What connections are there between human rights and democracy?

Do democratic governments always protect human rights? As discussed in the previous response, all democratic settings contain an array of ways in which they address and uphold values within human rights. However, it’s crucial to understand that human rights aren’t always upheld and that violations of these rights happen more frequently than people realize. These violations can take many different forms, including discrimination, arbitrary detention, neglect, and more, and they can be perpetrated by individuals, organizations, or even the government. Both representative and direct democratic governments possess instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for protecting human rights, however the manner in which these components are executed may lead to potential risks and violations. Since citizens in direct democracies have a voice in establishing laws and policies, there may be a higher likelihood that their rights are respected and heard. However, since initiatives must be approved by the majority, minority rights could be undermined. Minority groups are referred to groups within a society that are smaller in number, setting them apart from the majority group of a population. Certain groups who are marginalized or at a disadvantage may not have easy access to resources, information, political engagement, and may be subject to social stigma. Because direct democracies restrict minority groups’ ability to participate and be represented, they may be vulnerable to breaches of human rights. As mentioned previously, Switzerland is considered a direct democracy. A ban on full face coverings was enacted by the Swiss parliament in 2021, since about 51% of the population was in favor of it. This ban did not apply to face coverings used during the pandemic due to health concerns, but it did prohibit coverings that hid the eyes, nose, and mouth in all public spaces. Although Switzerland claims to respect religious liberty, the ban on face coverings –such as the niqabs and burqas worn by Muslim women– raises questions about human rights. The right to freedom of religion and belief is considered a fundamental human right, yet this ban restricts Muslim women from wearing religious attire and their rights to freely practice their religious beliefs. For some individuals, wearing a burqa or niqab is a form of expression and identity, and this ban breaches their freedom of expression. Alongside that, their right to privacy is infringed upon, given every person has the right to control their own appearance and clothing choices. Although not mentioned directly, this ban unfairly singles out a certain religious or cultural group, which can also lead to discrimination. Because Muslims make up only about 5% of Switzerland’s population, they are considered a minority group. These communities have been stigmatized and marginalized by this restriction, which has resulted in social exclusion and violations of human rights. Representative democracies can also both protect and potentially infringe on the protection of human rights. Given its legal framework which upholds individual liberties and the rule of law, these aspects seem to protect human rights. However, representative democracies are subject to the same risks and violations of human rights security as direct democracies. Because there are fewer opportunities in becoming actively involved in the legislative process within representative democracies, they may fail to protect vulnerable populations like refugees, indigenous communities, or immigrants, who may not have the necessary resources to be able to participate in elections. The rights of marginalized groups may be neglected by the government in favor of the politicians elected at the time. One example in which human rights and advocacy organizations become heavily involved was when Donald Trump announced his ‘Zero Tolerance’ Immigration Policy in 2018. Under this policy, individuals detained for illegally entering the nation, including asylum seekers and children, were prosecuted under federal law for the misdemeanor offense of illegal entry. The biggest controversy seen within this policy was the fact that children could not be held in criminal detention facilities with their parents, and as a result were forcibly separated into detention facilities or foster care centers. Because family unity is a fundamental right under international law, this policy tore apart families, causing long-lasting psychological harm to both parents and children. The facilities under which parents and children were detained were overcrowded, lacked access to medical care, and were places where abuse or mistreatment was not uncommon. Concerns regarding infringement of detainees’ rights to humane treatment, healthcare, and dignity were raised by the conditions of their confinement. For asylum seekers, who were fleeing persecution and violence in their home countries, were often met with a variety of human rights violations as well. According to international law, asylum seekers have a legal right to protection from persecution. This right was violated by prosecuting them criminally and separating them from their families. Individuals have the right to a fair trial and legal representation under due process rights, however this policy restricts people’s ability to defend themselves and seek legal action to stop deportation. Despite Trump’s administration placing the policy in effect, it’s crucial to remember that the Department of Homeland Security as well as Customs and Border Protection, among other government organizations, may have been responsible for these infractions. These minority groups, who are born with fundamental human rights, were still subject to breaches and violations from various organizations. Despite having different mechanisms and systems, direct and representative democracies both have the capacity to protect human rights; but, due to previous and current decisions, both have fallen short under certain circumstances. Protecting and promoting human rights depends on factors such as the strength of their institutions, engagement of civil society, and commitment of government officials. Nonetheless, poor decisions made within both democracies have the potential to rapidly violate people’s basic human rights, particularly the rights and roles held by minorities.

