Much of the global attention has been on liberal constitutional rights such as the right to life, liberty, security of person, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to own property, etc. The focal shift has been partly due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the ideological vacuum that was subsequently filled by capitalism and liberal democracy (O’Brien and Williams, 2003). Not to argue that this shift is bad however, it is inadequate in ensuring the wellbeing of humankind. Capitalism, which goes hand in hand with liberal constitutional rights by virtue of their co-dependence, does not play or attempt to play fair. They both stress individuality and are premised on the survival of the fittest. However, there is also a need to also stress collectivism and the welfare of our community. This essay will argue that the right to life, liberty and security of person cannot exist without access to food, water and shelter. Indeed, life will be a paradox if it cannot be supported, so will liberty and security if widespread deprivation exists. The following paragraph will examine the meaning of each right and how it relates to democracy. Secondly, I will elaborate on my argument as to why it is necessary for the right to life, liberty and security to co-exist with access to basic amenities. Finally, I will respond to a major counterargument of my thesis statement.
The right to life signifies that no one shall in any capacity arbitrarily take the life of another. With the exception of a few states, which pass death sentences on certain crimes, mostly the only acceptable time a life can be taken is when an individual dies of natural causes or other circumstances beyond our control. Secondly, the right to liberty is crucial not only to democracy but to life. It ensures that an individual can be all they want to be. Without the right to liberty, liberal democracy, which is based on the individual, cannot exist. In a world full of competing ideas, the right to liberty ensures that we can all live together with our own ideas and ideals, as long as it does not interfere with the liberty of another (Mills, 2002). Finally, the right to security of person ensures that the individual is secure from arbitrary decisions by people in authority, or free from harm by other individuals. These rights along with others must be in place in order for a state to be a democratic. A state does not need the right to food, shelter and water in order to be democratic in today’s world however; the following paragraphs will argue that a democracy cannot function unless the basic requirements to life are realized by the majority of its citizens. I do not know the exact percentage required however; it seems the more a state meets these its citizens’ basic needs, the more humane and democratic it can expect to be.
I stress again that the right to life, security and liberty of person cannot exist without the existence of food, water and shelter. The logic here is that the right to life has no meaning whatsoever if life cannot be supported with the basic requirements of living. In addition, if life cannot be maintained, there is no way we can talk of liberty and security because there will be chaos. An examination of the top five unstable regions in the world (Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Chad and Iraq) according to foreign policy magazine shows one commonality – poverty! (2007) One may argue that may be Iraq is not poor because of its abundant oil but, according to a report by Oxfam about half of Iraq is in absolute poverty (Cave, 2007). In Somalia, one commentator says you can get shot as quick as you wipe a sweat from your face (Gentleman, 2009). In these states, there is little recognition for the right to life, liberty and security of person. It does not work because the people are deprived their basic existence and are left with no other choice than to be aggressive to survive. On the flip side of the coin, wealthy states such as states such as the United States and Canada can indeed strive for these rights to the fullest extent because they are wealthy. They give supplementary monies – child support, unemployment insurance, disability checks, etc., to people who need it although; in the past few decades welfare has shrunk dramatically (Moffit et al., 1998). This should not be the case because the more peoples needs are met; the more we can expect to be democratic.
The Economist published an article in 2007, ranking the level of democracy in states according to full democracies, flawed democracies, and hybrid and authoritarian regimes (Morales, 2006). A close examination will reveal that the so-called ‘exporters of democracy’ did not rate high. Developed states with low poverty rates were rated higher in democracy (Sweden, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark) being the top five in order. However, states that had higher poverty rates like the U.S., U.K., France, Italy, and Russia were rated less democratic, being 17th; 23rd; 24th; 34th; and 102nd respectively (Morales, 2006; Epinet, 2005; Jackson, 2002). The study suggests that there is an inverse relationship between poverty and democracy. Opponents of my point of view may argue my opinion is socialist, ultimately inefficient and a distortion of the workings of the market. In response, I argue that the lessons of the Great Depression of the 1930’s reveal that we must not wait for wealth to trickle down as Adam Smith argued in the Wealth of Nations, because in an individualistic society this rationale will not always work. Politics is inherently about the people and states must always act fast for the welfare of its citizens.
In conclusion, it appears that there is a correlation between access to food, shelter, clean water and the right to life, liberty and security. The more a state acquires one for its citizens, the more likelihood the other will be met. More research will be needed to indicate the optimal point. It even further appears, that there is a correlation between democracy and poverty however; this will be beyond the scope of this essay. International politics needs a major transformation. To ensure the right to life, liberty and security of person serious thought must go into ensuring the availability to the basic requirements to human life. Both are equally important and should be championed together.
Works Cited
Cave, Damien. "Oxfam Reports Growing Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq." New York Times
July 2007. 24 Feb. 2009
"Facts and Figures; US and the World." Economic Policy Institute. 24 Feb. 2009
Gettleman, Jeffrey. "The Most Dangerous Place in the World." Foreign Policy March &
april 2009. Foreign Policy. 24 Feb. 2009
Jackson, Andrew. "Canada Beats USA - Loses Gold to Sweden." Canadian Council on
Social Development / Conseil Canadien de D. 24 Feb. 2009
Mill, John Stuart, and Gertrude Himmelfarb. On Liberty. New York: Penguin Group
(USA) Incorporated, 1982.
Moffit, Robert, David Ribar, and Mark Wilhelm. "The decline of welfare benefits in the
U.S.: the role of wage inequality." Journal of Public Economics 68 (1998): 421-
52.
Morales, Alex. "Sweden Is Top Democracy; Italy `Flawed,." Bloomberg.com 2006.
Bloomberg. 24 Feb. 2009
O'Brien, Robert, and Marc Williams. Global Political Economy : Evolution and
Dynamics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Limited, 2003.
