democracy – Page 4 – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

Digital Citizenship: The Good, The Bad, & The Role of the Internet

Picture of hand in a web of technological devices — Communication Internet, by Pixabay, Creative Commons

In the early history of democracies, political voting was inherently simple: it was the communication of approval or disapproval of policies, platforms, and so on. Dissention was normal, but the partisan politics we are familiar with today were almost nonexistent. Issues that one politician had with another’s proposal were addressed in a direct, timely manner. In terms of the general public, everyone was essentially getting the same information via the same means – the printed press. This meant everyone was getting the same information at the same time; there may have been differences in interpretations, but everyone was reading the same headline as their neighbor. Today, we have thousands of media vying for our attention on many topics, especially politics. Whether from CNN, MSNBC, NPR, or Fox News, we are bombarded with information on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other social media.

So, how did we abruptly shift from getting news from the same medium to getting news from every angle? The answer is simple: The Internet. The Internet completely transformed how we receive and access all media of information, including political information; politicians can directly speak to voters who then participate in the political arena without leaving their home. Technological advancements in communication play an important role in influencing electoral behavior, easing the accessibility of political information. The Internet makes it easier to find out a candidate’s platform, what they want to work for, and their history. By using the internet in this way, people are engaging in what is now known as “digital citizenship.” A “digital citizen” is one who engages in democratic affairs in conventional ways by using an unconventional medium such as their laptop or smartphone.

The media’s role in elections and politics has grown exponentially since the 1960s. Prior to television, presidential candidates relied on the radio, think of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fireside chats, and other interpersonal means to communicate with voters: caucuses, party conventions, town halls, and so on. As technology progressed and television became widely accessible, reliance on interpersonal connections diminished and reliance upon the media grew. Power transitioned from party leaders and bosses to the candidates – as they were able to take control of their campaign, so long as their actions were worthy enough to make headlines. This transfer of power once benefitted only the candidates; however, now the power resides with the media: for they decide what suits their audiences, and who America sees.

This transfer of power greatly impacts our political processes. When politicians are their own bosses, they are able to disregard societal “norms” and use populist rhetoric to enhance their performance in the political realm. Kellener asserts President Trump is the “master of media spectacle”; using populism to make headlines and instill fear into voters more susceptible to fear- and anger-based messaging, he was able to “use the disturbing underside of American politics to mobilize his supporters”.

Picture of various social media icons — Online Internet Icon, Pixaby, Creative Commons

The Good

ISTE.org layers the ‘digital’ components onto the definition of a conventional good citizen:

A good citizen…	A good digital citizen…
Advocates for equal human rights for all	Advocates for equal digital rights for all
Treats others with respect	Seeks to understand all perspectives
Does not steal or damage others’ property	Respects digital privacy, intellectual property, and other rights of people online
Communicates clearly, respectfully, and with empathy	Communicates and acts with empathy for others’ humanity via digital channels
Speaks honestly and does not repeat unsubstantiated rumors	Applies critical thinking to all online sources, including fake news or advertisements
Works to make the world a better place	Leverages technology to advocate for and advance social causes
Protects self and others from harm	Is mindful of physical, emotional, and mental health while using digital tools
Teams up with others on community projects	Leverages digital tools to collaborate with others
Projects a positive self-image	Understands the permanence of the digital world and proactively manages digital identity

All of the characteristics of a “good digital citizen” may be applied to participating in democracy via the Internet. If everyone had access to the internet, more people would be able to register to vote as well as discussing and engaging in the political arena. If we seek to understand more perspectives, we could combat the political “bubbles” that we either choose to live in or are placed into by Facebook filtering your newsfeed depending on your online habits. If we used technology to advocate for social causes such as voter disenfranchisement, we could get more people engaged with our democracy.

Being a “good” digital citizen transcends holding personal values – it includes the pursuit of equality for all. We are lucky enough to live in a country where digital citizenship is accessible for most, but we are doing no justice by those who cannot access it by not utilizing this new form of citizenship.

The Bad

The era of digital citizenship is a result of the rapid spread in access to the Internet. If you have access to the Internet in America, you have the opportunity to register to vote (given that you meet the proper requirements set by your state), to research political platforms and to engage with others to discuss politics. Political participation (not exclusive to voting) has increased – people are engaging more in more discussions on every form of media; however, these discussions may not always be beneficial or productive. Kurst says, due to our emotionally charged atmosphere in the US, it is very easy (and very typical) for conversations surrounding politics escalate to attacks on opposing values. It is easy to rely strictly on what you are told from your favorite news source or directly from a politician and regurgitate the rhetoric, but it is vital to our unity as a society to fact check your information, and respectfully listen to the “other side.”

In today’s political climate, virtually everything is politicized – including our social media. We live in our “red bubbles” or “blue bubbles” and disassociate from anyone who may be on the other side. Thompson argues this is normal; we seek homogeneity in our marriages, workplaces, neighborhoods, and peer groups. However, when it comes to politics and the Internet, we are allowed to pretend like those without similar interests do not exist. When we ostracize a group of people and those people feel as though they are not being represented, we see members of the Republican party proclaiming they are the “silent majority,” which was a galvanizing force behind their voter turnout in 2016. By devaluing another side’s beliefs, we are dehumanizing those who hold them. This causes anger, frustration, and retaliation – all of which that may take place in the digital or physical realms. We cannot abandon our fellow Americans simply because we disagree; we have to realize the differences we have are much less than the commonalities we share.

The polarization of the two parties in America today discredits many media outlets. 47% of conservatives said they get their news exclusively from Fox News; while liberals get theirs from a more diverse set of news. Conservatives and liberals alike see anything that does not reflect their values as “biased”, in fact, members of society gravitate to information that reaffirms their beliefs and intentionally avoid information that contradicts said beliefs, according to Drs. Rouhana and Bar-Tal. This creates a biased interpretation of the news – information that is consistent with already-held beliefs are interpreted as fact and support for whichever side of the argument the reader/viewer ascribes to. As a result, Americans question the validity of news sources that contradict that of their personal beliefs. The crossroads of political polarization and declining trust in our media outlets is where fake news exists. Truth has become a relative term and is often manipulated by an ideology, not fact.

