Democracy as a Morality or Ideology?

Human Rights intrinsic in DemocracyJUA 340Robert SilvaJan 5 2007

Table of Contents:

Problem Formulation 3Hypothesis and Purpose 3Methodology 3

What is Morality and Ideology? 4Definition of Customary Norms 4What is Democracy? 5

Different definitionsIs morality of Human Rights intrinsic in Democracy? 7

What is Colonialism? 10European Court of Human Rights Supports Human Rights morality in Democracy 12Conclusion 14Bibliography 15

2

Problem formulation

The argument is human rights important to democracy, can a democracy function with out human rights, or a morality of human rights. Can a democracy operate just on necessity? Does necessity promote all interest and still be called a democracy.

That a morality is needed to promote guidance and limitation on the democracy to ensure human rights, which is the right with in the group, being business, governmental, clubs, and families, to speak that each has a ability to argue interest and influence circumstance with in the group, to promote the individual well being. The majority tends to try limit the expression that could change ideology or morality does the majority have the right to do this. The right to freedom of expression, and when does the government have the right to derogate this? Does democratic governments undermine the democratic effort when promoting necessity, for the purpose of promoting democracy. Does this lead to autocratic or deposit rule, excluding people and a form of dehumanization in a sense, their rights and do not count and their relation and treatment changes can this be considered a democratic practice. Is there a black distinction between democracy and non-democratic governments? Is democracy and human rights carry the same meaning?

Hypothesis or Purpose

The purpose of this paper is look at definitions of democracy, to find if democracy is a morality, or ideology. What happens if human rights are not protected could it be still considered a democracy or an autocratic? Does human right enforcement is what differentiates between democracies and other types of political systems. The assumption is David Beetham’s assumption is Democracy and Human rights are mutually dependent.1

Methodology

1 Beetham David, Democracy and Human Rights, p 114

3

I will be using qualitative data and exploring the definitions of democracy, using existing knowledge base of definitions that are derived from normative and empirical sources. I will be using David Beetham’s definition of democracy and be comparing with Schaumpter’s and other definitions. I will be defining what morality and Ideology is and comparing to international law standards to clarify understanding of morality and look if democracy is a morality or an ideology. Then the paper will define Colonialism and Neo Colonialism through text analysis and empirical and normative definitions. Then apply the existing definitions of democracy to help understand to colonialism norms, to differentiate to the two concepts to help understand how to define democracy. Then I will look European Court of human rights as model of democratic institution with the general practice of human right enforcement.This section of the paper I am defining the key concepts then applying them to each other to help define if democracy is an ideology or a morality.

What is Morality and Ideology?

The etymology of the word morality is rooted in moral, which can be defined as character or conduct. If you break down the word to morphemes, the root mor is “custom” which has a Latin root. Mores is the plural morpheme, which means manners of character. To look at the word manner it means mode of conduct, or a customary practice, derives from the Latin word Manunarius or to the hand. The word “Character” is defined as “personage, or personality,” which is derived from the French word caractre. Practice is habitual or continuous performance as in the past now in the present. Custom is an established usage, which could be interpreted as a mode of conduct that has been proved valid. 2

Ideology

The definition of ideology is “visionary theorizing: a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture, the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program”3 The definition of ideology has different thoughts and concepts and vision how things ought to be, rather than the current situation of the how things are.

The difference between morality and ideology is; morality is general practice that is used, and ideology is a practice that ought to be in practice.

Definition of Customary Norms

2 Oxford etymological dictionary3 http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ideology

4

The general practice of states is considered international law. According to the International Court of Justice “International custom is general practice accepted by law”4 and is the second source of law. A custom to be considered law must have two parts; the first part that is objective is called a “general practice.” The second part that is considered subjective is “accepted by law” this is also called opinio juris. Opinio Juris is a principal that the state feels a conviction to act or behave in a way because a sense of legal duty.5 The obligation may not be a law, but the state acts if it is out of obligation because it feels it should be a law. Customary law must have these two elements to be considered customary international law.