Issues with Human Rights in Democracy’s Functions Most modern literature asserts that democracy and human rights are intrinsically linked. Following this idea, democracies rapidly spread during the twentieth century and became the most common form of government. Democratic systems vest legislative power in the will of its people through civic engagement. In theory, democracies prioritize equality and autonomy in their societies. These two core values align with the two broad categories of human rights: fundamental and social rights. Fundamental rights refer to inherent rights the government must protect, similar to equality within a democracy, whereas governments must abstain from violating social rights, which reflects autonomy. Although these principles align with democratic ideals, democratic structures contain flaws that leave populations vulnerable to human rights violations. Many democracies restrict the right to vote, which causes an inaccurate reflection of society in the government. These restrictions cause structural failures in legislation that can perpetuate misrepresentation in the government. Often, the groups restricted from voting are the people who need the most government support to retain their human rights. African Americans in the United States were not allowed to vote until 1965. Without representation, state legislatures passed numerous laws that prevented black people from accessing the same fundamental resources as their white counterparts. In modern-day, non-citizens are not allowed to vote in the US. For many immigrants, gaining citizenship is a taxing and time-consuming process. However, many immigrants in the US suffer from poor working conditions and difficulty accessing housing and government support. Since many disadvantaged immigrants cannot vote, their futures and access to resources depend on altruism from citizens. Populations with more economic wealth tend to have disproportionate representation in the government, leading to policies misappropriating resources towards advantaged communities. Political campaigns are costly, and many politicians accept funding from large institutions. These institutions can use their economic power to persuade politicians to promote policies that benefit their goals. Often, disadvantaged communities cannot afford the same economic persuasion wealthy institutions use. This disproportionate economic power can cause legislation to benefit well-off communities at the expense of people who require government assistance the most. As a result, some democratic governments do not effectively provide fundamental human rights. A democracy's function relies on collective action and civic engagement, which many modern societies struggle to cultivate. As general apathy and cynicism towards governments increase, countries struggle to mobilize their citizens to vote. Individuals who do not require government provisioning to fulfill their fundamental rights are less likely to vote. Difficulties and barriers to voting can also dissuade people from participating in elections. In the United States, many states have restrictive voting practices that primarily target low-income and minority areas. When people encounter barriers to voting, their civic engagement decreases. These issues cause further misrepresentation in the government and contribute to the misappropriation of resources. Although countries adopt democratic systems to promote human rights, democracies have vulnerabilities that cause governments to fall short when protecting human rights. With inaccurate representation in government, many disadvantaged communities cannot express their needs. Wealthy individuals and interests are oversaturated in most legislatures, skewing government support away from underprivileged populations. Since governing decisions are vested in the will of its voters, the provisioning of public goods relies on people's altruism. However, the current failures of democracy do not mean the entire system is ineffective. These flaws are weak points that democratic governments can correct to improve their support for human rights.

To effectively explain the relationship between Democracy and human rights, it is pertinent to first define them. Human rights are rights attributed to every human being and are inherent to the individual via their existence in the world. In addition to human rights being universal and applicable to each person, these rights establish that all human beings, irrespective of country, culture, and context, are born free and equal in dignity and rights (Government Offices of Sweden). Democracy is a dynamic social and political system that is neither linear nor irreversible, and our world reaps the benefits from the spread of democratic values (United Nations). Moreover, Democracy is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people; the people exercise this power directly or indirectly through a system of representation that holds free and fair periodic elections (Merriam-Webster). In short, Democracy can be thought of as the “power of the people” and a pristine avenue for which the will of the people is exercised (The Council of Europe). The office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in 2002, declared in Resolution 2002/46 that essential attributes of Democracy include a profound respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, freedom of expression and opinion, as well as freedom of association. Additionally, there must exist access to power and the ability to exercise it in accordance with the rule of law; periodic free and fair elections are to be held by universal suffrage and by secret ballot to allow the people to express their will; there is to be a pluralistic system of political parties and organizations, an independent judiciary, transparency, and accountability within public administration; free and independent pluralist media; and most earnestly there is to be a separation of powers (United Nations). Moreover, Democracy is a universally recognized ideal–reflecting the common values shared by people from all over the world despite differences in culture, politics, and societies. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted on June 25, 1993, recognizes that Democracy is based on the freely expressed will of the people. It allows the people the freedom to determine their own political, economic, social, and cultural systems and privileges them with full participation in all aspects of their lives (United Nations). Furthermore, Democracy and Human Rights are interdependent and strengthen one another, as Democracy preserves and promotes the dignity of an individual. In addition, it protects and encourages the people’s fundamental rights, aims to achieve social justice, fosters and preserves economic and social development, strengthens societal cohesion, enhances national tranquility, and creates a climate suitable for domestic and international peace and security (United Nations). Thus, a direct response to your question about what connections there are between human rights and Democracy, it is easiest to understand it as Democracy being a universal benchmark for human rights protection and, subsequently, a democratic government provides a suitable environment for the protection and practical realization of human rights (United Nations). In addition to Resolution 2002/46 and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of ‘93, Resolution 19/36 on Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law adopted by the United Nations Security Council upholds and reinforces the interdependence and mutually reinforcing nature of the relationship between human rights and Democracy by reaffirming that Democracy is vital for the promotion and protection of human rights (Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD)). Additionally, principles of nondiscrimination and equality before the law are inherent in concurrently protecting and promoting human rights. Principles of diversity and inclusion, which are pivotal democratic principles, are necessary to aim to incorporate and embody within any policy–Democracy and human rights can be seen as two sides of the same coin (WFD). Furthermore, Democracy is a core principle of the United Nations itself, embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which enshrine the political rights and civil liberties that a meaningful democracy perpetuates. The UN works to develop operational strategies and implement and advance developing democracies, as when countries are not accountable and transparent, then elections are not reputable. Additionally, human rights are upheld more appropriately and to their fullest extent when public freedoms are protected, the democratic space is open, and decision-making is participatory (United Nations). That all being said, it does not mean that all democratic governments adhere to and are perfect ambassadors of what it means to be a democracy. While democratic governance – that builds open, responsive, and accountable institutions and processes that aim to service the will of their people – is more likely to uphold, adhere to, and protect the human rights of their population, in theory, this is a great idea; however, in the application, it is much easier proclaimed than executed (U.S. Agency for International Development). A perfect democracy will perfectly uphold human rights, but unfortunately, states are run by people, and people are imperfect.