How can we fix the political polarization tearing at the social fabric of American society? Establishing trust “across the aisle” seems like a hopeless cause in today’s America. When asked how to “pop” the political bubbles we live in, Gerson claims, “[the] cause is not hopeless, because the power of words to shape the human spirit is undeniable. These can be words that belittle, diminish and deceive. Or they can ring down the ages about human dignity. They can also allow us, for a moment, to enter the experiences of others and widen, just a bit, the aperture of our understanding. On the success of this calling much else depends.” The solution to diminishing this polarization is to listen – listen and realize the other person you are disagreeing with possess the same humanity you do, and this humanity should be respected.

@ symbol with American symbols — News Internet, by Max Pixel, Creative Commons

Digital Citizenship and Human Rights

Marginalized populations have always struggled to get their voices heard. Without active engagement in democracy, minorities struggle to achieve full citizenship. The Internet and digital citizenship have worked together to diminish this obstacle faced by minorities. Social movements such as Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, and even the Arab Spring began and spread with the assistance of the Internet. Digital citizenship is linked to creating online communities to which people who struggle “fitting in” with their physical environment can find a home.

Using the Internet, citizens are easily mobilized on issues that concern them, whether domestic or international. They are able to pressure politicians to take actions against human rights violations and assist organizations doing field work where an injustice is present. For example, we are able to donate financially to the organizations making an effort to abolish the attacks on the LGBTQ+ community currently taking place in Chechnya, Russia. By being aware of it and all the other injustices taking place, we are able to assist in the resistance and make a difference in a way we could not have 10 years ago thanks to the Internet.

There are those who choose to not engage in politics in any shape or form, and there are those who use the Internet exclusively for political reasons. Wherever you fall within that spectrum, it is easy to agree that the polarization we have in America today is an issue that needs proper attention. It starts at the individual level: listening to what others who are different have to say, diversifying your news sources, and being open to disagreement. We must break out of our “bubbles” and not allow the influence of the Internet to shape our values for us.

Gerrymandering’s Effects on Democracy

by Pam Zuber

The Gerry-Mander political cartoon by Elkanah Tisdale — The Gerry-Mander: political cartoon by Elkanah Tisdale. Source: Wikicommons.

The Gerry-Mander is a name for a creature that appeared in editorial cartoons in 1812 and 1813. Given how gerrymandering has shaped and can shape politics in the United States, calling a Gerry-Mander a monster is no mere exaggeration. Gerrymandering takes its name from Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry. In 1812, legislators in Massachusetts’s Democratic-Republican Party redrew the map of a senatorial district to concentrate voters of its party in certain geographic areas. The same map dispersed voters of the rival political party, the Federalists, to separate districts.

Governor Gerry signed this map into law in 1812. This map drew the wrath of the opposing Federalists and spawned the cartoon that criticized the redistricting. The practice and the cartoon gave us a term for politically based redistricting that political bodies still use. We continue to use the term because the practice continues to this day. Politicians still reshape voting districts to suit their political purposes, much as they did in Gerry’s day.

Why Does Gerrymandering Violate Human Rights and the U.S. Constitution?

Creating electoral districts that skew political party representation contradicts democratic principles and human rights. Gerrymandering provides the illusion of democracy but actually denies it. The process still perpetuates voting districts. People in these districts have the ability to vote and usually have their choice of candidates. But, which candidates can they support? People in one district who traditionally vote for one party might not be able to fully support the candidates they would have seen if their districts were more traditionally configured. The voters might have choices, but false choices.

These false choices can undermine their lives. For example, voters might want to vote for candidates who support government-sponsored health insurance, but find that gerrymandering is affecting their choices. Their choices and their voices might be muffled because their votes do not count as much as they could have counted when combined with additional votes for the same candidates and causes. Their votes might not count since they are dispersed among other districts and not concentrated like the votes of other parties in gerrymandered districts.

Redistricting appears to be unconstitutional. It denies basic rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. The Fifteenth Amendment states that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Shifting geographic precincts to highlight or downplay specific candidates appears to abridge the right to vote, a direct violation of the Constitution.

Do People Gerrymander Today?

Yes. Politicians of both parties continue to create electoral districts that blatantly benefit their political parties. A federal court declared in August 2018 that the state of North Carolina’s map of Congressional districts favored Republicans. The court declared that the map “constitutes an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, and Article I of the Constitution.” The next month, the same federal judges ruled that although this map did feature gerrymandering, there would not be enough time to change the map in time for the elections planned for November 2018. North Carolina would not be able to not use this map after these elections, so North Carolina will need to use a new Congressional map for elections in 2020.

Gerrymandering has occurred in other regions of the country. In 2016, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin ruled that the Wisconsin Legislature drew electoral maps that favored Republican Party candidates in the state in 2012 and 2014. The case made it all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. But, in June, 2018, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, stating that the bodies bringing the case lacked the legal standing to do so. It sent the case back to lower federal courts. This meant that Wisconsin would use the same maps in November 2018 elections.

A number of political insiders expect that voters throughout the United States will use their votes in the November 2018 elections as a way to protest U.S. president Donald Trump and his fellow members of the Republican Party. But, if gerrymandered maps remain in place, they could skew results from the state. They could prevent candidates from certain parties from receiving the majority of votes in their districts and winning their elections.

Gerrymandering harms political parties as well. Both parties engage in such blatant practices for obvious purposes. Such practices tarnish the reputations of the parties as well as the democratic process. The electorate might view such tactics as political dirty tricks, which could discourage voters from supporting political parties, candidates, elections, and causes.

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the topic of gerrymandering in Maryland in 2018 by not hearing cases about redistricting in that U.S. state. Maryland legislators redrew this map in 2010. Just two years later, a Democratic Party candidate beat a longtime Republican incumbent in a race for a U.S. Congressional seat in Maryland, leading to charges that the state’s Democratic Party redrew Congressional maps to give itself advantages that led to such electoral victories.

How Can Gerrymandering Affect Politics?

It is clear, then, that parties do redraw maps and create new electoral districts. It appears that they do this to try to produce political advantages. But, does this redistricting really create such results? In the case of Maryland, it appears that redistricting has made a significant difference. In 2012, Democratic Party candidate John Mulaney beat Republican Congressional representative Roscoe G. Bartlett. At the time of his defeat, Bartlett had served eleven terms (twenty-two years) in the U.S. Congress. Bartlett blamed redistricting on his loss. “We had the most gerrymandered district in the country.” This is significant in a number of ways. Mulaney was a new challenger while his opponent was an entrenched, longtime incumbent. It is often difficult for challengers to beat politicians who have been in office a long time. Incumbent politicians have

Name recognition
War chests of money to help fund their campaigns
Fellow established politicians who are colleagues who can campaign and vouch for them
Reputations and accomplishments from their administrations that they can cite in campaigns

Election campaigns are expensive and time-consuming. They require money, connections, and clout. Working in established offices can help people accomplish all three. How hard is it to unseat an established candidate? According to economics reporter John W. Schoen, in 2012, the year of Maryland’s Bartlett/Mulaney race, 90 percent of the people serving in the U.S. Congress kept their seats. This means that Mulaney was one of the minority of 10 percent of challengers who unseated a Congressional representative. His redrawn district could have helped him overcome such long odds.

