| |
A
People’s Freedom: the introduction of the ‘unspoken’
economic, social and cultural rights in New Zealand.
Anthony Ravlich
Human Rights Council Inc.
For so long suppressed the inclusion of economic, social and cultural
rights (social justice) in the Human Rights Commission’s New Zealand
Plan of Action for Human Rights in February 2005 is an opportunity for
people to take control of the human rights agenda and determine our
future freedom. But despite this significant recognition these rights
are rarely spoken.
The record of liberal elites, which have controlled the human rights
agenda since the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
in 1948, has been abysmal in the education and implementation of economic,
social and cultural rights with any progress being torturously slow.
Global elites, particularly liberal elites, often more concerned with
wealth and power, have every reason not to want to give their people
social justice.
Liberal democracies such as the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada
have been major obstacles to the progress of economic, social and cultural
rights which are concerned with social justice. At an international
level it took 55 years for the United Nations (with New Zealand attending
the working groups) to consider drafting a complaints procedure (Optional
Protocol) for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights which allows those suffering social injustices to make complaints
to the United Nations. The above liberal democracies have been the major
opponents of drafting. New Zealand has taken a neutral stance against
immediate drafting but happy to continue with discussions. New Zealand
at the international level (United Nations, Asia Pacific Forum), in
line with the United Nations position, promotes the equal status of
civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights
(the view that ‘freedom’ and ‘food’ are of equal
importance) but says nothing domestically to the people. Also the liberal
press in New Zealand refuse to report anything on these proceedings.
Also open-ended working groups (also attended by New Zealand) are presently
meeting to discuss the Declaration on the Right to Development (1988)
and how policies should conform to human rights so all people can develop
their skills, abilities and talents . What is surprising about the development
declaration is that it is the first international instrument to recognise
the equal status of civil and political rights and economic, social
and cultural rights reflecting what the United Nations, at least in
terms of rhetoric, has stated on numerous occasions (Lindberg
Principles 1987, Vienna Declaration 1993, Maastricht Treaty 1992).
This comes 36 years after the universal declaration was divided, at
the West’s insistence, into two covenants thereby separating the
two sets of rights (Henry Shue, Basic Rights,
1980, pp158-159) thereby enabling the West, and New Zealand,
to define human rights only in terms of civil and political rights.
Also while most jurisdictions have included civil and political rights
in law very few countries even after 58 years since the signing of the
universal declaration have included economic, social and cultural in
law as justiciable rights (amenable to judicial determination) (Mario
Gamez, Social Economic Rights and Human Rights Commissions,
1995, pp155-169). These countries include Norway, Finland, South
Africa and Russia.
Typically the liberal West only defines human rights as civil and political
rights which are concerned with freedom and democracy.
Noam Chomsky states
that economic, social and cultural rights are “largely dismissed
in the West” and in the United States the “contempt for
the socio-economic provisions of the Declaration are…..deeply
ingrained”(The United States and the Challenge
of Relativity, 1998, pp 32 - 39).
Human rights, without economic, social and cultural rights, fails to
capture the interest of New Zealanders because it is seen as having
little relevance in their lives. The Human Rights Commission state :
“Among the general population there is limited knowledge and understanding
of human rights, their relevance to everyday life…..”. (Human
Rights Commission, Human Rights In New Zealand Today, September 2004,
p376).
Human rights in New Zealand only deal with civil and political rights
such as freedom of speech, the prohibition on torture, non-discrimination,
and a fair trial etc but these are not as relevant to the lives of ordinary
people as economic, social and cultural rights are. Unlike most of the
middle class, professional sector, which New Zealand society tends to
revolve around, ordinary New Zealanders struggle to get sufficient choices
to give them ‘a fair go’ in life. Economic, social and cultural
rights are meant to ensure sufficient choices to enable a person to
live a life of dignity. The latter rights are concerned with choices
in employment, the rights to fair wages, health and education and an
adequate standard of living.
The information society which New Zealand presently promotes is only
as good as the ideology (Classical Liberalism) under which you must
work. We need to extend the ideological boundaries by the inclusion
of economic, social and cultural rights in law. For this what is required
is an imaginative society. This is vital if New Zealand is to be able
to adapt with any finesse to the rapidly changing world around us.
