Is Social Justice Just? (6)

Corruption fundamentally violates human rights in several critical ways. Firstly, corruption undermines the rule of law, which is a cornerstone for the protection and guarantee of human rights. When public officials engage in bribery, embezzlement, or favouritism, essential state resources are diverted away from public services such as healthcare, education, and social security. This diversion directly impacts the economic, social, and cultural rights of citizens, particularly the most vulnerable groups who depend on these services for their survival and dignity. Secondly, corruption erodes public trust in governmental institutions, including the judiciary and law enforcement agencies, weakening the mechanisms designed to uphold human rights. For example, a corrupt judge or police officer may deny fair trial rights or liberty, violating civil and political rights directly. Moreover, systemic corruption creates conditions conducive to widespread human rights abuses by enabling discrimination, arbitrary restrictions, and lack of accountability. It also suppresses freedoms critical to combating corruption itself, such as freedom of the press, access to information, and the right to peaceful assembly. Finally, international and regional human rights bodies acknowledge corruption as both a cause and a manifestation of human rights violations, advocating for a human rights-based approach in anti-corruption efforts. Thus, corruption is not merely an administrative or economic issue but a profound human rights violation that impairs dignity, equality, and justice.

Corruption severely affects the right to health and education by undermining the accessibility, quality, and equity of these essential services. In the health sector, corruption often manifests as bribery, embezzlement, and misallocation of resources, which leads to shortages of medicines, medical supplies, and staff salaries. This situation directly results in reduced access to medical treatment, increased child mortality, and lower life expectancy. For instance, people may be forced to pay bribes to receive proper care, or health facilities may be left with inadequate supplies, making it difficult for vulnerable populations such as children and the poor to get essential services. Similarly, corruption in education appears through practices like ghost teachers on payrolls, diversion of funds meant for schools, and sexual exploitation, which diminish the quality of education and increase dropout rates. These corrupt practices create barriers to equal access and reduce the state's ability to fulfil its obligation to provide quality education and healthcare. The consequences disproportionately impact marginalised groups, including women, children, people with disabilities, and those living in poverty, thereby deepening inequality and infringing on their human rights to health and education.

Corruption that negatively impacts the right to health and education also fundamentally violates the principle of social justice. Social justice demands fair and equitable treatment of all members of society, ensuring that resources and opportunities, especially in essential sectors like health and education, are distributed based on need and without discrimination. When corruption infiltrates these services, it creates unequal access that privileges the wealthy or powerful who can pay bribes, while excluding the poor and marginalised. This corruption-induced inequality not only widens the gap between different social groups but also perpetuates poverty and social exclusion. For example, in corrupted health systems, the misallocation of funds leads to shortages of medicines and medical staff, disproportionately harming disadvantaged populations who rely heavily on public healthcare. Similarly, in education, corruption may manifest through ghost teachers or diverted funding, resulting in inferior educational quality and opportunities, predominantly affecting children from low-income families. Such systemic injustices erode public trust in government institutions and undermine the state's obligation to guarantee equitable social rights. Ultimately, corruption deepens social disparities, undermining social cohesion and the broader goals of justice and equality within society.

Human rights and social justice are deeply interconnected concepts that together form the foundation of a fair and equitable society. Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to every individual simply by virtue of being human. These rights encompass civil and political rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to vote, as well as economic, social, and cultural rights, including access to education, healthcare, and an adequate standard of living. Social justice, on the other hand, focuses on the fair distribution of resources, opportunities, and privileges within a society. It strives to address systemic inequalities and ensure that all individuals, particularly those who are marginalised and vulnerable, have equitable access to these rights and resources.

The relationship between human rights and social justice lies in their shared goal of promoting dignity, equality, and fairness. Human rights provide the legal and moral framework that guarantees individuals’ freedoms and protections. Social justice operationalises these rights by seeking to remove barriers such as discrimination, poverty, and exclusion that prevent people from fully enjoying their human rights. Without social justice, human rights remain theoretical ideals that many cannot access in reality due to social and economic inequalities. Conversely, human rights principles strengthen social justice movements by providing recognized standards that societies must uphold. Together, they strive to create inclusive societies where everyone can participate, thrive, and have their rights respected.

"The Idea of Human Rights" by Charles R. Beitz (2009, Oxford University Press) offers a compelling theoretical examination of the central concept of a human right, moving away from conventional philosophical studies to adopt a practical approach. Beitz meticulously explores the history and political practice of human rights to truly understand their core idea.

Beitz argues that the formal, institutional practice, as we know it today, is a direct outcome of the political and legal settlements that followed World War II. This post-war consensus formally adopted the idea that a state's treatment of its own citizens is no longer a matter of exclusive domestic jurisdiction, but is rather an issue of legitimate international concern, an idea explicitly incorporated into the United Nations Charter.

Crucially, this new practice was definitively crystallised with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948.