Are People Fighting Gerrymandering?

Ending gerrymandering restores people’s votes, which helps restore their voices. Groups and individuals hope they can help people restore their voices. Since gerrymandering is about voting rights, it is only fitting that some groups are using electoral means to fight the practice. A Michigan-based group called Voters Not Politicians wants to end gerrymandering in the state. It appears that opposing groups want gerrymandering to continue.

In 2017, Voters Not Politicians collected thousands of signatures on petitions that supported ballot initiatives against gerrymandering in Michigan. The organization needed to collect 315,654 signatures from August to December 2017. In a possible sign of widespread support for anti-gerrymandering efforts, almost 450,000 people signed the petitions. A number of experts say this proposal is sorely needed in the state. For example, a June 24, 2018 headline in the Detroit Free Press noted that “Michigan is an extreme example of gerrymandering.”

Michigan’s Board of State Canvassers approved the ballot proposal. But, organizations such as Save Michigan’s Constitution opposed this ballot proposal as overly broad and took their opposition to the Michigan Supreme Court. The court rejected this opposition, paving the way for the proposal to be on the ballot for state elections in November 2018. The Michigan proposal calls for shifting responsibility for drawing electoral maps from the Michigan Legislature to an independent commission that includes independent private citizens who are not affiliated with political parties.

This proposal aims to take redistricting responsibilities from political parties and giving them to (ideally) nonpartisan private citizens. To implement such goals on a practical level, the proposal suggests:

Creating a thirteen-member restricting board. The board would consist of five members who are not affiliated with a political party or are independent, four Republicans, and four Democrats.
Choosing the redistricting board members randomly among people who apply for the positions.

The balanced composition of this group would provide equal representation from major parties. It would allow significant input from people who do not affiliate with any party. It would help ensure that one party’s politics does not take precedence over another’s. It would promote inclusiveness and democratic fairness. But, will party politics shape the outcome of this election and the future of the anti-gerrymandering proposal? After all, voters in districts that are already gerrymandered will encounter this ballot proposal. The gerrymandered districts in Michigan largely favor Republicans after the Republican-controlled Michigan Legislature redrew electoral maps in 2011 and Republican governor Rick Snyder approved them.

Republicans who want things to remain the way they are would likely vote against the ballot proposal. Gerrymandering, thus, would perpetuate political divisions by working to defeat proposals that fight gerrymandering and political partisanship. It may sound like clichés, but that’s why voting is important and why every vote counts. People might not vote because they assume that certain proposals may pass or that certain candidates may win with or without their votes. But, if they and others don’t vote, they don’t contribute ANY votes to the election. The status quo continues because nothing changes.

But, if enough people vote, their candidates and proposals may win. Even if they don’t win, the large number of votes will illustrate the popularity of these candidates and proposals. The large number of votes can encourage others to take notice, to support such people and causes, and maybe even to run for political offices themselves. Citizens can also use the courts to fight gerrymandering. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear recent cases on gerrymandering. It didn’t issue definitive rulings on it. While it’s unlikely that the Supreme Court will hear further cases on gerrymandering in the near future, it has not issued a final word on the topic. This means that it might hear other gerrymandering cases in the future, especially after the U.S. Census of 2020 might contribute to further political redistricting.

According to Erick Trickey in Politico, it is more likely that individual U.S. states will tackle gerrymandering: “[I]f gerrymandering’s opponents want better, fairer maps, they’ll have to demand them, state by state.” This is happening across the country. In addition to the Michigan Voters Not Politicians initiative, Better Boundaries (Utah) and Clean Missouri are groups demanding an end to gerrymandering. Colorado voters will vote on an anti-gerrymandering proposal in November 2018, while Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved their state legislature’s anti-gerrymandering proposals earlier in 2018.

In a strange way, then, gerrymandering unintentionally encourages the sort of political engagement it’s trying to squelch. Who knew that the Gerrymander could be both a monster and an ally?

About the author: Pamela Zuber is a writer and editor who has written about a wide variety of topics, including politics, addiction, and gender.

Get to the Polls – the Battle Against Barriers

In light of our midterm elections coming up here in the United States, I have decided to do a series of blog posts relating to voting and its importance in our society. This is the first in the series.

Photo of the White House from a low perspective. — White House by Angela N., Creative Commons

The Facade of a Democracy

When becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States of America, you are asked, “What is the most important right granted to an American citizen?” According to the American Government, the correct answer to that question is, “the right to vote.” However, the Constitution upon which our nation was founded does not explicitly grant the right to vote. It provides penalties and punishments against states that do not explicitly allow minorities to vote, but the Constitution does not fulfill the promise of democracy we associate it with. As a result, voter disenfranchisement is possible. It is possible so long as there are “opportunities” to vote, no matter how difficult it is for citizens to actually do it.

Voter disenfranchisement assumes many different forms, ranging from intimidation to falsifying information to suppression, and so on. Disenfranchisement goes back to the founding of our nation. Initially, white, male landowners were the only demographic allowed to participate in this civic privilege. Notice I defined it as a civic privilege, not a civic duty. It is our privilege to manifest our desires in the form of a ballot. We are not required by our government to vote, but we should be required to do so by our morals. The brutality of the Civil War technically gave racial minorities the right to vote, though they continue to be turned away at the polls without consequence. Later came the Jim Crow laws disbanding all voting rights African Americans barely had to begin with. To this day, voter suppression continues to be an issue rooted deep in American soil.

The hardest aspects of this phenomena to grasp are these: 1) the main avenue used to suppress minorities are institutionally mandated and 2) they are ignored by a majority of Americans.

Registering to Vote

The most common form of disenfranchisement involves creating barriers to register to vote, making it harder for many Americans to participate in our democracy. In 2011, thirteen states introduced bills that ended Election Day and same-day voter registration, limited voter registration drives, and reduced opportunities for voters to register. These states were Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, New Hampshire, Colorado, Maine, Ohio, Florida, Texas, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Mississippi.

