The Present State of the Rights of Peoples
Julio de Santa Ana

Characterization

The situation of the world can presently be described as one of great contradiction: on the one hand, there is a clear realization that humankind is in a powerful and multilevel transitional process which, for the moment, is governed by clearly conservative forces while, at the same time, we observe the affirmation of the rights and responsibilities of the diverse peoples of the world on a social and cultural level.

This means that we live in a historical moment in which conservative forces prevail but, at the same time, popular elements insist on affirming their dignity which, unfortunately, goes unrecognized by the dominating forces.

Background

It is worth analyzing the elements of this contradiction. It may be stated that, in general terms, between the end of the 1940s and the decade of the 1980s, efforts were made to shape and keep alive a historic agreement. At the end of the Second World War, there was a clear awareness of the magnitude of the devastation which affected a great number of the world's peoples. Not only did the war cost tens of millions of lives but the atrocities of the totalitarian powers were such that drastic corrective measures were called for. In hope of avoiding a repetition of such infamy, there was a tacit pact of coexistence, at once tense and constrained, between progressive and reactionary forces. This "social contract" began to fade away during the second half of the 1980s. Since that time, it is the conservative elements which seem to determine the historical processes which are our lot.

New factors

This development went hand in hand with another very important process: the introduction of new technologies, especially in the field of information. These seem to contribute to the acceleration of social relations. At the present moment, the control of these activities is mainly in the hands of the established powers. It is true that progressive popular sectors can use these same technological innovations. Nevertheless, we must inevitably acknowledge that they do not control them. It is transnational capital which enjoys this power, flaunting an arrogant insolence which presumes to ignore the importance of social powers and processes.

The conservative powers seem to be saying: "whoever is unwilling to pay the price required to enter the system which we control will remain outside of it". That is to say: failure to make the required sacrifices to the controlling powers will result in disqualification and exclusion.

The excluded are those poor who lose the right to be taken into account. They are unnecessary to the system. For this reason, the agents who administer the systemic power take no measures to assure that the poor receive the minimum necessary for subsistence. It appears there is an inability to notice that this social irresponsibility on the part of the controlling powers represents a clear violation of human dignity.

The contradiction

This aspect of the situation contrasts sharply with the development of the awareness of their rights on the part of the vast popular sector, rights which should not be merely acknowledged in theory but which must be recognized concretely, in a material way. Human Rights specialists point to the existence of three generations of these rights.

The first, born of the great bourgeois revolutions at the end of the 18th and 19th centuries, is that of individual rights. This refers to those civic rights which confirm that the human being must be recognized as a person, and that all individuals are equal before the law.

The second generation, involving socioeconomic rights, issued from the social revolutions of the 20th century. These social rights complement individual rights. For example, the right to freedom of conscience and of expression must be accompanied by the right of workers to form associations which defend and promote their interests.

The third generation of human rights began to be established in the second half of this century: it consists of the rights of peoples to preserve the integrity of their culture, the right to development, to social advancement, to land as part of a collective identity, etc.

It is not always possible to harmonize these three generations of rights. However, it is undeniable that they are upheld in our time: by women and men as individuals, as well as by social groupings and collective persons (peoples, cultures, etc.). The tensions between these three generations of rights can be expressed by the question: How can we uphold inclusive processes which permit the recognition of persons, social categories and collective entities?

This is a key question, especially when we are to factor in the controlling tendencies previously mentioned, which are inexorably setting up mechanisms of social exclusion.

When it becomes possible to defend and implement human rights, the motivation to act thus by individuals, classes and other social groups as well as collective entities, must be translated into bodies of regulations, practices and social imperatives which have the force of law. This indicates that one of the major goals in our time should be working to translate the subjective impetus into institutional practices. This cannot be done without effort, without struggle.

What to do

How should these human efforts be oriented? Briefly it means a struggle for moral and cultural reform in the life of peoples--a reform which strengthens and gives power to the humble, thus putting limits on the arrogance of the powerful. To this end, there are three elements which, of necessity, must shape this reform.

First, certain non-negotiables must be affirmed, among them the necessity of recognizing the three generations of human rights. For example, the rights of the individual are very limited when they are not accompanied by the recognition of the right to cultural identity and to differences.

Another non-negotiable is the necessity of a new social contract to end the practice of exclusion. This is about fundamental justice which cannot be ignored by economic reasoning or political logic. This leads to confirming the necessity of reducing violent practices: an ethic of the gift of self should prevail over a sacrificial morality (especially when it refers to the sacrifice of the other). This also leads to the correction of the tendency to use people as instruments to fulfil selfish needs, which prevails in the culture of the dominant classes.

Second, this ethic of non-negotiables must be respectful of the other. The right to differences must be respected. If this does not happen, there will be no shaping of a dialogue of cultures, so necessary if we are to avoid the practice of exclusion. Among other things, respect for the other means no longer thinking that some cultures are superior to others. We must get away from the call of modernity to impose one line of thinking which, in fact, means the imposition of modern instrumental reason as the only valid one. Instead, we must move toward a universal dialogue of cultures on an equal footing.

Third, on the question of rights, these are not only human. They are the rights of life, a gift of God.