Question

there is less friction in all inclusive democracy

Answer 1

n an age when human rights are deemed as the cornerstone of our civilization, democracy, citizenship, and the guardian of our individual freedoms, the general consensus for many years amongst the majority of scholars (such as J S Mill(1), Isaiah Berlin(2) and F A von Hayek(3)) and politicians alike (most notably, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan) has been that these ideals can be achieved simply through the promotion, implementation and safeguarding of civil and political rights. In so doing, they have not only drawn a distinction between civil and political rights and socio-economic rights, but have also elevated the former to a higher status than their counterparts.

This was reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, although it recognised and endorsed social rights(4) alongside civil and political rights, was split into a two-tier system of rights. This led to the birth, in 1966, of two separate treaties: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”)(5) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“ICESCR”)(6), with the former enjoying supremacy of status and priority in implementation and protection of its provisions(7).

The role of social rights
The underlying cause of disparity between the protection of civil and political rights and socio-economic rights seemingly emanates from a long held misconception about the role of socio-economic rights. The idea that socio-economic rights should be accorded inferiority of status to civil and political rights – because of the latter’s apparent inherent negative nature – is not only misguided, but also self-defeating and counter-intuitive. Socio-economic rights are not only complementary partners of civil and political rights, but a requisite precondition to the fulfillment of the latter(8). At the risk of oversimplification, it can be asserted that civil and political rights have inherent socio-economic components, and that “enjoyment of civil and political rights is rendered meaningless if social rights are neglected”(9).

Indeed, discussing the justification for a greater degree of social rights, Justice Waldron reached a very similar conclusion when he stated: “If one is really concerned to secure civil and political liberty for a person, that commitment should be accompanied by a further concern about the conditions of the person’s life that make it possible for him to enjoy and exercise that liberty”(10), and that having freedom without the necessary material to be able to exercise it is no freedom(11). It therefore follows that if social rights are a necessary prerequisite for the realisation of civil and political rights, they (social rights) should be given equal weight and relevance whenever a conflict between civil and political, and socio-economic, rights arises. In doing so, we can promote and solidify the position of civil and political rights as fundamental rights to all.

Indivisibility of human rights
On a closer analysis of the relationship of civil and political rights, on the one hand, and socio-economic rights, on the other, it becomes clear that the relationship between the two sets of rights is one of “bidirectional support”(12). That is to say, there exists a symbiotic relationship between the two sets of rights, whereby one contributes to the functioning and stability of the other. Accordingly, the substantive integrity of civil and political rights would greatly diminish if the provision of basic socio-economic rights were to be neglected. This will lead to further corrosion of socio-economic rights, as the less well off in society would find themselves adrift of the political and democratic cycle(13), the arena which affords them equality of status. And the vicious cycle will continue. Those living in suburban Cape Town in makeshift houses, with lack of food and drinking water, or those living in the slums of New Delhi, or those living in the surrounding villages of Rio de Janeiro – p