Let’s unpack this. By ending same-day voter registration, people who have to work long hours during the week to support their families have to plan out and likely take off work to register to vote before the deadline. With limited voter registration drives, less and less people are able to easily register to vote – African American and Hispanic people are twice as likely to register to vote at a drive than their white counterparts. Finally, without ample opportunities to register to vote, you can imagine how it impacts voter registration numbers (hint: they did not go up. At all).

Since 2011, the number of states with voter suppression laws has increased to twenty-five – half of the entire country. In addition, there is presently talk of creating federal mandates that would enact voter suppression laws nationwide.

Photo graphic of a ballot box — vote obey by Erin Williamson, Creative Commons

Early Voting

Early voting, sometimes referred to as in-person absentee voting, allows people to vote prior to Election Day. These people typically participate in early voting because they are unable to get to their polling place on Election Day for several possible reasons: they need to work during the week but can vote early on the weekend, they do not have reliable transportation and may only be able to go to their polling place on a specific day, and/or many other plausible reasons. As of this year, 34 states and the District of Columbia allow no-excuse early voting – meaning they do not have to provide an excuse to vote early, it is just possible for everyone. Oregon, Washington, and Colorado have enacted all-mail voting, which eliminates the need for early voting.

So, why are we not all enacting early voting? The main argument against it is the level of political knowledge early voters have as compared to those who vote later. There are developments that come out closer to Election Day (think of the Kennedy-Nixon debates which happened until October). If people vote 46 days in advance (like they now can in Minnesota), their information is skewed compared to those who waited to hear candidates speak at town halls, debates, etc. While this is a valid point, only 36% of voting Americans utilized early voting in the 2016 Presidential Election. Yes, that is a lot of people, but a majority of Americans are still using the traditional form of voting.

Low-Income Voters Lose

Those who suffer the most at the hands of voter disenfranchisement are poor people. Right before the 2016 Presidential election, 31 DMVs were closed in Alabama as ordered by then-Governor Robert Bentley. The counties affected were Camden, Eutaw, Greensboro, and other counties in the state that is characterized as majority poor and African American people. Alabama also passed a law burdening citizens by requiring them to have photo identification to exercise their right to vote. The most typical form of voter identification is the driver’s license, and where do people get a driver’s license from? The local DMV. But what do you do when your local DMV is closed down and you do not have the proper transportation to get to the nearest, open DMV?

Because of the excessive DMV closures, people within those counties now have difficulties getting proper voter identification, getting registered to vote, and, ultimately, voting on Election Day. Democracy means participation from the people; without the participation of the people, we are not in a functioning democracy. Instead of creating barriers to voting, we should be dismantling barriers to voting.

Voting as a Human Right

Though it may not be an explicit Constitutional right, it certainly can be argued that voting is a human right, given the potential outcomes from high voter participation. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR), “The right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, including the right to vote and to stand for election, is at the core of democratic governments based on the will of the people. Genuine elections are thus a necessary and fundamental component of an environment that protects and promotes human rights.” We are lucky enough to have the “prerequisite human rights” that allow us to vote and participate in our democracy: the right to freedom from discrimination, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the right to freedom of association and of peaceful assembly, and the right to freedom of movement, so we must take advantage of these rights.

The will of the people takes corporeal form in a vote, giving the people power over those who govern them; however, that does not go to say power is a human right. It means voting grants the possibility to have our wants and needs met and that we have a greater chance in the pursuit of meeting our human rights.

If the will of the people is ignored, unmet, and/or barred, democracy is not functioning. If one cannot vote due to systematic and intentional barriers, this individual is denied her or his human rights by proxy of their government. In the United States, our solution is persistence. No matter how many DMVs are closed down and no matter how many barriers are placed by whoever or whatever, we must persist to shape our reality how we wish.

Anyone can be a public servant and make a difference in this world and you are never too young or too old to do so. Here are potential solutions to circumvent voter disenfranchisement:

First, make sure you are registered to vote. If you are not, visit TurboVote and do it as soon as possible to make sure you register on time to vote in your state.
Register others to vote. It is very simple! All you need is the national voter registration form, clipboards for convenience, pens, and rubber bands. Don’t forget to check if your family is registered!
If you are able to drive to a DMV or polling place, take others.
Simply talk to others about voting. Voter education is something we, as a society, lack. Encourage others to look at politicians’ campaign promises and what they are wanting to do to combat voter suppression.
Organize. Being with others who have the same goal as you will push you to do more and get more done.

Photo graphic reading "It's your future, how hard is that?" — vote by erheyward, Creative Commons

Voting in any democracy is a reminder to governments that they work for us, not the other way around. We must use our vote as our echoing voice. We owe it to our children, our underrepresented neighbor, and ourselves to exercise our privilege to vote. If you are reading from somewhere in the United States, remember to get to the polls and vote on November 6th.

Solidarity vs The Vile Maxim

a picture of Copenhagen, Denmark — Copenhagen. Source: Jim G, Creative Commons.

Social systems such as economics, the rule of law, and healthcare affect all of our lives and are the core facilitator for human rights (or the lack thereof) throughout the world. Of course, the principle vehicle for these social systems is government. Government comes in many forms throughout the modern world but they all function to create peace within their given societies. Throughout history, governments that fail in this endeavor have fallen and new countries have arisen from the ashes or at the very least, new regimes or government systems replace the fallen. A good, recent example of this is the fall of the U.S.S.R. in 1991. Many of the inadequacies within social systems result from poor design and/or implementation. The term used for these negative consequences is structural violence. Most of the war and conflict within nation-states is a product of one segment of society being unhappy with the social systems that rule their lives and government officials failing to address these issues. In liberal democracies throughout the world, citizens enjoy increased participation in designing their social systems. This comes in various forms including voting rights, running for office, and the right to free speech. However, in liberal democracies, human rights are a battle of competing ideals, oftentimes over resources or status, within various segments of society. These ideals are a struggle between public and private interests, the wealthy and the poor. This blog will examine a few liberal democracies and how the role of private interests affects social systems and human rights within those societies.