To apply Opinio juris to morality is the desire for things to be a certain way, that creates an obligation the obligation is to promote the practice as if it is law, laws tend to promote the morality.

To prove a general practice there must be continuous repetition of the practice with out deviation. This also relates to Opinio Juris because the state is behaving in a consistent and predictable way in one behaves, as it is obligatory law. 6 The one exception is when the customary law becomes spontaneous into existence, and if others states do not challenge, it becomes a custom of international law. Customary law is general practice of states interaction in the inter-state relations and is binding as law.

The definition of morality also carries the concept of continuous repetition of the practice, or customary practices which is used to describe morality. The morality and customary law carry same natures but different legal status. While customary norm in the international level carries legal weight and morality is to guide law creation in the domestic level. Morality becomes like an ideology to sculpt systemic institutions functions to promote the morality but is a present practice by the person.

In the promotion of harmonious co existence and without coercion of necessity, that morality is the promotion of human rights to promote a peaceful existence is the ought to be, even with the international norms to support democracy is a morality that the general practice of promoting rights through a political system does exist but promoting the rights that are defined in democracy cannot. The general practice of voting, and judging against standards and conforming to norms, but the norms has been historically to conform to the individual desire over promoting just treatment of people, that democracy could not be considered customary norm or a morality, if democracy carries human rights as David Beetham claims.

4 “Modern Introduction to International Law”p.395 Ibid. p.396 Ibid p.41

5

Is democracy a mechanism of decision-making or does human right mutually with in democracy, which guides the creation of laws, and practices of the government. 7

What is Democracy?

Addressing different approaches of defining DemocracyMost of the readings and definition of democracy address democracy as mechanism then the scholar observed how the political system functions. They find the actors with in the system use the system for power seeking, competing for control that disregard for other’s interest which could be assumed as the other actor’s rights, is a self help situation. The political mechanism becomes a tool of achieving autonomous personal desires, the argument is all is equal because all can partake, but it becomes a winner takes all system.

The concept of Majority rule does not promote human rights, but often infringes on the minority or individual rights, because of the desire of the majority. The need for checks to ensure the Majority does not oppress the minority or the individual. This can be assumed because of power seeking and sustaining of the majority. If the ideology of democracy is to promote equal application of just treatment, human rights or what the constitutions define what is the just treatment, because all will be treatment the same in a democratic system. In system of suffrage without a guidelines to promote equal just treatment the more powerful and influential will gain more liberties and live with less coercion because the need of them to promote the elite in charge. Majority rule can promote autocracy if there is not a practice to diffuse autocratic behavior in the governmental system. David Beetham’s definition of democracy is that human rights and are mutually together, that majortarianism could not be consider democratic to Beetham’s definition but does support Schaumpter’s definition of democracy.8 That diffusion of human rights enforcement must be with in the institutional arrangement to promote the ideology, which will create a morality of democracy.

The historical aspect of the promotion of equality of rights or just treatment are usually forced because of culture and ethnic differences the attitude you have treat people as equals although you do not view them as equal. This was general practice of the institutional arrangement, or governmental system. Early practices of rights could stem from treaties of prisoners of war, and occupied civilians. The transition between colonial governments and new democratic governments is treating the subaltern as equal in the mind of the dominant culture when they are not considered equal, or human. Concept of forced labor without compensation, based treatment, clean water, food, shelters from the environment are considered apart of prisoner rights, and occupied civilians. The practice of democracy through voting does not ensure these human rights, because voting does not really promote interest of the individual if the items being voted on are not really in the interest of the individuals. If voting is based on Schaumpter’s definition of democracy is about power seeking, to win votes, to be in charge.9 In America the slang term is voting

7 Jon Elster, Majority Rule and Individual Rights, The Politics of Human Rights, p. 1218 Beetham David, Democracy and Human Rights, p 189 Beetham David, Democracy and Human Rights, p.8

