Human Rights Policy in the Time of Revolution: Some Reflections on the ‘Arab Spring’

by Ghanim Al-Najjar

The ‘Arab Spring’ is widely seen as having been precipitated by two factors, the first of which is the obvious anger and frustration at the combination of oppressive dominant political actors or processes and widespread economic exclusion and inequities. A second important factor is the activism and investment in building consensus on regime-change from below by a range of political and civil society actors. These latter include human rights activists and organisations but many others, some (or even many) of whom are, at best, instrumentally or ambiguously committed to universal human rights principles.

Indeed, many of the basic demands – political freedoms, representative government, accountability, rule of law, etc. – of the movements in many parts of the Arab world resonate with core human rights ideas and principles. Yet, these human rights guarantees are far from secured within the transition processes to new regimes.

Conscious efforts are still required to keep human rights in focus in this period of transformation, a risky and slippery slope, in which events could easily precipitate a move in directions less amenable to positive human rights outcomes. It is critical to recognise that the transition represents a shift from human rights as a broad or general motivation for change to a focus on more specific social, economic and political problems. The challenge is two fold: (a) disagreements rather than agreements are more likely in terms of the analysis of and the solutions to these problems, and (b) the precise value or role of human rights in informing the range of analyses and policy solutions is not always immediately apparent or uncontested.

It is therefore critical that the prevailing atmosphere of general support (or at least the absence of hostility) for human rights across a wide cross-section of powerful socio-political actors is leveraged strategically. At the same time, it is particularly important to both strengthen groups already committed to human rights but also engage with those who may be less likely, in a different context, to support human rights–oriented policies. It is vital to “remind” the latter that committing firmly to broad human rights principles is a way to safeguard and secure the political space that has been created for them in the wake of popular movements. However such an engagement must be politically-informed and driven by two inter-related imperatives. The first is to translate a consensus on broad elements – such as the rule of law, freedom of expression, democratic accountability in governance and policy making, and pluralism – into firm constitutional guarantees with appropriate institutional safeguards. The second involves ensuring that an open dialogue nevertheless recognizes differences between the many different groups/actors but remains committed to collaboratively working through the democratic process.

The international human rights community has a key role to play in this context. The effectiveness of the international human rights community hinges on ensuring an informed engagement with a range of national actors across the region while at the same time monitoring possible displacement, directly or indirectly, of human rights considerations in favour of more political ones. This is especially important given the inconsistent responses of many powerful governments and inter-governmental bodies to the situation across the region. It is especially important to continue investigations into allegations of human rights violations as well as close monitoring to ensure that human rights protections are not bargained off in the face of negotiating complex challenges posed by political processes and reform. Facilitating the construction and strengthening of spaces that promote sound human rights analysis and dialogue is as critical as ensuring that key reforms within the broader law enforcement and the security sector, for example, are guided by human rights understanding.

The new wave of funding for state and civil society in the region presents a significant opportunity to achieve these goals but also poses definitive risks. International support must ensure that it does not undermine autonomy, or bear undue influence on local civil society. While support for smaller organisations is critical, reaching out to them also poses challenges. It is especially vital that human rights and development funding strengths and not severs the links between specific interventions and the dynamism of the larger political process.

About the Author:

Ghanim Al-Najjar is a professor of Political Sciences at Kuwait University and a renowned scholar of the Middle East. He is a human rights activist and a voice for democracy and political reform in his region.

Read More

An Activist State for Diversity: Some Reflections on “Neutrality” and Secularism in Lautsi V Italy

by Claude Cahn and Vijay Nagaraj

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber, recently rendered judgment in arguably among its most watched cases of all time, Lautsi v. Italy. The Court’s judgment turned extensively on the idea that “States have responsibility for ensuring, neutrally and impartially, the exercise of various religions, faiths and beliefs.” 

Intervenors such as Human Rights Watch also argued that, “Effective protection against violations of the rights of parents and children … requires State neutrality ….”

We take issue with the question of whether – philosophically or legally – “neutrality” is an appropriate conceptual or normative framework.

We argue that little in the history of human rights seems to suggest that “neutrality” or anything like it has ever been a norm conducive to the effective protection of minorities or other groups facing exclusion. Only an activist state, engaged in rigorous and ethical, rather than selective and instrumental, defence of diversity can effectively secure fundamental human rights. As religious fundamentalisms increasingly lead to patterns and practices of human rights abuses in all corners of the globe, we find the doctrine of neutrality not merely barren but an abdication of core human rights principles. We invite a call for an activist state for diversity.