Before we dive into a few examples, it is important to understand what constitutes a liberal democracy and how they function, from a societal perspective. In Aristotle’s Politics, he postulates that of the three main forms of government (kingly rule, aristocracy, and constitutional government) and their corresponding perversions (tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy); constitutional democracy is best because it pertains to a peaceful and free society. Aristotle explains there are three elements that constitute a society – the wealthy, the poor and the middle class. This translates into social power from below (the poor) and social power from above (the wealthy). The flaw within democratic systems is the poor can organize to take property and rights from the wealthy. This would be unjust. Conversely, the wealthy can organize to take property and rights from the poor. This is unjust as well. Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, reiterates this: “All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” Aristotle states one way to remedy this problem is through the creation of a welfare state or by raising the poor’s quality of life through public funds (taxes). Historically, the alternative solution has been incorporated throughout most of the modern world. Only the wealthy may hold positions of power. Noam Chomsky, a renowned linguist, has been very vocal and written extensively on this subject. Now, we will turn to some real world examples in history.

In Denmark, citizens enjoy universal health care, as a human right, through government and taxation but this has not always been the case. In the 18^th century, Denmark was an absolute monarchy, which, under the rule of Christian VII, began to deteriorate. Local landowners were responsible for the healthcare, and increasingly failing to provide, of the rural farming families that worked their lands. Christian VII was under pressure from the landowners to bind workers to the land. This equated to serfdom for many farming families. This resulted in power rising from below and the king’s son, with the help of his father’s cabinet members, to overthrow him. In the years following, the crown prince, Frederick VI, introduced massive reform allowing farmers to move freely to work under different employers, instead of landowners. In addition, farmers were given the option to work their own parcel of land and own property. Sweeping reforms took place with increased focus on public education and the creation of safety nets, such as welfare. In short, by removing the corruption of private interests and radically altering the social systems with egalitarian economic principles, Denmark’s productivity skyrocketed through peace and solidarity.

In England, during the 17^th century, another form of private interest was invading the English government system and effecting human rights, this time in the form of religious persecution, similar to the economic malpractice of landowners influencing government in our previous example of Denmark. During that time, uniformity of religion was coming to the forefront of English politics in the form of a battle between Catholics and Protestants. Both factions believed uniformity of religion was necessary for a healthy English society. Both factions also believed their form of religion was the “one true religion”, and it was the responsibility of civic government to impose this belief, through force if necessary, on its citizens in order to save souls. Nonconformists to these beliefs suffered verbal and physical attacks, many publicly executed for heresy.

Many felt socially excommunicated through persecution; and left England for fear of their lives and sought new lands, for example the Puritans aboard the Mayflower. Religious affiliation mattered more than ever and in some areas Catholics persecuted Protestants, in other areas Protestants persecuted Catholics and it was worse for those that did not pick a side, or identified with neither, and even those who respected the views of both religious traditions were ridiculed for their tolerance and not picking the “right” side. English society became greatly imbalanced due to religious polarization and increasingly intolerant views toward segments of society that were different from one’s own. In short, private individual beliefs infiltrated and corrupted the civic virtues of English society and the result was disharmony, violence, and the mass emigration of religious refugees. The social discord was so pronounced that many new religions found their start during this time, such as Lutheranism, Methodism and Baptist churches, to name a few. The belief that “one true religion” was necessary for a healthy English society was ironically, accomplishing the opposite and societal peace and solidarity was lost, echoing in the memory of future generations, including Roger Williams and his influence to persuade leaders like Thomas Jefferson to separate church and state in the fledgling American society.

Today, in the United States, the newest version of one of the oldest forms of private interests infiltrating public institutions has taken place. With Citizen’s United being victorious in the recent Supreme Court decision, money became a form of free speech. This echoes our previous Danish example of the wealthy influencing government to support their own private interests over that of societal peace and solidarity. This is evident in the basic economic principle that a million dollar political contribution is “louder”, or holds more weight than a twenty-dollar political contribution. Therefore, the more money an individual possesses the more influence they have in affecting civic government. It is a form of economic inequality similar to 18^th century Denmark, when farmers held less political weight so the landowners influenced the king to oppress farmers and their families. Similarly, as farmers tied to the land they occupied and not allowed to move, workers in the United States today find themselves tied to their land while corporations enjoy a choice of workers throughout the world, through international trade deals, tied to an ever merging and expanding business sector.

The current American worker is competing with exploited workers in China and Mexico, becoming exploited themselves through low wages and an increasingly diminished voice within their own public institutions and government. This is unjust as corporations and big business can move and have choices in where they manufacture and produce; the American worker cannot, without moving to another country. Until the reversal of Citizen’s United vs. the FEC, the American worker will be deprived of economic equality and have a diminished voice in their government system. This affects societal peace, evident in increasing political polarization and intolerance within sects of American society. Over time, this will increasingly lead to the loss of human rights, and a free society, ironically, the paramount principle that defines American culture.

A society can debate what form its social systems take. However, once a government is structured and defined, the separation of what consists as private ideals versus public ideals can fracture solidarity and perpetuate the loss of human rights, resulting in a less peaceful society. Historically, the wealthy enjoy this advantage more so than the poor do because they have more resources. The additional resources translates into increased individual mobility and time to pursue idealistic visions instead of focusing on basic physical needs such as water, food and shelter. Every civilization that has risen from the beginning of time has fallen because of societal failure. Every society and culture today is a product of a rebirth, or reconstruction, of the failed society and culture that came before it. This is the story of social evolution. Where we go from here depends on what we learn from the past and correct, instead of continually fostering new forms of corruption within our social systems. We have to educate our children on the importance of solidarity, less they fall curse to the vile maxim. As populations rise and our world is increasingly globalized through economics, politics and technology, these lessons are paramount if we want to create social systems that promote peace through solidarity.

The Death Penalty: Violation of the Right to Life

picture of death penalty protest — Source: Maryland GovPics, Creative Commons.

The most fundamental human right is the right to life as recognized in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The denial of the right to life, through the practice of capital punishment, is internationally condemned with nearly two-thirds of countries worldwide banning the death penalty in law or in practice. The United States is a notable outlier as the only member of the G8, one of three members of the G20, and the only Western country to still practice capital punishment. This is deeply problematic for several reasons: the practice does not deter or reduce crime, disproportionately targets poor and disabled minorities, and results in the sentencing of innocent people approximately 4.1% of the time.