Recent world events are showing that an individual cannot be truly free
unless all are free. This has been demonstrated over the past 22 years
when the liberal democracies have promoted ‘freedom and democracy’
(civil and political rights) but have largely ignored social justice
(economic, social and cultural rights) with the result that walls between
people have grown within and between countries resulting in considerable
global instability. Freedom cannot exist when lack of social justice
creates so many social prisons. And this occurs even though most juridications
have civil and political rights in law as there is a vast difference
between law and implementation at least for those at the bottom. The
decline in social justice in New Zealand can be seen from the following
figures showing an increasing gap between rich and poor. The Ministry
of Social Development in 2004 provided updated statistics covering the
period 1982 – 2004. New Zealander’s incomes were divided
into ten groups (top 10% to bottom 10%, called deciles). The percentage
change of incomes (average household equivalent disposable income) for
each decile was calculated. The income of the top decile of New Zealand
households increased dramatically, by 35% over the 1982-2001 period,
while the income of the lowest five deciles, where most young children
are located, fell by 8% on average (Susan St John et al, Cut Price Kids:
Does the 2004 ‘Working for Families’ Budget Work for Children?,
Child Poverty Action Group, November 2004). The Human Rights Commission
states: “Research indicates that nearly three out of the ten children
and young people live in poverty” (Human Rights Commission, Human
Rights in New Zealand Today, September 2004, p55).
Jane Kelsey, Professor of Law, Auckland University, describes the economic
situation of many countries: “ Free market policies have increased
inequality within and between countries, and in the case of the poorer
countries have condemned millions to entrenched life threatening poverty”
(Jane Kelsey, Building the Constitution, ed C.James, 2000). Although
India and China are regarded as economic success stories what is rarely
measured but is intuitively obvious that the big gaps between rich and
poor virtually everywhere indicates the increasing powerlessness of
the poor who are unable to explain their situation to the majority and
offer their ideas. People need to be aware that sometimes ‘freedom’
can be offered people while ‘food’ is taken away while sometimes
‘food’ can be given while ‘freedom’ is taken
away. The latter may well describe the present situation, for instance,
while economic, social and cultural rights are rising on the agenda
at the UN the War on Terror is resulting in curbs on liberties in the
Western liberal democracies.
Former United States President Franklin Roosevelt in his 1944 State
of the Union address considered that ‘true’ freedom required
economic, social and cultural rights in addition to the civil and political
rights in the bill of rights. He stated: “We have come to the
clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist
without economic security and independence. ‘Necessitous men are
not free men’. People who are out of a job are the stuff of which
dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become
self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second bill of rights,
under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established
for all – regardless of station, race or creed” (Steiner
H.J. and Alston P., International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politic,
Morals (1996), Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp258-259). He went on to articulate
four essential human freedoms: freedom of speech and _expression, freedom
of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear (The “Four
Freedoms”, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Address to Congress January
6, 1941, Chapter 36). However after the war and Roosevelt’s death
America changed its stance and became the leading opponent of economic,
social and cultural rights.
In 1984 in New Zealand the liberal elite, which controls the human rights
agenda, reverted from Modern Liberalism, which had its origin in the
early 20th Century to Classical Liberalism which had its origin in the
17th Century. Whichever form of liberalism is employed (modern or classical)
by the liberal elite it is merely a matter of politically expedience.
The liberal elite’s belief system, at core, only includes civil
and political rights and the rights to property and as such they essentially
uphold the human rights law which is part of the system. Although not
in terms of its core beliefs, Modern Liberalism involved a concern for
social justice a response to the socialism that developed in the 19th
Century. The Cold War ensured the continuation of Modern Liberalism
- if the people were not treated well they could become communist. However
prior to 1984 there as a rapid increase in the number of liberal democracies.
The considerable ideological success of neo liberalism (or the globalization
of liberalism) is illustrated by the doubling of liberal democracies
around the world since 1972. For example, in 1972 there were 43 liberal
democracies (29% of countries) but by 2003 there were 87 (45% of countries)
(Professor R.J. Rummel, Democratic Peace (Internet), 13th July 2005).
Francis Fukuyama states that the number of liberal democracies was 30
in 1975 but by 1990 it had increased to 61. With the collapse of communism
in Eastern Europe in 1989 Fukuyama probably reflected the feelings of
the triumphant West when he exclaimed that humanity had ‘come
to the end of ideological history’ (The End of History AND the
Last Man, pp49-50). The success of the neo liberal ideology is not hard
to understand as global elites, particularly liberal elites, and as
well as the corporations, have every reason not to want to give their
populations social justice.
At the end of the Cold War liberal democracies led by America wasted
little time in reverting to their core beliefs i.e. ‘their natural
state’ - Classical Liberalism. Instead of adopting the economic,
social and cultural rights the East European Communist countries had
championed at the United Nation the liberal West ignored these rights
and instead placed far greater priority on civil and political rights
– Freedom and Democracy – with a vision (neo liberalism)
to spread liberal democracy around the world with its attendant middle
class, professional sector dominance supportively linked globally to
ensure minimal social justice for their people.