6

for the lesser of two evils, which means the people do not want either but these are the choices given, this is the extreme direct democratic and anarchic libertarian critique of democracy, at least they have a choice but does not promote interest and even just treatment and freedom, that a vote is usually the voiced opinion. This follow Schaumpter’s version of democracy winner takes all type system, but can it be considered a democracy, if the all the people are to benefiting from the governmental action, are human rights being protected if only a few interest to protect rights. This cannot be considered democratic but autocratic. In Shaumpter’s version of democracy the losing minority could be considered the prisoners of war and the vulgar masses the occupied civilians, and even the majority they must prove useful to the elite, to gain liberty or access to political rights or be able to dominate or weaken the elite to a point, so the elected leader will give in to wishes for the fear of losing power. The rights and demands of just treatment are surrender agreements and assurances to the minority and maybe all the people. Rights of the minority could have derived from occupied civilians in conquered lands by foreign invaders. The promotion of just treatment was use through the threat of coercion to the elite in charge. This does not fit David Beetham’s definition of democracy because human rights are not part of the system, nor is the system promoting human rights, because the of the use of coercion which is outside of governmental functions.

One could argue that coercion is with in the system but the root definition of democracy is freedom that freedom means with coercion of necessity. The use of coercion does not promote freedom but demand action, by forcing a necessity to conform or suffer the consequences. This is anarchy and self help for rights enforcement the norm is to dominate and power seek to ensure just treatment, this means it is not equal treatment, this leads to human right abuses and violations by default for the shear fact of common sense people will weaken others, to create vulnerability to be able to dominate them, this results in a form of imperialism or colonialism, because the ideology of self help and power relations, and the general practice of power seeking create inequality, because you not promoting just treatment but coercing.

For example Schuampter’s description of democracy states, “is institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in the which the individuals gain power to decide by means of competitive struggle for the people’s vote.”10 That Democracy is control conflict or competition. Could be viewed like when King John was made King of England, the opposing sides summed up and did a accounting of possible damage and death and loss of money, then decide John would win anyway, so they appointed him king with reservations and demanded rights, as land owners. That Democracy was a method to solve conflict without violence. Schuampter also argues once the elite was elected it was their business and not the people’s that elected them. That Democracy was a struggle for dominance by showing power to cause the individual voter to bandwagon

10 Beetham David, “Democracy and Human Rights” P.2

7

or balance the elite struggling for power. Instead of a duel, or a war there are votes. This implies no rights inherit n democracy but a method of gaining a majority, to ensure place in society. That individual power is still relevant in enforcing rights, because the elected officials still need consent of power of certain individual to check opposition. Democracy or form of representative democracy is that people compete for the majority and pecking order. Human rights or just treatment is based on Hobbesian and Machiavellian principals, of what one can do for or what one can do to. Rights enforcement is self help the political structure does not protect with in the system. The average citizen is not smart enough to argue own interest in society so the elite with power because it is self evident the elite knows what they are doing because of the wealth and power, should make the decisions about political matters. This argues people are not equal physically nor should they be considered equal politically. This creates dehumanization or a requirement of rights by proving worth, this assumes people are not equal. That democracy is institutional arrangement or just a system to chose leadership, with out a universal morality.11 The principals that guide the law making process is up to the individual elected to the office to promote individual interest of they believe that is necessary.

The lexical definition of Democracy.

The people, Demos that is derived from Greek, kratos, rule the lexicon definition of Democracy. The ancient Greeks used the word democracy and insomnia, which means equality of political rights. 12 It was assumed those apart of the democracy each have equal political rights. Does equal political rights assert equal human rights.

To look at the word equality a state of being equal has a definition of level comes from the Latin word, aequilis that are level on same plane.

