Depoliticizing the Primacy of Human Rights

(March 4 - 16, 2007)
by Johann Carlos S. Barcena

Johann Carlos S. Barcena

“Does the universality of human rights require a particular type of democracy?” was the essay question which gave me the rare opportunity to attend the “Human and Civil Rights” seminar at the International Academy for Leadership. My immediate reaction to the question was: “If the concept of human rights is a universal creed, then why would it require a particular political system? More than that, why would it require a sub-type of a particular political system?”

What follows are my personal thoughts and reflections on human rights. In other words, these may not necessarily be the lessons which were taught in the Academy, but these are the lessons that I have learned. I am – or at least I would like to think that I am – a “statist.” I believe not only in the strength of the state, but also in its benevolence.

The reason why the word “statist” comes with a strong and [negative] connotation is that people fear the abuse of power by the government. This is especially true in the Philippines where the stigma of martial rule by the former dictator, President Marcos, still grips the hearts and minds of Filipinos.

But let us go back to the origin of the idea of a “dictator.” The term originated in ancient Rome. When faced with great peril from external forces, the people appointed a dictator to wield absolute power for six months in order to vanquish the enemy. They believed that six months was enough for all the forces of Rome to destroy an enemy, and truly it was enough, as the dictator was committed in his duty and wielded power solely to pursue this purpose. There is this particular anecdote, which I heard from my college history professor, of the exemplary example of a dictator which continues to mesmerize me and has greatly shaped my ideals. He said that at one point in the history of Rome, it again needed a dictator, and they asked a farmer (who was a former general) to become the dictator to vanquish the enemy. The farmer accepted, conquered the enemy within six months, and afterwards returned to his farming. The people, greatly impressed with the farmer’s victory, asked him to become dictator for life! But to this offer, the farmer humbly declined for he knew that for a man to hold absolute power for too long would lead to the Roman Empire’s ruin.

There then, is this classical liberal idea of the state: that in a social contract between the individual and the state, the former subjects himself to the governance of the latter in exchange for order and the protection of his life, liberty and property. For Thomas Hobbes, the state was a necessary evil to save man from himself – from his nature that is characterized by war and anarchy. But the state should not actually be seen as evil, as it is an institution created for a benevolent purpose. At present, especially in the Philippines, the state or government is seen as a terribly corrupt institution; to even speak of its power sends chills down the spines of the people. However, this present character and image of the state deviates precisely from what it should be and from what it should do. Instead of shielding man from himself, it has become the epitome of man’s selfish nature. Some may say that this is inevitable, for the state itself is comprised of men.

The previous anecdote, combined with the classical liberal idea of the state, is the image that I have when I speak of the benevolence and strength of the state. But unlike the absolute and unrestrained power of the dictator, the strength of the state does have its limitation, and that is the rule of law. The first section of the Philippine Bill of Rights states that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law….” The tool for the implementation of this principle against all branches and instrumentalities of government is the power of judicial review of the courts. This ensures that the state shall not act in a wanton, capricious and arbitrary manner which would unduly deprive a citizen of his rights. If the state is to act, it is in furtherance of a legitimate purpose and done through legitimate means. As suggested earlier, the raison d’être of the state is to serve and protect the people. That is why even though the government has the power to deprive a person of his liberty by imprisonment, or deprive him of his property through fines and penalties, it cannot enact this power if it does not serve a legitimate purpose, and if this power was exercised without due process of law.

Early on in the seminar, Enikö Gal, one of the facilitators and now a dear friend, gave a presentation on what human rights are. She said that the main function of human rights is the protection of human dignity, and that the essence of these rights is that they are deterrents against the “sword-bearing” state. They serve as a shield of protection against it.

Indeed, one comes to realize that a careful reading of the human rights enunciated in the International Bill of Rights – from which the Philippine Bill of Rights is patterned – shows that these rights are limitations upon the powers of the state on the liberties of the individual. When we began the seminar by discussing human rights problems in the respective countries and regions that we came from, what was apparent was that human rights violations were perpetrated primarily by the government.