The local rate of death penalty cases is alarming. According to Harvard Law’s Fair Punishment Project, 16 counties of the total 3,142 in the nation were listed as outliers, including Jefferson and Mobile counties in Alabama. The study states that Jefferson County “sent more criminal defendants to death row between 2010 and 2015 than almost every other county in the nation.” As one of thirty-one states to still have the death penalty, Alabama is the only one that allows sentencing to capital punishment with a non-unanimous vote. Additionally, Alabama is the only state allowing judges to override a jury’s conclusion to recommend life without parole. Kent Faulk reports defendants in all five Jefferson County death penalty cases are black, received non-unanimous verdicts—two of which were overturned by a judge, and one third of the defendants had “intellectual disability, severe mental illness, or brain damage.”

No Justice without Life — Source: World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, Creative Commons.

Racial discrimination is a continuing problem in America’s criminal justice system, and results in the state-sponsored deaths of minorities. Recent studies have found that courts are more likely to sentence a defendant to death if they murder a white person over any other race. A study in North Carolina found that the likelihood of obtaining the death sentence increased by nearly four times if the victim was white. In Louisiana, the odds of being sentenced to death for the murder of a white victim is 97% higher than for the murder of a black victim. Additionally, a Connecticut study found that minorities who kill whites are given the death penalty at higher rates than minorities who kill minorities. Some of this discrimination may be a consequence of the racial empathy gap—the finding that people automatically assume that African-Americans feel less pain than whites.

Anthony Ray Hinton was sentenced to Alabama’s death row, recently found innocent, and freed from after nearly thirty years. Hinton, released in 2015, gave his testimony of deep racial injustice of Alabama’s criminal justice system: “[The lieutenant] said, ‘I don’t care whether you did it or you don’t… but you gonna be convicted for it. And you know why? … You got a white man. They say you shot him. Gonna have a white D.A. We gonna have a white judge. You gonna have a white jury more than likely. All of that spell conviction, conviction, conviction.’” When new evidence found Hinton innocent, he was released without any compensation, assistance program, or even a bus ticket. This, perhaps, is a more egregious wrong than the decades-long imprisonment itself. Exonerated prisoners find themselves in a changed world with no shelter, no job, and often no family. Former prisoners require mental, physical, and emotional help to successfully adjust to the world outside prison, but never receive it. In a country that declares itself to be a global leader of human rights, violations like these are unacceptable.

a picture of sad jailed prisoners — Jailed prisoners. Source: Ancho, Creative Commons.

American values list freedom, individualism, and equality– yet we simultaneously deny the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and security of person to hundreds of criminal defendants per year. International human rights treaties like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Kyoto Protocol, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) remain unsigned by the United States, despite claims of upholding and honoring them. The US is the only member state of the United Nations other than Somalia that has not ratified the UNCRC, and one of only seven who have not ratified CEDAW. So far, only eighteen US states and the District of Colombia have abolished the death penalty; that number can only increase with action and engagement by citizens. Amnesty International states, “The death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights.”

This week, the Alabama House of Representative will vote on a bill to prohibit judicial override of jury recommendations against the death sentence. This power of judicial override, prohibited in all capital murder cases except in Alabama, has occurred 112 times– 101 of which gave a death sentence. If you feel strongly about this bill, contact your representatives using this link.

Additional Resources:

Bryan Stevenson – Just Mercy and Equal Justice Initiative

Michelle Alexander

Ava DuVernay

Angela Davis

National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

Southern Poverty Law Center

A Tie that Binds and Shapes Us

a picture of 16th Street Baptist Church from the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute — The 16th Street Baptist Church across from the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute. Source: Beth Bryan, Creative Commons.

Barack Obama, in one of his last acts as president, signed a proclamation that designated the Birmingham Civil Rights District as a national monument. For those unaware, the Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument includes the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, Kelly Ingram Park, the A.G. Gaston Motel, Bethel Baptist Church, the Colored Masonic Temple, St. Paul United Methodist Church, portions of the 4th Avenue Business District, and the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute. These locations are “hallowed grounds” for Birmingham because they serve as the epicenter American Civil Rights Movement. We speak of the history regarding these locations. Sixteenth Street Baptist Church stands as the site of a horrific bombing that claimed the lives of four black girls: Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robertson, Cynthia Wesley, and Denise McNair. However, the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church was also—and still continues to serve as–a social center and lecture hall for education and social awareness; a headquarters for activism; and a platform for heralded visitors as it did in the past, for leaders like W.E.B. DuBois, Paul Robeson, Ralph Bunche, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and most recently, Attorney General of the United States, Loretta Lynch who spoke her final message as a public servant. The Colored Masonic Temple, which beyond its beautiful architecture, sat as the centerpiece for lively Black owned businesses and a booming downtown social life. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and some of the movement’s top leaders strategized in room 30 of the A.G. Gaston Motel, which also became known as the “war room”. Additionally, in this room, Dr. King made the decision to submit himself to being jailed—resulting in a “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. To this day, the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” serves as the most important written document of the civil rights era because of its tangible reproduced accounts in the fight for freedom and King’s response to the broad criticisms he has received from around the country. As you can imagine, I can write at considerable length about the historical facts and pieces of information I have picked up from the Birmingham Civil Rights District. However, the focus of this post is to address why this national monument is important.

The National Monument is a Mile Marker for Racial and Social Progress

What a society and its citizens choose to remember and create moments for, communicates a great deal about where their beliefs lie. At the same time, there is essential learning in understanding what a society chooses to forget. That said, I think that it is critical for each generation to understand the struggles and sacrifices many have endured to achieve equal rights because that cultural memory plays a role in the shaping of our collective identity. To this degree, we must accept the ugly truth that racism is embedded within our society and remnants of its power still resides within today’s social structure. In order for us to move forward in the solving of social problems, we must embrace this part of our history and understand how the intersections of race, class, privilege, gender, and so forth influences current issues. If not, then the politics of denial will continue to define teachings of American Civil Rights Movement into a one month a year curriculum composed of mainstream heroes that is not taught widely enough or comprehensively addressed at various school levels. Through the national monument, we as global citizens are pushed to think critically about our past. We are challenged to ask ourselves how can we move forward in the fight for equality and equity locally and globally. As important, we are reminded that the fight is not over.