Our full analysis provides further detail, and we welcome your comments for further discussion.

Further Reading:

• Full version (PDF)


• When Legal Worlds Overlap: Human Rights, State and Non-State Law (ICHRP Report)

About the Authors:

Claude Cahn is the Human Rights Adviser at the Office of the United Nations Resident Coordinator in Moldova.

Vijay Nagaraj is the Executive Director at the International Council on Human Rights Policy.

Full screen view

Read More

The Links between Corruption and Human Rights in the Implementation of Cash Transfers Programmes

by Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona

In recent years, cash transfers programmes have been introduced in all regions of the world, especially in Latin America, Africa and South Asia. These programmes are often presented as flagship programmes for reducing poverty, yet there are several issues related to transparency and access to information that need consideration from a human rights perspective.

The ICHRP report on Corruption and human rights: Integrating human rights in the anti-corruption agenda (2010) addressed the importance of establishing accountability and transparency mechanisms in cash transfer programmes. The report encourages the human rights and the anti-corruption movements to work together in assessing these programmes.

In April 2010, the ICHRP together with the University of Monterrey Mexico (Escuela de Graduados en Administración Pública y Política Pública del Tecnológico de Monterrey in Mexico) organised a workshop in Mexico City that convened policy makers, practitioners and human rights experts to discuss the links and avenues of collaboration. The approach proposed by the report is also now gaining wider acceptance. See for example, the views of Ariel Fiszbein, Chief Economist for the Human Development Network at the World Bank.

Further Reading:

ICHRP (2009).
Corruption and Human Rights: Making the Connection

ICHRP (2010).
Integrating Human Rights in the Anti-Corruption Agenda : Challenges, Possibilities and Opportunities

About the Author:

Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona is the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights and Research Director at the International Council on Human Rights Policy.

Read More

Media as a Weapon of Mass Illusion

by Emily Ferguson and Vijay Nagaraj.

The coverage of the killing of Osama bin Laden, in particular in the American and Western European media, reflects many of the concerns canvassed in the report of the Kathmandu Roundtable on Conflict, the Media and Human Rights in South Asia.

The BBC's coverage of bin Laden's killing is an example of how the media often fragments issues, sticks to simplistic categorization, leaving out shades of grey and highlighting complexities selectively without a substantial analysis of the context or background information.

In the wake of the media frenzy unleashed by Osama bin Laden's killing, the BBC dished out generous doses of the 'west versus the rest formula'. Consider, for example: "BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says that, to many in the West, Bin Laden became the embodiment of global terrorism, but to others he was a hero, a devout Muslim who fought two world superpowers in the name of jihad" (emphasis added). Anchors and correspondents alike freely used 'west', on the one hand, and labels like 'elsewhere', 'other parts of the world', 'rest of the world' etc., on the other hand, to characterize parts of the world inhabited not only by the vast majority of humanity but also most of the victims of bin Laden and his ilk. In fact, this mirrors precisely from the kind of clash of civilizations the likes of bin Laden so desperately thrive on. Arguably, a thread of imperial simplicity links to this to the code name Geronimo, the germinal other of the American nation, which as President Obama reminded us, can do what it wants.

The characterization of responses to bin Laden's killing, in particular those of the skeptical kind, again served to press home the problems with the BBC's approach. Consider, for example, "correspondents say that many people in Pakistan doubt that he has been killed. And in a debate run by the BBC's Asian Network on Monday, some British Muslims also expressed skepticism." This seems intended to single out a group – British Muslims – as the purpose of the programme was not to ascertain the attitudes of British Muslims, and there is no evidence that those participating identified themselves as such nor did they link skepticism, for that matter, to them being Muslim or British, or indeed both. This categorization of 'British Muslims' and 'others' not only aids a highly questionable black-and-white worldview but also suggests, as a self-evident truth warranting no explanation, that the skepticism of (British) Muslims is connected to their religious affiliation as opposed to others. It appears to be of little concern that people from different religious and political persuasions were also skeptical and that some 'British Muslims' were, in fact, not skeptical at all. The use of 'some' and other such statistical sleights of hand is by no means an accident. A video story on the BBC, headlined "Osama Bin Laden: Pakistan’s skepticism over videos", far from reflecting any official position of Pakistan, was, in fact, nothing more than the conclusion reached by a correspondent after speaking to 50 randomly chosen people, some of them in groups, in a busy market-place in Abbottabad a couple of days after the incident.

