Human Rights Watch and the difference between rights and democracy

An open letter was penned to Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch and signed by seventeen womens’ rights organizations, calling out the organization for its excuses and double-talk they give in regards to theocratic political organizations that advocate and institute oppression against women and gays.

From the New York Review of Books’ blog:

You say, “It is important to nurture the rights-respecting elements of political Islam while standing firm against repression in its name,” but you fail to call for the most basic guarantee of rights—the separation of religion from the state. Salafi mobs have caned women in Tunisian cafes and Egyptian shops; attacked churches in Egypt; taken over whole villages in Tunisia and shut down Manouba University for two months in an effort to exert social pressure on veiling. And while “moderate Islamist” leaders say they will protect the rights of women (if not gays), they have done very little to bring these mobs under control. You, however, are so unconcerned with the rights of women, gays, and religious minorities that you mention them only once, as follows: “Many Islamic parties have indeed embraced disturbing positions that would subjugate the rights of women and restrict religious, personal, and political freedoms. But so have many of the autocratic regimes that the West props up.” Are we really going to set the bar that low? This is the voice of an apologist, not a senior human rights advocate.

I couldn’t agree more.

I have and always will hold the belief that any and all calls for democratic reform in a country need to come with the knowledge that people may, and in many cases will, elect a body of government that may be (to put it lightly) less than favorable. This has happened in Egypt, Palestine, and will likely happen in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s a hard truth to swallow, but one that should be seen as inevitable in a region that has not known democratic rule and, if it has, opted at some point to put an autocrat into power.

In that regard, part of what makes Human Rights Watch’s double-talk in regard to the treatment of gays and women in countries where the line between Imam and Administrator is blurred is that it merely acknowledged that any democracy is better than no democracy. Well yes, of course. But that is akin to saying that because a man is not on fire he is not in any danger, while that same man is locked in a cage with a hungry and agitated tiger.

More importantly, though, they’re Human Rights Watch, not Democracy Watch.

Rights can be granted through a democracy, but they are not inherent or, necessarily, mutually inclusive. One of the oft reported anecdotes in this regard is when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law and remarked “we just lost the South for a generation.” Unlike other principles, basic human rights cannot and should not be held to the whim of public favor. If it was, slaves would never have been freed from their masters in this country and the civil rights era would have brought forth nothing. It is important to educate people on rights and tolerance, but you cannot put it up to a popular vote (unlike what Chris Christie would like to do in New Jersey).

Human Rights Watch responded to the criticism:

The signatories of the above letter disagree. In their view, Islamic political parties that come to power “remain committed to systematic discrimination.” We, too, are deeply concerned about that possibility and have been spending a great deal of time monitoring the conduct of Islamic parties, pressing them to respect all rights, and condemning any conduct that falls short. Human Rights Watch has a long history of standing up to governments founded on political Islam that discriminate against women, gays and lesbians, and religious minorities. But we would not reject the possibility that a government guided by political Islam might be convinced to avoid such discrimination.

The letter goes on, but the basic jist of it is that the cause of human rights would be moot if these new governments were to be denounced and recognized as illegitimate. After all, if it’s a step in the right direction, isn’t that a good thing?

Well, yes, but the point is that it’s not necessarily a good thing for women and gays in many of those countries. And that, again, is the whole point. Human Rights Watch shouldn’t be in the business of even having this discussion about democracy and democratic results, and it should instead be pressuring any government regardless of its structure, location, or leanings to grant and recognize those basic human rights that are not just the foundation or the basis but the sole reason for the existence of the organization.

Of course, it’s easy for me and so many others to sit on the sideline and say that HRW should take a harder line with these political entities. Just as it’s easy for HRW to stand on a pedestal and preach to us about arrogance in not recognizing the legitimacy of an elected government when that conversation is separate from their realm and when they’re not the ones actually being oppressed, humiliated, or outright murdered for being who they are. Compromise is sometimes a necessary evil, but there is also an absurdity that must be recognized in turning to victims of misogyny, homophobia, and bigotry and tell them that not only are they playing footsie with their tormentors, but not to worry their pretty little heads about it.

Look, I’m not calling for the burning of Korans or a culture war. I’m just saying that if any of us are serious about basic fundamental human rights, whether we’re part of an organization or just a single concerned human being, then we can’t and shouldn’t tolerate pacification of routine and flagrant violations of those rights.