultimately, who can claim to be the champion of Human Rights is very much based on the perception they have created through their own global actions. While liberal democracies in Europe and the United States have traditionally been able to maintain this public perception throughout the 20th century, global developments have solicited very mixed reactions to the credibility of these societies as Human Rights defenders. As more actors in the developing world emerge as political players in the international arena, public perception and political interpretation of morality and authority have begun to evolve rapidly. States are no longer the sole drivers of opinion as globalization and non-state actors have changed the social and economic landscape.
Will liberal democracies continue to be the champions of Human Rights? The reality is more complex than the question itself. Will they continue to be the champions of the traditional concept of Human Rights as established in the post-ww2 world order? Probably. Will their international credibility and authority as the sole interpreters and enforcers of Human Rights remain unchallenged and universal in an increasingly multi-polar, globalized society?
Probably not.