The government does this in two ways: (1) It categorically states that people have no rights or (2) that it needs to suppress or withhold their rights for one reason or another. I must clarify that when I speak of the limited power of government, this presupposes (1) that such rights do exist and are held by the people and (2) the exercise of these rights cannot be curtailed without a legitimate purpose and through legitimate means.

Yet from a classical liberal perspective, the state was created to be an institution that would preserve order in society so that the people would be able to enjoy their liberty without harm from others. It is a social contract created for a benevolent purpose. It was not a necessary evil, but rather a necessary good. It was a tool for the preservation of human rights and not for their suppression.

During the discussion on the role of political parties in the promotion of human rights in the seminar, I presented to the plenary my vision of a government where the ruling party or the incumbent administration included human rights as part of its personal interest and agenda. There were a few who said that I was too idealistic and that such is not the reality. But if we do not pursue such idealism, then what is the entire point of our advocacy? In the Philippines, the reason why we have such a strong civil society is because it has become necessary for the preservation of the nation in the face of the government’s massive shortcomings. Many NGO’s serve as stop-gaps in order to minimize the detrimental effects of corruption in government, and also serve to address the weak governance structure prevalent all over the country. But had the government done its job the way it was supposed to, a lot of social problems would not have arisen, and NGO’s would serve as instruments to strengthen the role and purpose of the government rather than to save it.

Reconciling this discrepancy between reality and theory, it becomes apparent that the problem lies not with the state whose purpose is to protect the people, but with those who try to perpetuate their hold on power or wealth at the expense of the people. When we speak of corruption, it is not the system that is corrupt, but rather it is the government officials who seek wealth. When we speak of electoral fraud, it is not the election process which cheats, but rather it is those politicians who want to sit in power. The ultimate example of this situation is in the Philippines. For compared to most, if not all of the countries represented at the seminar, the Philippines has the most progressive liberal constitution complete with a Bill of Rights and a respect for the rule of law. And yet while state institutions possess this mandate, the Philippine government is perennially criticized for perpetrating human rights violations.

There is a grain of truth in the belief that ordinary men occupy positions in government. They are ordinary in the sense that they are susceptible to corruption, as it is in their nature. As such, the utopia that I envision is a mere ideal that may be impossible to realize. But while my education in the field of political science has taught me that man is naturally selfish, my learning in the Catholic faith tells me otherwise. As a young boy, I was taught that man was created in the image and likeness of God, and that God created man to show forth His goodness. Therefore, man is the manifestation of goodness, and even though he admittedly has a fallen nature (shown by Adam and Eve’s eating of the fruit of the forbidden tree, and which perhaps could be likened to Hobbes’ state of nature), he is still capable of goodness and consequently, of benevolence and a sense of service to his countrymen.

We had the seminar in Germany, a country infamous for the Holocaust – when massive violations of human rights formed part of its government policy. Yet now, it has progressed to a democratic way of life. It has enshrined the dignity of the human person in its constitution. It provides humane welfare services to its citizens. It has an enlightened police force with a respect for human rights, and it has independent institutions advocating the ideals of democracy and human rights all over the world.

Though a great number of men and women have lost all hope in the government, I still believe that the solution to the country’s socio-economic problems rest with the government. This solution comes in the form of men and women committed to serve the genuine interests of the people – men and women who will steer the government back towards the purpose for which it was created. It all boils down to the fact that we need good people in government; we need statesmen, not politicians. For it is only then, that human rights can attain ascendancy over politics, and we can finally attain universality in the enforcement of these rights.

I believe that somewhere out there, such men and women actually exist because I have interacted with some of them in the various seminars that I have attended, including the “Human and Civil Rights” seminar in Germany.

The measure and test of a truly strong government lies not in how much it wields the power entrusted to it by the people, but in the virtue and purpose with which this power is used.