The report of the Roundtable points to the widespread tendency in the media to engage in do-it-yourself social science – passing off opinion as fact, perception as reality, and untested assumptions as truth. It is little wonder then that a research report on the role of the media in national security produced by the South Asian Strategic Stability Institute underlines the media’s role as "force multiplier" arguing that "today decisions are no longer based on events but on how the events are presented." In a highly networked world dominated by a discourse of security and risk, promoting a rational and informed public debate presents a huge challenge for human rights advocates. In this context, the recommendations of the Roundtable report that human rights advocates should insist on professional standards in the media rather than seek privileged access, desist from instrumentalising the media, challenge incompetency and go beyond just relying on ‘cultivating’ journalists are all very pertinent.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the ICHRP.


Further Reading:

• Conflict, Media and Human Rights in South Asia: Report from a Roundtable (ICHRP Report);


• A Conflict, Media and Human Rights in South Asia: A Summary (ICHRP Summary);


• Journalism, Media and the Challenge of Human Rights Reporting (ICHRP Report).

About the Authors:

Emily Ferguson is a student at the Paris School of International Affairs pursuing a Masters in Development Practice.

Vijay Nagaraj is the Executive Director at the International Council on Human Rights Policy.

Read More

The Problem with Tolerance

by Vijay Nagaraj

The need to promote tolerance, often in the context of religious fundamentalism or ‘differences’ in general, is frequently stressed among UN human rights bodies and experts, and  states and NGOs alike. My concern over tolerance lies in its meaning: to ‘tolerate’ means to put up with something one dislikes. Tolerance is a distinct form of constructing ‘the other’, not in the image of one’s humanity but as someone to be endured despite ‘the otherness’, which is central to tolerance. There is a social distancing – a polite segregation – implied in tolerance.

In essence, the liberal idea of tolerance creates a hierarchy between the one who tolerates and the one who is tolerated – for example, when Western multiculturalist polities ingest disempowered minorities, such as migrants or indigenous peoples, often held up as a model of tolerance. The power relations between the two entities mediate the dynamics of this fragmentation. Those who tolerate set the limits – Muslims enjoy freedom of worship in Switzerland but cannot build mosques with minarets. The manufacture of tolerance is a game of power.

Tolerance, therefore, contrasts the idea of equality. Tolerance suits the contemporary liberal free-market capitalist set-up very well: the model of tolerance being our acceptance of glaring inequalities in wealth and power.

In the words of Wendy Brown (Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire):

The thinner that public life and citizens’ experience with power and difference grows, the more citizens withdraw into private identities and a perception of fellow citizens as tools or obstacles to their private aims, and the more we appear in need of tolerance as a solution to our differences – a solution that intensifies our estrangement from one another and from public life as a field of engagement with difference.

Speaking of tolerance is a way of saying that we need not actively engage in the messy politics of power and difference. As Brown argues elsewhere, tolerance is a way of dragging into the field culture problems that originate elsewhere.

It is particularly disturbing that ‘religious tolerance’ is often invoked as a counter to religious fundamentalism. In fact, casting the latter as intolerance is a misreading of the phenomenon. Religious fundamentalisms are not as much about prejudice as they are about power; they encapsulate very conscious political projects. They seek a drastic re-ordering of relationships between self and others and challenge our autonomy to define our being and way of relating in intimate relationships, the family, community and at the level of the state. The character of this phenomenon requires us to call on ethical universes or pluriverses that can actually challenge it at the same fundamental level, and the liberal idea of tolerance is just not good enough.

Further Reading:

• Toward a Future without Fundamentalisms, from the Association For Women’s Rights in Development (AWID)
• Human rights, fundamentalism, power and prejudice, a conversation between Cassandra Balchin and Vijay Nagaraj found at openDemocracy
• When Legal Worlds Overlap: Human Rights, State and Non-State Law (ICHRP Report)

About the Author:

Vijay Nagaraj is the Executive Director of International Council on Human Rights Policy.

Read More