This National Monument Preserves a “Balanced Realness” of African-American Culture

There is more to African-American culture than the mainstream depictions which tend to populate and reinforce negative stereotypes through mainstream media. The story of black people in Birmingham is one which highlights how individuals are able to rise from second class citizenship to obtain an education, contribute to society, maintain families, and overcome multiple challenges serves as a critical element of our American lineage. Through the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, we are afforded the opportunity to hear those stories; learn of all the heroes and their sacrifices; and to speak with some of those “living griots” who volunteer to share their own knowledge and experiences with the public. And, it is just not in the very people. As previously stated, this national monument is hallowed grounds because the location itself is a symbolic repository of African-American culture that has often been paved over, gone through urban renewal, gentrified, and left to stand as unidentified culture markers in major cities.

The National Monument Reinforces the Hope of Our Collective Community

The Birmingham Civil Rights District is not just Black history; it is American history. In a society that continues to diversify and splinter, it is crucial for us to be reminded that we are still one community. Together, we share a common heritage and history of hope and resilience through tough times. To me, the beauty of the civil rights movement is that when you reflect, there are continuous instances where multiple ethnic and cultural groups have decided to unite in the face of oppression. Today, we are facing with some unique challenges. There are segments of our population who are not only oppressed, but seeking refuge and allies to stand with them. As we look for answers, our national monument stands as a constant reminder that we are the change that we wish to see, and all we have to do is come together. In the words of Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does.”

In closing, the national monument is more than just a series of historical buildings and educational centers containing a collection of objects and documents. It is a powerful reminder of Birmingham’s culture and its impact on the larger American story. I am confident that as the fight for equality, equity and inclusion continues, we will find a way to find opportunity in the midst of life’s challenges because that is what we do. In the words of John Henrik Clarke, “What we have done before, we can do again.”

Comparative Politics and Human Rights

At the time of this writing, 2 February 2017, the United States of America is a liberal democracy. Equal representation in government due to frequent, fair and free elections, and governmental accountability are arguably some of the guiding maxims shaping and molding the relationship between American citizens and their government. Democracy, as publicly educated schoolchildren are taught, is a representative government operating under the highest ideals of freedom and security. In addition to liberal democracies, what other forms of government exist? How do they operate? How do states of different regimes interact? And, most importantly, how are universal human rights promoted or impeded by different governmental regimes?

The function and structure of government has been fiercely debated for thousands of years and, indeed, there are many differing opinions on the “perfect” form of governmental regime. Regimes should, according to most theorists, provide a combination of freedom, security, and equality for its citizens (McCormick, 2007). Governments are systems by which a state rations and applies power, whereas regime describes the overall type of government that is in place. The term state–an interchangeable term for nation or country, generally utilized by political scientists and internationalists–will be used throughout this blog in the same manner.

On the international level, states must possess authority and sovereignty. Authority is the ability to exert power and control over its citizens while sovereignty is the ability to act free of outside influence from other states. Due to the nature of international order, including the existence of the UN, many scholars believe the era absolute authority and sovereignty of states has come to a close. Political theorists now refer to states as having relative authority and sovereignty, as the UN and other global institutions now have more and more influence on the conduct of states around the world (McCormick, 2007). What is becoming increasingly clear is that the impact of different governmental regimes is no longer confined to just the administration and its citizens. Globalization, the description of increasing interdependence and influence of international state and non-state actors on one another, has supported the premise that regimes can and do affect other regimes both regionally and globally (O’Neil, 2007).

A regime operationalized is the way in which a state attempts to promote freedom, and/or equality, and/or security domestically for its citizens and internationally through relations with other states (O’Neil, 2007). Regimes types are labeled based on which of the primary government functions–freedom, equality, security–the regime promotes the most. A regime promoting freedom, for example, is more likely to be a liberal democracy rather than a regime promoting equality at the expense of freedom (i.e. communism; O’Neil & Rogowski, 2006). Regime types vary according to their respective levels of freedom, equality, and security; the respective levels of these three factors trickle down to influence the lives of the citizens in any given state. Interdisciplinary research in psychology, anthropology, political science, and international relations shows a society’s cultural values may be an extension of its governmental structure; therefore, regime and “national personality” (a form of assessing culture) are linked in this way. What has not been definitively proven, however, is the directionality of this relationship: does culture affect regime or does regime affect culture? Government regimes all lie on a continuum: we may think of totalitarianism to be the most oppressive, and liberal democracy to be the most faily representative and accountable. Other forms of government, such as authoritarianism, communism, socialism, and tribalism, all lie on this continuum as well. For the purposes of this blog, the concept of human rights in society will be compared to three regime types: totalitarian regimes, authoritarian regimes, and liberal democracies. By investigating the promotion or degradation of human rights in each of these three regimes, scholars and laypeople alike can better understand the relationship between human rights and government. While most of the blog posts on the Institute for Human Rights features a ‘bottom-up’ modality of human rights advocacy, this paper will examine the opposite approach: ‘top-down’.

a picture of shackles — Shakles. Source: Heather Katsoulis, Creative Commons.

Totalitarian Regimes

What form of regime would arise if an ideological extremist exerted absolute control over a state? This is totalitarianism (O’Neil, 2007). Pure totalitarian regimes have been rare throughout human history, with some recent examples including Hitler and his Nazi ideology, Stalin and his Communist ideology, and Kim Jong Il and his cult of personality. Totalitarian states have a small group of leaders, led by one individual with an absolute mandate, dictating every way of life for its citizens. Totalitarian regimes rule with fear, violence, mechanisms of repression, and oftentimes isolate the state and its citizens from the influence of outside communication and interference (O’Neil, 2007). These regimes are guided, as previously stated, by an ideology that governs all ways of life for the state’s citizens; this ideology is part of the triad of totalitarianism, also including the state party having hegemonic control over the military-police force and industry / production in the state (O’Neil, 2007). Ideology, the marriage of party and law enforcement, and the dictation of culture all comprise the triad, which aids in the efficacy of the totalitarian regime to exert control. This triad is the main arm by which totalitarian regimes repress its subjects. The goal of totalitarian regimes is the spread of its ideology throughout the world, dominion over one state is typically not sufficient. Totalitarianism is seen as the ‘lowest on the scale’ in terms of personal freedom. Totalitarian regimes, such as North Korea, overemphasize security and grossly divert the national budget towards the military and defense.

A hallmark of the totalitarian regime is its quest for pure ideological control from the top down. To again refer to the North Korean case, upon the death of Kim Jong-il, the North Korean people were required to enter a period of intense mourning until his successor could ascend to the throne. During the time of mourning, North Korea was considered a ‘necropolis’, a term used when the leader of a nation-state is actually a deceased individual. Kim Jong-un assumed the supreme leader position and North Korea resumed its totalitarian tendencies. The totalitarian government dictates the culture of the state often using manufactured fear, secret police, and a controlled public media/propaganda machine.