However, Beitz is keen to establish a distinction: while the practice is post-war, the central idea of human rights has a long and significant prehistory. He notes that before the UDHR, there were historical measures by which states had already limited their own sovereign authority in favour of protecting individual interests, effectively placing certain domestic matters under a form of international supervision. Moreover, a transnational human rights movement (such as the proliferation of "Leagues for the rights of man" and the establishment of the Fédération Internationale des Droits de l'Homme) had been actively developing since the inter-war period, spurred in part by the failure of the League of Nations Covenant to include sufficient human rights protections.

Therefore, Beitz views the modern practice as a profound shift: the institutionalisation of a pre-existing moral and political ideal into a comprehensive global public project.

When examining the crucial aspects of human rights that need serious attention, Beitz highlights several critical issues, particularly regarding the challenges inherent in the practical implementation and long-term legitimacy of the human rights regime.

Firstly, Beitz underscores the significant problem of Scepticism surrounding the entire human rights enterprise, a major component of which is the fear that the human rights discourse may be exploited by powerful states to advance their own national interests rather than genuinely protecting individuals. This concern casts a shadow over the moral integrity of international intervention and humanitarian action. Secondly, he draws attention to the systemic issue of Double Standards within the practice, where certain states may vigorously challenge the human rights records of others while simultaneously exhibiting profound failures or hypocrisies regarding their own domestic or foreign policies, thereby severely undermining the moral authority of the global human rights movement. Furthermore, Beitz identifies a critical deficiency in the area of Accountability and Effective Implementation, noting the recurrent and troubling gap between the robust normative promises enshrined in international treaties and the inconsistent, often inadequate enforcement mechanisms on the ground, which allows many egregious violations to go unpunished. He concludes that resolving these inherent vulnerabilities, which he terms 'pathologies,' ultimately necessitates stronger and more collaborative international action to ensure that the human rights practice can fulfil its stated purpose of protecting all individuals across the globe.

"Human Rights: A Very Short Introduction" by Andrew Clapham (2007, Oxford University Press) define Human rights as, fundamentally, inherent moral entitlements that belong to every single person simply by virtue of being human, universally applicable regardless of nationality, sex, ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. These rights are commonly grounded in the principle of equal human dignity and include a wide spectrum of protections, such as the right to life, freedom from torture and slavery, freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to work and education.

Contemporary problems are frequently expressed as human rights issues because framing an injustice in this manner imbues the demand for remedy with a specific moral and legal authority. When an issue—whether it is climate change, poverty, discrimination, or arbitrary detention—is articulated as a violation of human rights, it effectively transforms a social or political grievance into a binding legal obligation for the state. This framing provides a universal vocabulary for addressing injustice and gives individuals and advocacy groups a concrete, internationally recognised standard against which to measure government conduct and mobilise public support and action. The language of rights is powerfully transformative, shifting a plea from charity or political preference to a non-negotiable demand for dignity and justice.

A common academic way of explaining the historical emergence of these rights is through the "Three Generations" theory, which links the rights to the core ideals of the French Revolution: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

First Generation: Civil and Political Rights (Liberty): These are often referred to as "negative rights" because they primarily demand that the state refrain from interfering with individual freedoms. They emerged from 18th-century liberal revolutions (American and French) and focus on individual autonomy and protection from government overreach.

Second Generation: Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (Equality): These are considered "positive rights" because they impose a duty on the state to actively provide or ensure access to certain goods, services, and conditions to achieve equality. They arose in the 19th and 20th centuries, often alongside socialist movements, demanding protection against the excesses of unregulated capitalism.

Third Generation: Solidarity or Collective Rights (Fraternity): These rights are the most recently articulated and focus on collective or group claims that require international cooperation. They relate to global issues and include the right to development, the right to a healthy environment, and the right to peace. These represent global aspirations that transcend the individual-versus-state framework.

The broad spectrum of universally recognised human rights is traditionally categorised into five distinct, yet interdependent, groups: Civil Rights and Political Rights typically focus on ensuring the fundamental freedoms and integrity of the individual from undue state interference. For instance, Civil Rights centre on the protection of a person’s existence and dignity, with a core example being the right to life and the freedom from torture; the State’s primary obligation here is negative, meaning it must refrain from committing such acts against its citizens. Similarly, Political Rights are concerned with ensuring individual participation in the public life of the community and the state, exemplified by the right to vote and stand for election and the freedom of assembly; here, the State has a dual obligation to both respect these rights by not suppressing them and to protect them by establishing the necessary legal framework for their free exercise.

In contrast, Economic Rights, Social Rights, and Cultural Rights are often termed Second Generation rights, primarily requiring positive action and resource allocation from the State. Economic Rights focus on the conditions necessary for a dignified livelihood, with a prime example being the right to work and to just and favourable conditions of employment, obligating the State to progressively work towards their realisation to the maximum of its available resources. Social Rights guarantee the necessities for social well-being, such as the right to social security and the right to adequate housing, imposing a State obligation to take concrete, targeted steps to establish protection systems. Finally, Cultural Rights protect the ability of individuals and communities to preserve and develop their identity, manifested in examples like the right to take part in cultural life and to benefit from scientific progress, which requires the State to respect and facilitate participation without discrimination. Although distinct in their immediate focus and state obligation, all five categories are considered indivisible and interdependent, meaning the realisation of one, such as the right to education (Social), is essential for the enjoyment of others, like the freedom of expression (Civil).

