Without moral leadership, the future of human rights bleak

Tomorrow marks the 70th anniversary of the adoption by the UN General Assembly, on December 10, 1948, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration represents universal consensus that irrespective of the many things that differentiate individual human beings such as gender, race, marital status, age, wealth, or religion, there are certain rights that are so basic that these cannot be taken away from any person.

The declaration has had profound global influence, evidenced by the fact that it is the most translated document in human history. The declaration was a response to the horrors of the two World Wars from which the global powers that led its negotiations were emerging. They were anxious to avoid future atrocities by establishing norms of conduct that would be binding on all states, for the benefit of the individual person.

While Africa was under colonial rule, and did not participate in deliberations leading to the declaration, the continent derived benefits as the declaration provided ideological reinforcement to the nationalist movements that were then struggling to emancipate the continent from colonial rule.  Further, on gaining independence, African countries adopted written constitutions whose contents included bills of rights that mirrored provisions of the universal declaration, thus domesticating the language of human rights in national territories. African countries would go on to negotiate their own regional human rights instruments whose contents reflect the UN declaration. 

The world has changed significantly during the 70 years that the declaration has been in place. The fear of a third world war was soon overtaken by the Cold War, the competition for global hegemony between the United States and the Soviet Union, the two military powers that emerged from the misery of World War II. In Africa, decolonisation was achieved within two decades of the adoption of the declaration.

The speed with which colonial rule was brought to an end invariably meant that, within the newly independent states, capacities to carry out competent administration were in short supply. This translated into state weakness, the inability to provide basic public goods like education and water or services such as security and law enforcement. While Africa thus gained emancipation from colonial rule, the newly independent states would go on to face challenging domestic conditions and, where there were no violent overthrows of government through coups d’états, and perhaps because of the fear of those, countries would soon descend into various shades of dictatorship, with one-party rule becoming a common experience in many of the new republics.

The invariably repressive conditions of military dictatorship, or one-party rule, signified major derogations from the promise of the UN declaration. Political rights such as freedom of association and expression were necessary casualties. With the United States and the Soviet Union competing for influence in the continent, human rights transgressions were often overlooked, the overriding interest of the two super-powers becoming a desire to support leaders with demonstrated loyalty to them.

Grip on power

In the continent, the end of the Cold War in 1991 coincided with changes in the internal leadership in many countries where founding presidents had died or had lost their grip on power. With time, Africa came to see enough of coups d’états and the empty promises that these represented. During the two decades after the end of the Cold War, Africa has developed hostility against military rule which is now not a widespread means of taking power. Everywhere, new constitutions have become fashionable with a number of countries at various stages of replacing the independence constitutions. With the end of one-party rule, presidential term limits emerged in Africa and elections became more widespread. While elections sometimes resulted in upsets against incumbents, a new pattern of electoral authoritarianism is emerging, where incumbents allow electoral competition in form but not substance.

The universal declaration of human rights has since been supplemented with other human rights instruments including treaties through which the community of nations has elaborated on the basic rights contained in the declarations, creating a sophisticated body of human rights. In the period after the end of the World Wars, the state was seen as the key violator of human rights. The last 70 years have seen increased globalisation, a consequence of growing corporate power. In addition to the state, corporate entities have now emerged as major violators of human rights, or as facilitators of state repression. More recently, there is a discourse on the responsibility of businesses for human rights violations, a reckoning with the rise and rise of corporate power during this period.

On the occasion of 70 years of the UN declaration, what is the future of human rights? In the future, a more inward stance by the traditional human rights leaders such as the US and Western Europe has created a vacuum in human rights leadership. Corporations are the next superpowers and in the absence of moral leadership, such as led to the declaration, the future of human rights is bleak.

- The writer is Executive Director at KHRC. [email protected]