Educating for Human Rights

In most of the older democracies, categories of rights were progressively attained through various struggles. Thus a robust culture of rights may exist, at least partially, in the national law or even customs of these countries. In newer democracies, where the culture may not be ‘home-grown’, or may have been recently introduced, human rights are more fragile. They can be defended only if citizens know what they are and how to use them, and when state structures are committed and capable of effectively intervening to change people’s objective, lived experience.

Human rights instruments operate at various levels. Since 1945, the United Nations has set many of the international standards for human rights. Similarly, the International Red Cross sets standards for conduct in war. Although these provide a benchmark against which violations can be measured, these standards are difficult to police if they are not observed by states. A good illustration of this is the International Human Rights Court, which was introduced to give the international community a greater reach in implementing human rights protection measures.

However, the Court’s power depends on the willingness of individual countries to recognise its jurisdiction. The United States, for example, will not acknowledge the Court, believing that its own nationals should not be tried outside its borders. This weakens the Court greatly. Similarly, international conventions that aim to protect children from conscription are useless when countries permit or are unable to prevent children from being exploited.

Human rights may also be integrated into and protected by national law. In South Africa, for example, a Bill of Rights was included as part of the 1996 Constitution, along with a series of institutions aimed at protecting and nurturing human rights. Rights are strongest where they are universally applied, to both friend and foe. Thus, it is fairly meaningless for any country to claim to promote and observe a human rights culture if its conduct demonstrates an unwillingness to respect these principles when it takes action outside its own national boundaries.

The same problems appear on an individual scale if people’s lived experience contradicts or denies them the very rights to which they are entitled. In South Africa, we live in a patriarchal society that, more often than not, does not recognise the right to equality and personal security in the home. In such situations, knowing your rights is simply not sufficient. Children’s rights may be openly flouted by families and at the community level. Refugees are often victims of xenophobia and discrimination, despite a package of measures designed to protect them.

All these rights become meaningless if the circumstances in which people live make their realisation impossible. And, of course, inevitably and sadly, the very people who need these rights the most are those who are unable, through personal or social circumstances, to use them.

So we are left with a paradox. The more you need your rights, it appears, the less likely you are to be able to realise them.

Closing the information gap

An important prerequisite for human rights education is to ensure that these rights are communicated in a way that can be understood. Knowledge about what people are likely to understand and able to apply to their own lives requires careful research. If our aim is to reach and teach the most marginalised members of our community, we need to acquire an intimate knowledge of their language, communication patterns, culture and so forth.

Research is important. People, including human rights activists, often assume that they know their target groups and understand how to communicate with them. They are not always necessarily correct. Research into target groups may reveal unexpected problems and barriers. For example, UK research into the way people with low literacy skills look at a printed page yielded the surprising result that such groups do not read what they find in text boxes, as these are seen as containing ‘official’ information.

Owning a language of rights

Language issues owe much to the women’s movement, which pioneered important thinking about the relationship between language and oppression. Based on the same assumptions, plain language activists have campaigned for the use of accessible language.

Over the ages, language has been used and abused in a way that promotes divisions in society. Indeed, particular forms of language frequently reflect the position or status of a class, gender or profession that wishes, consciously or unconsciously, to set itself up as an insider group, above or apart from the rest of society. In a courtroom, for example, a witness may be made to feel like an ignorant outsider; a helpless victim of the mysterious linguistic rituals of the law.

According to Chrissie Maher, a pioneer in the field of plain language rights, ’Words can humiliate you.’ And indeed, how many of us have been ashamed to ask what a document or even a word means because we did not want to appear ignorant? Plain language activists argue that lack of access to clear information about our rights and duties is in itself a denial of our rights as citizens. We cannot own and use rights that we do not understand.

Making rights work: Public participation

Another way to improve the human rights environment is to open channels of communication and participation between the public and government. An interesting feature of democratic governance in the late 20th and early 21st centuries is an increasing tendency towards public participation. For instance, the African Charter for Popular Participation in Development and Transformation reflects the fundamental right of the people to fully and effectively participate in the determination of the decisions which affect their lives at all levels and at all times.