All human rights, regardless of their category, impose three distinct levels of obligation upon the State: to Respect, to Protect, and to Fulfil. The obligation to respect is primarily a negative duty and a core focus of Civil and Political Rights; it requires the State to refrain from interfering with the enjoyment of a right, such as ensuring that police do not arbitrarily detain citizens or that the government doesn't censor free speech. The obligation to protect is a positive duty, requiring the State to prevent third parties, like corporations or private individuals, from violating the rights of others; this means the government must enact and enforce laws to prevent slavery or to stop powerful media moguls from unlawfully invading privacy.

The most challenging and resource-intensive is the obligation to Fulfil, which is the central focus of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This duty requires the State to take active, positive steps—including legislative, administrative, and budgetary measures—to fully realise the rights for all its citizens. For example, to fulfil the right to education, the State must build schools, train teachers, and ensure primary education is compulsory and free; similarly, fulfilling the right to health necessitates establishing a comprehensive healthcare system and infrastructure. While Civil and Political Rights require immediate adherence (such as the immediate prohibition of torture), Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights are subject to progressive realisation, meaning the State must demonstrate it is moving as expeditiously and effectively as possible towards their full achievement, using the maximum of its available resources without any form of discrimination.

The issue of balancing rights—specifically the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy—illustrates that human rights are not absolute and must often be weighed against each other to determine which should prevail in a specific situation. Clapham points out that the tension is most evident in cases involving the media, where the public's right to know, protected under free expression, clashes with an individual's right to respect for their private and family life. When assessing such conflicts, judicial bodies generally employ a proportionality test, requiring the interference with either right to be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim (such as the protection of the other right), and be necessary in a democratic society. Crucially, this balancing act often distinguishes between matters of genuine public interest—such as exposing government corruption—and mere public curiosity, with the latter offering significantly less justification for infringing upon an individual's privacy. The complexity is magnified by new technologies, which have made the constant surveillance and mass collection of personal data a commonplace challenge, forcing a re-evaluation of privacy limits in an unprecedented digital landscape.

"Corruption: A Very Short Introduction" by Leslie Holmes (2015, Oxford University Press) defines corruption essentially as improper or inappropriate behaviour linked to one's official position or office. Holmes argues that, while this definition sounds straightforward, its application becomes highly complex because the essence of corruption lies in a deviation from the norms that ought to be adhered to by public officials, intending to secure private gain. The greatest challenge is that the understanding of what constitutes 'improper' or 'inappropriate' is heavily dependent on the specific culture and context of a society; what may be considered an acceptable gift or token of respect in one place could be immediately labelled as bribery or a criminal corrupt act in another. Therefore, according to Holmes, corruption can be universally understood as the abuse of public power for private benefit, yet its specifics and societal acceptance are highly fluid and variable.

Holmes addresses the question of "Why corruption is a problem" by placing it among the most detrimental global challenges, arguing that its significance often surpasses other crises like extreme poverty and climate change. He asserts that corruption is problematic fundamentally because it is consistently identified as a principal cause of poverty worldwide, systematically diverting resources away from vital public services—such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure projects—which directly impairs the State's capacity to develop and function efficiently. Furthermore, corruption inherently undermines the rule of law and public trust, leading to a cynical environment where citizens lose faith in their institutions and the fairness of the system, consequently hindering both political participation and democratic processes. Crucially, it creates and entrenches deep social inequality by ensuring that access to public goods and opportunities is dictated by bribery and political connections rather than by merit or need, thus making it an existential threat to societal stability and economic development.

Drawing upon the lenses of Andrew Clapham (on Human Rights) and Leslie Holmes (on Corruption), a clear and destructive nexus emerges between corruption, human rights, and social justice. Holmes establishes that corruption is not merely a financial crime but a systemic phenomenon where the abuse of public office for private gain erodes the efficiency and legitimacy of the State. This systemic erosion directly violates the core principles of Human Rights (HAPs), as detailed by Clapham, by undermining the State's triple obligation to Respect, Protect, and Fulfil these rights. When public funds are illicitly diverted, the State fails in its obligation to fulfil Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; for instance, money intended for building hospitals or schools is stolen, directly leading to a denial of the rights to health and education, disproportionately harming the most vulnerable populations. Furthermore, corruption often entails the subversion of the rule of law and the judiciary, which is a direct violation of Civil and Political Rights, specifically the right to a fair trial and due process, thereby denying victims any effective remedy for injustices committed against them. Consequently, corruption acts as a massive barrier to Social Justice because it systematically channels resources and power away from the general populace and towards a privileged few. This creates and entrenches deep inequality and discrimination, effectively making the enjoyment of basic human rights a function of wealth or political connection rather than a universal entitlement, thus turning the promise of social justice into a mere illusion.

[Part 7]
[Part 5]

Bahasa