The definition of freedom means to act without necessity or coercion. The modern context one is free to act, that there is no necessity to act. Does the law have the right to create necessity for a group and not another one is the question. Does this create equal political rights for each individual in the group? One person has to do one thing as another does not, do people have the right to demand that a person has to do one thing, and other does not. The law has to be equally apply to all to be considered equal political just treatment. Just treatment is an entitlement. Democracy has a base on freedom that a group cannot demand or coerce without equally applying it to all in the group, because to be considered a democracy all with in a democracy has the same method of being treated in the group. The necessity of actions comes from the need to promote freedom from the environment to create leisure for all.

Politics can be defined process which a group makes decision about interaction with each other in the group. To use this definition to help explain democracy each person in the group has the right to make rules for interaction in the group concerning whatever the

11 Ibid. P.312 History, Wikipedia definitions of democracy. Herodotus 3.80

8

human interaction or behavior is, being traffic stops for cars, business, paying taxes, civil needs, security. Politics is the creation of rules to promote predictable behavior to ensure predictable results that leads to leisure for all and this is to be without from necessity and coercion from the environment. This would be a definition of a law, to promote predictability. The people have equal right to create the laws are to promote the morality. The problem is the morality of just treatment ought to be the norm to conform to, but it is still the ought to be, that democracy by standards is an ideology to strive for, but the ideologies offers a morality are established practices but not codified nor have legal weight but law creation to promotes morality as universal accepted in the society. This could viewed of forcing culture practices on others, or creating practices for unknown circumstances. This fits more with David Beetham’s belief that democracy and human rights are mutually exclusive, that words promote an ideology, which promotes the morality. The ideology of law creation is to promote human rights, that governmental system called democracy has the practice and ideology of creating practices that enforce and protect human rights. That democracy and human rights are mutually exclusive.

A morality that is intrinsic in Democracy.

This definition of democracy creates a morality because the practice of democracy has been that each person in the democracy has equal political rights in the creating of practices for the group, which is just treatment people promote just treatment because it applies to them. The just treatment can be considered the morality, because just treatment requires righteous and proper. These are guidelines and principals to conform to when making laws with in the democracy the laws must promote righteous, proper, and just treatment and applied to all with in the group. The codification of the word democracy could be a customary norm to base democratic practices. It is establish this is democracy to follow democratic practices the persona must follow the definition of word that defines the behavior. Freedom is asserted in democracy because of equality, that each is level with each other. A person does create the necessity for other person but necessity is a reaction to the environment and need to promote freedom for all persons is the necessity. This is the lexical definition of democracy promotes and ideology that supports morality of just treatment and freedom, which are guidelines to create laws for interaction between humans. The question is has the democracy has always promote just treatment of all citizens is the key for it to be a morality. If individual lives by the democracy can this imply a general practice of promoting just treatment of other people, if this guides and is the norm people shape their behavior around without law, then it could be considered a morality even if the state does not do the same. On the government level democracy could be considered an ideology because the government does not behave in a manner to promote just treatment of citizens, so it would be ideology to promote the morality of democracy.

The modern democratic process is to have elected representative to handle the affairs of government. For instance the United States, has a constitutional representative democratic government, the constitution details what could be consider to ensure equal just treatment of each citizen and freedom. The argument of interpretation of what the

9

document is explaining is one another topic. The assumption it is to promote equal political treatment and ensure a group of people do not create necessity or coerce another group this is a method to ensure equal political rights. Equal political rights can assert human rights because political equality from a lexical point is the person in the group behavior does not designate between the different behaviors of the group. This fall in the line democratic governmental structure and human rights are interlinked.

This definition of democracy creates guidelines of the practice of democracy that each person has equal political rights in the creating of practices for the group and just that promotes just treatment for all and freedom. The problem is that morality must be a general practice already in hand, or being used, the historical use of democratic practices has been to promote the individual or the few desires over the just treatment and freedom of all. I think this could rule out that democracy is a customary norm or a morality. Democracy is a general practice if the electoral system and creation of rights for the minority, but morality of the treatment of the majority and the minority is different and not equal. So the morality of using a suffrage and codes of conduct is a morality, but the individual just treatment is not a morality but a concept to aspire to.