Authoritarian Regimes

Authoritarian regimes are often secretive and therefore difficult to study. In contrast to totalitarian regimes, where the leader or party in control touts the political clout of leadership, authoritarian leaders understand the power of secrecy in maintaining control. Authoritarian governments can take many forms- on paper, that is. Maintaining a visage of functioning democratic ideals (this concept will be visited later) is important to many authoritarian leaders, as the international community tends to forgo prosecuting and punishing democratic states. Authoritarian regimes are operationally defined by a small loci of power (either by one leader, a military junta, or party leaders) controlling many aspects of live for the citizens of the state. Like totalitarianism, authoritarianism is utterly non-democratic in practice (regardless if they hold ‘elections’; O’Neil, 2007). Indeed, part of the insidiousness of dictators controlling an authoritarian regime is their use of fake elections to make the appearances of a democratic transfer or retention of power for leadership. Authoritarian regimes share many similarities with totalitarian regimes; however, authoritarianism typically does not include an ideology or philosophy, or the need for leaders to spread ideology throughout the world (O’Neil & Rogowski, 2006). Violence, repression, lack of free speech, and the need for an ‘enemy’–whether foreign or abroad–is characteristic of authoritarian regimes.

The mechanisms by which an authoritarian leader retains control may be divided into discrete categories: by force, by culture, and by capital. Authoritarian dictators can and will use their police force and military capabilities at will to depose dissidents and quash rebellion (O’Neill, 2007). In the case of violent repression, the international community may elect to step in, and this threat is not lost on the savvy dictator. Therefore, other means of repression have been commonplace in authoritarian regimes. The subtle use of cultural and societal mores as an extension of the government has been well documented, and the term ‘authoritarian’ has entered the common lexicon to refer to any personality or culture embodying the pursuit of power and control at the expense of others (McCormick, 2007; O’Neil, 2007; O’Neil & Rogowski, 2007). Again, the security of a state and its leaders is championed by the elimination of citizens’ freedom. Human rights, similarly to authoritarianism, is typically in dire straits under the influence of an authoritarian leader.

Liberal Democratic Regimes

Finally, the last regime type explored in this blog is the liberal democracy–whereby a state’s representatives are elected through free, fair, and frequent elections by eligible citizens (O’Neil, 2007). Liberal democracies take several forms: the presidential system (found in the United States), the parliamentary system (in the UK), and a semi-presidential system (France; McCormick, 2007). Unlike the previous two types of regimes, democracies attempt to provide citizens with freedom, equality, and security alike (O’Neil, 2007). An important caveat here: in democracy, freedom is typically more championed than equality; the reverse would be true in a communist or socialist regime. Liberal democracies typically enact policies allowing for citizens to allow more personal choice in their lives (freedom) rather than policies that ‘level the playing field’ (equality). All liberal democracies feature policies promoting both freedom and equality to a certain extent (O’Neil, 2007). Liberal democracies have recently been touted as the ‘ideal’ government due to its representative nature; however, problems exist in democracies just like in any form for government. As political parties have risen in ascendancy, as a form of power consolidation within democracies, beleaguered by petty power grabs and comparatively low-level corruption, many voters in liberal democracies have expressed discontent with their representing parties (How strong are the institutions of liberal societies, 2016). The Economist recently published a critique of modern liberal democracy, importing its readers the dangers of populism, political party influence, and degradation of the fair and public media as assaults on the fundamental institutions of democracy.

Liberal democracy is built upon ideal of citizens wielding power over the state, as opposed to the unbridled conglomeration of power in totalitarian regimes. Ideals such as protection of the public sphere (whereby knowledge and information is shared freely and publicly among all persons), a reciprocally deterministic relationship between citizens and government (i.e., representatives being held accountable to their constituents), and the enshrinement of human rights all clearly and concisely comprise the blueprint of democracy. Liberal democracies represent not only a regime type, but also the synthesis between political institutions and moral thinking itself. Universal ethical imperatives, such as those outlined in the UN and its many treaties, policies and protocols, are the foundation for human rights. Liberal democracies have embraced human rights as staple of their political culture. The word ‘citizen’ is used with intention here because democracies have citizens. Repressive governments are said to have subjects.

Comparative Politics and Human Rights

This blog post is the first of several elucidating the connections between comparative politics and the protection of human rights. The comparative analysis of regimes often attempts to provide easy-to-understand, distinct, and discrete forms of government, such as totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and democracy. In reality, governments and regimes exist in a world of gray, a space between these clear definitions. Democracies use torture. Totalitarian regimes care for the elderly. Authoritarian leaders sometime start their reign genuinely advocating for the rights of repressed persons. A lesson to be learned from this analysis is not to classify regimes and governments as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, for exercising more judgement in that regard could alienate populations and incite leaders to violence. Given this suspension of judgement, the study of human rights’ relationship to regime will help scholars and laypersons alike understand what, if any, threats to their rights exist in the world around them.

Concluding this paper is a word of caution to global citizens, but especially those living under the regime of liberal democracy. A term mentioned above, the public sphere, refers to the ability for any and all members in a state to come together and freely share information (especially knowledge from science, art, and religion) for the goal of political change and debate. An analogy would be the Forum used in Ancient Greece. The public sphere today includes popular social media and the press (whether print or online). The role of the free press in particular has been greatly threatened and trivialized in many states around the world, including liberal democracies such as the United States. It is through the press and other non-governmental actors the tangible effects of the regime are made public. To threaten and attack institutions such as free press is to directly threaten the mechanism by which democracy is held accountable. Without a platform for public discourse, the public sphere is limited in its access of information: imagine a library with no books or internet. To publicly call and shame a government for human rights violations is one of the most important mechanisms by which governments are held accountable. In a post-facts world, the truth about your government does matter.

References

How strong are the institutions of liberal societies? (2016). The Economist (Online), Retrieved from http://fetch.mhsl.uab.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1837417012?accountid=8240

McCormick, J. (2007). Comparative Politics in Transition (5th. Ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

O’Neil, P. H. (2007). Essentials of Comparative Politics (2nd Ed.). W. W. Norton & Company: New York, NY.

O’Neil, P. H. & Rogowski, R. (2006). Essential Readings in Comparative Politics (2nd Ed.). W. W. Norton & Company: New York, NY.