In this respect, newer democracies, such as South Africa, have the advantage over the older and more established democracies. Compared to many others, the South African Constitution reflects a far greater commitment to building the relationship between the electorate and government, and requiring policy-makers to interact with and listen to citizens. The Ugandan Constitution also guarantees citizen participation in the political planning process. The focus in Uganda is on intervention in budgeting processes, which Ugandan activists see as a crucial way of giving people the opportunity to comment on how public funds are used:

‘It is the right of people to know how their resources are allocated and utilised. Budgets are instruments for mobilisation, allocation and utilisation of resources. It is a right for ordinary people, and poor people in particular, to participate in the design, planning and implementation of programmes and activities that should benefit them’ (Gariye, 2000).

The Uganda Participatory Poverty Assessment Project began its work in 1998, consulting with the poor in both urban and rural areas. The information acquired was incorporated into the Poverty Eradication Action Plan and has influenced budget allocations. In the process, efforts have been made to employ language that can be understood. In early 2000, for example, the Ministry of Finance’s Planning and Economic Development made plans to create a citizens’ guide to the budgeting process.

Bolivia offers an interesting example of the way civil society can mobilise public participation. In Bolivia, public participation is governed by statute. There, the Law of Popular Participation established a national Secretariat for Public Participation with the aim of integrating civil society organisations and citizens into all levels of sustainable development and decision-making. However, the first ‘National Dialogue’ on poverty reduction and medium- to long-term national development left most Bolivians feeling sceptical about the sincerity of government and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

In order to ensure that their voices were heard, Bolivian civil society organisations launched a massive consultation of their own. The Bolivian Jubilee 2000 Consultation involved more than 4 000 individuals and 800 organisations over nine regions, and culminated in a four-day National Forum on Poverty Reduction in La Paz in April 2000.

Effective public participation depends crucially on having the knowledge and know-how to access public institutions. In the South African Parliament, where committees are constitutionally required to encourage public participation, the public can attend all committee meetings (except those that are, for good reason, closed to the public).

An abstract ‘right’ to participate, however, does not ensure that the voices of the poor and the less skilled are heard. In many instances, public participation channels are more readily employed by lobbies and interest groups with the sophisticated skills, expertise and finances to make their case. Poorer and less advantaged groups may struggle to organise submissions, and may be unable to afford to travel to where their voices can be heard. They are also least likely to know about their rights in this respect.

Conclusion

In many developing countries, the good intentions of those who draft constitutions and laws do not assure that large sections of society will be heard or empowered. Poverty, distance from parliaments and government departments, time, poverty (particularly amongst rural women), poor transport and communications outside of cities, and low literacy automatically disadvantage the already disadvantaged. This means that most of the work and any available funding needs to support empowering communities so that they can begin to play a role in public life.

State interventions need to include educating people in and out of school, at public events and in the media. They must also focus on the realisation of rights, through the creation and implementation of national laws and practices that support victims – domestic violence orders, land reallocation, welfare grants – and the application of sanctions against violators.

Educating and empowering people about their rights can be hard work and may be costly and discouraging. It is, however, essential to the creation and maintenance of a society based on human rights. Frene Ginwala, the former Speaker of South Africa’s Parliament, has said that ‘The voices of the people must be heard in our legislative and executive institutions.’ Going further, she has wisely noted that ‘this will not happen if we sit back in our committee meetings and offices. We need, instead, to seek out those voices and opinions and facilitate ways and means of engaging all sectors of society in critical debates.’

Originally published as ‘Human Rights’ and reprinted with permission from Pieces of the Puzzle: Keywords on Reconciliation and Transitional Justice, edited by Charles Villa-Vicencio and Erik Doxtader. Published by the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (2004). ISBN 0-9584794-5-3. Orders by e-mail to: orders@blueweaver.co.za

Further reading

K Y Amoako, Good Governance and Participatory Development. (Keynote address of the Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Africa). In: International Conference on

Governance for Sustainable Growth and Equity, Special Plenary Session, United Nations, NY, 28–30 July 1997.

Susan de Villiers, A People’s Government: The People’s Voice. (Cape Town: Parliamentary Support Programme, 2001).

Zie Gariye, Citizen Involvement in the Budgetary Process in Uganda. Paper presented by the co-ordinator of Uganda Debt Network at a workshop on Civil Society: Donor Policy Synergy

and Coordination, Glasgow, Scotland, 24–26 May 2000.

Sue de Villiers is an independent researcher and editor in the area of human rights.