Democracy could be an ideology because of the desire to promote a sociopolitical theory of just treatment and freedom. To promote the regulation of human interaction to promote concepts of equality, freedom, just treatment equally applied to all. David Beetham claims democracy and human rights are mutually dependent that democracy has these beliefs and concepts about human treatments and entitlements, that democracy goal is to promote these things through an implantation of a governance system to coordinated human behavior, to promote each individual human rights. That democracy has attitude and goal and vision how humans ought to interact with each other and what type of treatment of the each individual involved.13That democracy carries ideological characteristics, rather than morality characteristics because of the lack of general practice of democratic behavior in historical governmental functions.

The question is it moral to promote inequality among people according to democratic definitions. To undermine the ability of people to partake in political affairs to centralize decision making to a few, would this be ethical or moral. In essence, limitation because of religious, linguistic, economic, and ethnicity and even by defining what is human? These things would be not considered democratic because it created exclusion some people can make laws, and others obligated to follow with the threat of reprisal which is coercion, or not just treatment. The individuals do not have the ability to create laws to promote interest therefore they do not have equal political rights or human rights, because their treatment is different. This leads to Colonialism or despotism, autocracy. I will be discussing Colonialism in the next section to help define democracy by what it is not, and the Colonialism denies human rights. Could it be democracy is about the promotion of

13 Beetham David, Democracy and Human Rights

1

just treatment of all, while the others ways promote individual or small group interest necessity over just treatment and freedom for all this could be the general practice, or the morality that has been.

What is Colonialism?

This section of the paper is to explain colonialism and neo colonialism then look at the practices of Colonialism.

Colonialism is defined as a form of cultural exploitation that on culture dominate other cultures, the dominating culture is usually not native to the territory but set up a base operation, with legal framework that includes economic practices, and social practice that promotes the hegemony of the culture over other the subordinate cultures. Setting up colonies in distant territories does this.14

Neo Colonialism or “Culture Imperialism” is a covert and has many different ways to control the colony through Compardes. Compardes are people in the native culture to control resources and governmental functions. This can be done through many different ways, legal system, international financing, not the normal method of military conquest or direct governmental presence of the colonizing state. The Comparde becomes the dominant culture with help of the other state or state’s businesses. The goal is dominate for autocratic reasons. 15

Colonialism infers not equal rights, and not to have equal political rights. The dominating culture excludes a segment of the population from governmental function and limits interaction and relationship to the government and society institutions. The individual has no control over circumstance and does not have self-determination because of irrational forces by the dominating force. Irrational forces are in the realm of feeling, emotions, or a hedonistic desire based. The dominant culture deprives the subordinate cultures from their right usually by dehumanizing them. The dominate culture does not perceive the native as human or equal therefore not apart of the decision making process. In the Schaumpter’s perception they are beneath the average citizen, so they could not make the proper decisions because they cannot speak the same language and have different methods,16 if they were strong they would have not been conquered.

Colonialism deprives the subaltern or the subordinate culture their rights, and even treatment of an occupied civilian which could be the argument of the dominate culture not give them equal status in law, for fear of losing control of the government and situation. Colonialism is overt domination of the populace through arguments of

14 Bill Ashcroft, Key Concepts in Post-Colonial Studies, London New York Routledge, P. 50.-5115 ibid p.16316 ibid. p.49

1

inferiority and competence and by gunpoint.17 The native civilian population is considered not even prisoners of war, or human, but as less than human, this denies them a possibility to influence circumstance or challenge the elite or dominate method of governance. Colonial servant has less privilege to be treatment humanely than a prisoner of war could be because if treatment is not to the liking of the prisoner of war he can create conflict; this is Hobbesian’s theory of respect. Colonialism is about power relations, domination and subjugation ensuring competitor cannot compete against the dominant elite. Democracies give just treatment to prisoners of war, and occupied civilians. This can support democracy is more that an institutional arrangement or an electoral system but an ideology with a morality. The Democratic actor would educate and include the native populace in the managing and running of the government. The Americans did with the Philippine after the liberation from the Spanish.18 The educated provide access to political offices, voting and equal just treatment. That Colonialism does not promote equal human rights, or freedom for all.

