Is Democracy Able to Preserve All Human Rights?

In class, we discussed the basic principles and goals of democracy, as well as its functionality in the United States. While there are many moving parts to any democratic system that differ in the nations in which it is implemented, the fundamental aspects of democracy are that it is a system ruled by the people with popular sovereignty, and where political equality and liberty are ensured for all people. Democracy was an original American idea, therefore the United States has the unique role of defining and setting the right precedent for democracy and showing what this system is truly supposed to look like. When democracy is practiced in the correct way, there are many philosophical benefits that can help a nation thrive from its core.

One of these philosophical benefits that should be an imperative aspect of any democratic system is that democracy allows for the recognition of the intrinsic worth and equality of all human beings. While this sounds desirable and plausible, many question whether democracy threatens freedom and liberty instead of ensuring it. I will evaluate this issue in light of recent events in the United States, attempting to see if the United States’ system of democracy truly meets the goal of guaranteeing rights and liberties for all, or if the freedom that comes with democracy inherently puts these rights at risk.

The horrific events that recently took place at Charlottesville beg the question of whether or not our democracy has proved successful in ensuring basic human liberties. While some of the protestors were exercising their right to free speech legally, the underlying messages of those protestors directly went against the democratic values of believing in the innate worth of every single human being, no matter race, religion, sexuality, etc. In class, we discussed the democratic philosophy of “my freedom ends when it imposes on your freedom”. This ideal is being called into question after the horrific episode of Charlottesville, because it has forced us to wonder if America really is a place today where the ideals of real democracy are living or if the freedom of those protestors has gone far enough to threaten the freedom of others in this country. While their First Amendment freedom to spread hateful words does not physically constrict freedom, many see the episode as a representation of the current state in America and as proof that the freedoms of entire groups are being threatened because of the bias and sense of entitlement that so many Americans have against entire groups in America. Democracy should not just ensure opportunity for the most privileged in the nation, but for all people. In this way, it seems as though democracy in America has not fully ensured the recognition of the intrinsic value, worth, and equality of all human beings. Democracy in America has appeared to recently taken steps backwards in that while freedom of speech is still alive, certain groups remain marginalized to this day, their rights not fully recognized. While it is an unfortunate part of human nature that some people will always hold bias and prejudice, the president and government as a whole have a duty to condemn those beliefs and publicly support a true and fair democratic nation where all people’s rights are recognized and protected.

3 Responses to "Is Democracy Able to Preserve All Human Rights?"

Marcin Jerzewski says:

September 7, 2017 at 2:46 pm

The “my freedom ends when it imposes on your freedom” claim clearly alludes to the writings of John Stuart Mill, so I believe that the philosopher’s original argument provides important context which may facilitate the discussion of whether “Democracy Is Able to Preserve All Human Rights.” In consideration of Mill’s concept of liberty, how should the government respond to events such as Charlottesville. What is the scope of the first-generation civil and political rights in a liberal democracy?

In his treatise “On Liberty,” Mill establishes “one simple principle” that defines the extent to which a state can interfere with freedom of its citizens, including the freedom of speech. According to Mill, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community […] is to prevent harm to others.” Therefore, in a stable liberal democracy every citizen should be able to exercise their right to freedom of action, free from any state or moral coercion, to the extent in which their action does not cause harm to the others. Even though it has not been explicitly defined, harm is what makes the act ‘wrong’ – what interferes in a negative manner with interests of others. A difficulty arises in attempt to define harm in speech, considering the freedom of expression.

Consequently, the Harm Principle in the classical understanding (as in Mill’s On Liberty) does not reflect the contemporary spirit of the times. Therefore, I am of the opinion that in the context of a modern liberal democratic society there is a need to develop a modernized, enriched harm principle – one that would allow prosecution based also on indirect instigation, the intrinsic nature of hate speech. I advocate for a principle that would demonstrate sensitiveness of current political climate, and could efficiently protect minorities and other groups which may be attacked by populist public personae who use discriminatory rhetoric to increase their appeal. This has clearly become an important issue with the growth of mass media, and in particular widely available internet-based social media. To sum up, I believe that restricting freedom of speech in the United States, guaranteed by the First Amendment, in an attempt to protect minorities from non-physical harm, is not contradictory with principles of liberal democracy, nor does it deprive American citizens from “basic human liberties.”
Esteban Lara says:

September 7, 2017 at 9:56 pm

I think that this is a very interesting argument to make about the threats that democracy can impose on its citizens. You’re absolutely right about noticing that in the recent riots, people show up with the intent to commit harm to others that they hold a bias against (this goes for both sides that showed up to protest), but they claim that they should be allowed to do so because they have a right to free speech. It’s certainly an interesting and difficult subject to talk about because many people claim that they should be allowed to hold these rights absolutely, and they should be allowed to interpret what these rights truly mean to society. But often leaving rights such as freedom of speech open to interpretation can lead to many harms, as well.
I agree that the president should respond to the acts committed at the riots but I also believe that there should be some restrictions set in place to guarantee the safety of people whilst still upholding their rights. For example, people should be allowed to practice their right to freedom of speech as long as it’s not being made in a restricted area, such as a highway, blocking traffic and generally putting more people in danger than should be permitted. Or allowing people to practice their right to freedom of speech as long as they don’t attack anyone or commit any crimes (such as looting or assault/battery) against other people. Once that happens, I do believe that the police should get involved in order to protect the right to live of the people involved in the whole ordeal.
Alexandra Friedman says:

September 10, 2017 at 1:57 pm

You provide an extremely interesting perspective relating democracy to human rights. For me, after reading this, it made me wonder what Americans truly value. Do we care more about our freedom to do what we want than protecting our citizens? While in certain situations, this answer may seem clear, it is actually an extremely challenging question. There are many situations in which various groups feel marginalized, and if we tried to stop all of them it would result in the government overstepping. On the other hand, is it better to just sit back idly and let these groups act this way? In the case of Charlottesville, many people openly condemned the white supremacy and neo-nazi groups, but, technically they are allowed to assemble and protest.

The problem lies in the fact that even when they are just using their freedom of speech and protesting, they are still threatening other people. This may not be in a physical sense (in which case the police can and should intervene), but simply by exercising their first amendment right to freedom of speech. The problem is, the groups they are protesting against still feel threatened. They are trying to make valued Americans feel as though they do not belong and should be marginalized. In this regard, they are overstepping the freedom of other people just by speaking out. And while it is easy to say it is their right to do this (which it technically is), it is also our right to protect our fellow Americans and allow them the freedom to feel comfortable and happy.

Thus, where do we draw the line? Do we continue to let some groups marginalize others- even if it is just through words? In my opinion, there is no easy answer. Our country is built on the ideal of freedom whether we like it or not. And, if we overstep the freedom of one group to help another, we will never know where to draw the line. But, at the same time, our country was built on everyone being treated as an equal, and we do have some duty to protect all of our citizens and make them feel welcomed.

Comments are closed.