Tony Evans states: “Instead of fulfilling its intention of offering
protection to the weak and vulnerable, neo-liberal interests have co-opted
the idea of human rights as a justification for grabbing ‘even
more of the world’s (and their own nation’s) resources than
they previously had’ and ‘to steal back the concessions
to social democracy that were forced out of them at the end of the second
World War’ (The Politics of Human Rights, 2001, p104)
In 1984 the liberal elite (bureaucratic and business) went on the offensive
shedding modern liberalism’s concern for social justice leaving
it to individual responsibility. Bruce Jesson describes the greater
proactive role of liberals at this time and the formation of a liberal
establishment. He states that just prior to 1984 there were considerable
changes occurring at a sub-political level ‘with a mood of liberal
conformity spreading among a section of the middle classes’: “Students
who had experienced the ferment of the sixties made their careers in
the universities, the public service, teaching, broadcasting, some trade
unions, the churches and the welfare industry. These institutions and
professions overlap to a fair extent, and the consequence is a network
of influence that amounts to the emergence of the liberal equivalent
of an Establishment” (Jesson Bruce, To Build a Nation, ed Andrew
Sharp, 2005, p152).
Classical liberalism allowed for the cutting back of the public service
permitting a large private sector suitable for the corporations. There
was to be much less government intervention and this meant not only
less social justice but less efforts to ensure that people had access
to the civil and political rights in law. Caroline Thomas describes
the liberalism (modern liberalism) which existed prior to 1984 as ‘embedded’.
She states: “This meant that whilst the system aimed at reducing
the barriers to trade, in reality significant levels of state intervention
in the market continued. Governments were highly responsive to domestic
pressures, and were unwilling to leave everything up to the market for
reasons of domestic political stability and national interest”
(Thomas Caroline, Poverty ,Development and Hunger in The Globalisation
of World Politics, ed John Baylis and Steven Smith, 1997, p453).
The liberal elite (bureaucratic and business) is a very small group
and can be regarded as the political wing of the middle class, professional
sector. To date the agenda excludes economic, social and cultural rights
but if it is included it is unlikely, in my opinion, that the liberal
elite will be prepared to relinquish control i.e. the interpretation
and implementation of human rights. Liberal elite rather than people
control of the human rights agenda means the social control of the population
is largely in the hands of this group whose enormous power stems from
the dominance of their ideology world-wide, led by the United States
which is the only industrialized country not to have ratified the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. By contrast credible
alternatives such as socialism or ‘equal status of both sets of
rights’ are marginalised e.g. the poorer regions of South America
and Africa who also promote economic, social and cultural rights or
socialism.
In my opinion, control of the human rights agenda should be in the hands
of all the people not just left in the hands of a small elite whose
understanding of the lives of ordinary people, let alone the most disadvantaged,
is highly suspect. Our council, Human Rights Council Inc., has stood
candidates under the banner of the Human Rights Party (which can be
adopted universally) in the past two elections. Our plan is to have
the New Zealand Plan of Action for Human Rights included in human rights
law and to have both sets of rights entrenched and made supreme law.
Our intention is to educate by making use of the democratic process
by standing as many candidates as we can throughout the country. The
two essential requirements, which by making use of focus groups to set
culturally appropriate standards and statistical surveys to measure
progress, have universal application. They are:
(1) To immediately address the core obligation of the state with respect
to both sets of rights e.g. deal with homelessness, outlets for freedom
of speech for the poor (core obligations deal with extreme deprivations
of human rights – see General Comment 3, The United Nations Committee
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).
(2) To immediately educate all the people in human rights particularly
economic, social and cultural rights (our council regards this as a
core obligation).
Higher levels of economic, social and cultural rights can be achieved
progressively (United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, Part 11, Article 2(1)).
The liberal elite, which represents the middle class, professional sector,
should be joined by other groups to control the human rights agenda.
The following figures showing the representation of various groups in
parliament. It shows there is a need for greater involvement of manual
workers, farmers, union officials and small business people are represented
in parliament. In addition one could now add superannuitants and beneficiaries.
Our parliament is dominated by MPs from the middle class, professional
sector (77%). An example of this dominance is given by Jack Nagel in
the British Journal of Political Science (1998) who provides statistics
on the occupations of NZ Labour MPs:
1935 1984 2000(my figures)
Professional, semi-professional 17.9% 73.2% 77.1%
Business, other white collar 26.8% 12.5% 6.3%
Manual workers, farmers, union officials 55.3% 14.4% 14.6%
The backgrounds of MPs in parliament three years ago consisted of 10
farmers, 7 trade unionists, 11 from small business and 73 professionals.
To give an indication of how unrepresentative this is there are approximately
191,000 professionals (1996 Census of Populations),
327,800 trade unionists (Dec 1997, New Zealand’s
Second Report under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, p32) and 880,007 beneficiaries aBroken
Welfare?nd superannuitants (North and
South, May 2000, ). As these figures of the backgrounds
of MPs are very unrepresentative of society as a whole I consider that
greater efforts should be made to have more MPs with backgrounds in
small business, trade unions, religion, voluntary work, and beneficiaries/superannuitants
in the same way that parliament has now achieved a higher proportion
of women and Maori. Improved representation would protect human rights
by ensuring no ideology and/or socio-economic group gets the upper hand.
|
|