Neo Colonialism or “Culture Imperialism” has been levied at many modern western democracies from the postcolonial states. The creation of a new international order and the next step of building the neo liberal economic system had promoted the lack of human rights enforcement and democratic participation, which has trampled the new democracies and liberal trading system. The Bretton Woods system with International Monetary Fund has create dependency, through high loan debt, and the derogation of sovereignty of states to conform with the regulations to help meet balance of payments problems, due to lack of export income and import needs.19 The weakening of the State and gain of influence over the lives of the people by private business institutions has subverted human rights and democratic practices, because of shock therapy or restructuring to the liberal economic policies. This creates a for indenture relationship to the native populace to the creditor. This is also considered a form of slavery. The rights and the interest of the populaces that live in the developing world had been replaced with a Monarchist approach of giving food, shelter and protection for labor and resources. The neo Marxist call this a dependency. This has under mined the sovereignty and the democratic institutions and therefore human rights of the people. That the Neo Colonialist movement is covert in nature and hard to detect because the domination is not overt but subtle because rational forces, like profit, land use, civil engineering are influencing decision makers and process, but the intent is to promote an irrational objected, that being racial superiority or just plain domination but the results are exploitation of labor and resources and exclusion of the native populace from human rights and freedom.

Colonialism promotes unequal treatment of people because the argument of necessity. The situation dictates the actions and needs of the collective but the needs of the

17 ibid. p.4718 ? Abinales, Patricio and Amoros Donna,” State and Society in the Philippines” (Rowman & Littlefield Oxford 2005) P.120 from 550 personal paper about the Philippines FPO paper psycho historical section.

19 ibid. p 162-163

1

government or the individuals that run the government does not promote the group or can even be affiliated with the promotion of freedom, it could be just about promotion of leisure of the dominate culture and power sustaining. That ones leisure outweighs another just treatment and freedom. This could be the morality of colonialism, because through out history it has been shown this is the practice. The methods and implantation of the practices of colonialism may differ but the goal is to exclude and deny freedom and then coerce behavior subtle or overtly.

That is quite evident that a democracy with out human rights could just be another form of colonialism for these points. No morality to check the majority to deprive just treatment and freedom of the minority or even the populace. The morality of colonialism is domination or power seeking, therefore the ability to coerce others, which implies not equal treatment or freedom. While democracy is about the promotion of equal rights and freedom, which is to live without coercion and necessity. Colonialism and democracy could be an opposite sides of the human rights spectrum. Colonialism could fit in the category of autocracy, that autocracy and democracies are ideological oppose, because they cannot exist at the same place at once, either it is democratic or autocratic.

This part of the paper I will explore how democratic practices can stop autocratic behavior which can influence the democratic government because the introduction of general practices, the morality of colonialism could be a threat to democracy.

European Court of Human Rights

The next test was it “Necessary for Democracy” and to prove Necessary for Democracy one must prove “pressing social need” versus “public interest.”

The argument of necessary for democracy depends on the definition one uses, plus the legal status of the person. The necessary of democracy could signify to promote the systemic workings of the democracy or the ideology or the morality of the democracy.If the system carries the intrinsic morality, that the morality is part of the system and the system functions to promote the morality of democracy. Looking at the application of necessary for democracy from the European Court of Human Rights one can see democracy in practice, to ensure just treatment.

That misuse of laws, that laws can be used for promoting exclusion, and denying rights, to allow individual to partake in political function that would promote there rights. The application of law must have the legitimate aim which means the law must be used for its purpose. This can be argued by interpretation that the scope of the law covers certain aspect to promote just treatment and freedom. The European Court of Human Rights promotes democracy by arguing the law must have foresee ability which states, the law must be understood with ease and the consequences are understood with ease. Ambiguity could allow for preferential treatment, which leads to not equal application of the law. This creates non-equality of political rights, by limiting negatives or positive rights of the

1

individual, while other have the liberty to exercise positive or negative rights. This can lead to domination and the creation of vulnerable of individuals or groups.

Arguments against limiting speech is to stop the promotion of the dehumanization of the individual, this can be considered a part of cultural imperialism, that the democratic institution promote dignity, not to allow a mob hysteria to turn against the individual. That checks against the state is not only needed but the state must checks against the individual is to ensure just treatment.

The need to promote equal access to governmental suffrage is not enough because morality and general practices of the populace, tend to affect governmental actions, as in law creation, The morality of the people will manifest in the government which will promote the morality as universal, it does not matter what the morality is.

David Beetham’s definition of democracy promotes the ideology of human rights and democracy is mutually needed to create a democratic or free society. That the realist point of view of deterrence through equal of greater power which just creates a society that struggles against it self, the goal anyway for the realist is to equality and freedom, but the methodology will lead to centralize groups, that will weaken other groups for personal freedom. That it is based on coercion and fear, therefore never free to enjoy freedom because all the time is based in power seeking. The European Court of Human Rights, promotes Human rights of the individual and weighs consideration, this could be an example of Davie Beetham is explaining democratic practice enforces human rights with in practices, since the European Court of Human Rights has a practice of ensuring just treatment and freedom, this can support democracy as morality in the state or customary practice, because the democratic institution is enforcing human rights.

I can get into the structure of the European court to prove if the structure is democratic, but if could be argued that it was built by consensus of states which are persona’s, through their consent, it was established to promote the enforcement and protection of human rights.

Conclusion

David Beetham concludes that human rights and democracy are mutual dependent with out the freedom of expression, association, and other rights. 20 The interesting fact David Beetham discusses also different types of democracies like pluralistic, political, social democracy, that democracy defines them like democracy is an adjective that carries intrinsic meaning. Like an ideology or a morality. Democracy is defining the type of social, type of pluralism. You can have the same with autocratic, colonialist, totalitarian with morality, ideology, political, social. Democracy carries meaning thoughts, ideas a

20 David Beetham, Democracy and Human Rights p. 114

1

vision of human interaction and type of practice. The goal is to promote the intrinsic or unalienable rights as humans this should be morality of institutional arrangements to be called a democracy, to promote equality and freedom, because it has a root in equality and freedom. Human rights are a vital part of democracy. Other systems of government promote order which does not mean human rights, that democracy is the one the supports human rights with its practices.

Bibliography

1. International Human Rights, Decolonialsation and Globalization, Becoming Human,Shelley WrightThis book explained at colonisation through case studies,

2. Post-Colonial Transformation, Bill Ashcroft, The affects of historical colonial relations to new societies,

3. The Politics of Human Rights Edited by Belgrade CircleThis book is a collection of article discussed the political practice of human rights, and systemic failures of the implantation of human rights.

4. International Human Rights , Rhoan K.M SmithText book on International Human Right Law

5. Democracy and Human Rights, David BeethamBook that derive main argument and definition of Democracy , how to audit democracies for human right enforcement.6. Key Concepts in Post Colonial Studies, Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffins, and Helen TiffinOffers definitions on Human rights.7. Abinales, Patricio and Amoros Donna,” State and Society in the Philippines” (Rowman & Littlefield Oxford 2005) This is to support democratic nation building rather Colony building.

Documents:

1. 1948 Declaration of Human Rights2. Geneva’s convention treatment of Prisoners of War, and Occupied Civilians3. European Social Charter and Two protocols4. CASE OF CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S PARTY

v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 28793/02 )

This case was used to derive the definition of necessary for democracy, plus I use personal paper on freedom of expression, I further the examination with concepts of democracy and colonialisation.

1