Information era decides future of human rights

By T. Mulya Lubis

This is the second of two articles based on a paper presented at a recent workshop on human rights organized by Friedrich Naumann Foundation.

GUMMERSBACH, Germany: In its beginnings, the human rights movement attempted to protect individuals from the arbitrary power of the state. The historical standard of human rights can be read in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and continues through and after in the Agenda of Conference Movement on Human Rights in Vienna (1993). These proclamations show a solid commitment to the protection of individual human rights, rights which are deemed inalienable and inviolable.

Certainly, international dialogs exhibit points of disagreement in the definition of what constitutes Universal Human Rights. More often than not, these definitional conflicts prove to be based upon political expedience toward achievement of the special interests of individual states. However, basically, we see a strong cable running through the spirit for protection of the rights of individuals, a cable defined and limited only by the boundaries within which one can bend the truth. The government of the United States of America, for example, often sacrifices its commitment to human rights for the sake of good relationships with its trading partners, or with the regime of the Soviet Union during the heat of the Cold War.

Although the commitment to individual human rights remains very strong, the desire to improve the collective lot of our species has also been the subject of much attention. Since 1966, two basic instruments concerning the rights of the collective were adopted: namely, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. With these important documents, the manufacture of a vehicle was accomplished; designed to drive individuals and governments toward the acknowledgment and achievement of the protection of the collective rights to life in peace and in a healthy environment.

The definition of collective rights and the rights of solidarity have continued to grow. In many respects, attempting to draw a dichotomy between individual human rights and collective human rights is useless and irrelevant. The two categories of basic rights are often the same or overlap, and in any event, must be molded to permit coexistence. This is the focus of The African Charter of Human Rights and some declarations of human rights born in other territories.

The course of history and current events have made it clear that efforts toward protection of the individual from the arbitrary and repressive powers of the state are still insufficient. Accordingly, greater effort is needed to create governmental systems which provide more security to society through the protection of human rights.

Here, the institutionalization of democracy as a system is regarded as the most likely candidate to provide perpetual support to the protection of individual human rights from the whims of special interests in control of or with influence over would-be elitist governments. Fukuyama's observations about "the end of history" provide a compelling argument to the fundamental importance of democracy as a social system and method of government; a system which secures human dignity and human values, today and in the future. In his discourse, we are confronted with the concept of the "enlargement of democracy" as a means to define the role of the state and society as elements of government. These elements must stand shoulder-to-shoulder in the composition of a more equitable global future.

It is not that the attraction to an enlargement of democracy does not exist. The incredible technological revolution has opened many doors to engagement in meaningful democratic advancement. Generally, it can be concluded that the movement of human rights has been effective when viewed from the perspectives of the standards of expectations it works to set and from the socialization of those standards through awareness and education of the masses.

With the enhancement of awareness of a society, its members find themselves irresistibly drawn to the light of their own understanding of justice brought forth through the irrefutable clarity of righteousness imparted by the enunciation of what we refer to as universal human rights. The down-trodden become motivated and engage in the struggle for these rights.

We see this happening every day now in Indonesia. In the society's campaign to uncover the mass graves evidencing the disappearances of people in Bukit Tengkorak, Aceh, for example, we can see the elderly, widows and children rallying to the courts and the media, raising the banner of accountability and demanding justice through the sword and shield of the public eye, all the while enforcing their empowerment granted by an accessible, free, prolific and objective communications network.

The ghosts of the thousands of family members -- innocent members of the community who founded themselves in community graves reminiscent of those dug by the Third Reich and the colonists of the Americas -- call for the accountability of those security officers who cast their shadows over death.

Those who rally display remarkable courage. Anxiety is no longer sufficient to oppress as people feel that they are not alone. They have come to understand and believe that the struggle for human rights to live, to be free from torture, to not be killed unlawfully are universal struggles supported by all human beings all over the world. Consciousness that the human rights of people from and in Indonesia are the same as the human rights of people from and in Bosnia, for example, grows stronger. The Indonesian government's claim that Indonesia has a particular concept of human rights (in the same manner as the concept of "Asian Values") becomes ever more obtuse.

We see that histories are synchronized in the fields of communications and human rights. We see the advancement of communications principally through speed and access. And, we see the enlargement and global social incorporation of the concepts of universal human rights.

One of the most promising effects of this synchronization is a form of enlightenment and transformation of our interrelationships. People are transported closer together and legal borders become boundless. The technological revolution creates a new era, wherein the concept of "space", as a distinction, becomes less important. A half-tangible community controls the traffic of a tangible society in an interaction which is incredible and unique.

Science, politics, business and literature already traverse the Internet. All of a sudden, we see people make the rationalization that they no longer see a need for their secretary (my secretary, of course, is still indispensable); suddenly office buildings appear antiquated and soon the real world will be dictated by those who are united through a network society (as if it hasn't already).

Here we see the great temptation proposed by this technological revolution to engage in total social engineering -- an opportunity which can be misused by the authoritarian regime. Thus, here we are presented with a great promise and, at the same time, with a great danger.

If we are not careful, this technological revolution will lead us through the process of dehumanization; through a destruction of the uniqueness which substantially defines our humanity. Man can be conjured to be a mechanistic entity with all of the attributes of an autonomist. This technological revolution not only has the potential to reduce a human being to a mechanical actor but also to reproduce a human being artificially.

These are the great dangers of technology which, in the long run if left unchecked, may bring us to social exclusion. Unconsciously, technology is worshiped as a new god. Here we are forced to dare to set forth the importance of ethics in our social intercourse, in our personal, family and public lives. The danger of the technological revolution can only be resisted if the foundation of social ethics is established in society.

Fortunately, championing the cause of human rights in stride with, and by harnessing the power of, the technological revolution, will likely lead to the uplifting of the human spirit and the destruction of the authoritarian regime.

The future of human rights will always be a product of two opposing currents created by the advancement of technology, those of potential costs and possible benefits. The possible benefits offered by technology, particularly information technology, will be significantly incredible. But on the contrary, the danger accompanying it cannot be neglected.

At the least, information technology has the potential to create a discriminative impact in the sense that it has the tendency to concentrate its advantages among the upper classes of society, while on the other hand providing the power of knowledge as a tool for the oppression of the lower classes. This information technology could take on a tendency to enhance the gap of respect for human rights pursuant to the level of the wealth and prosperity of the society and the country so that the underprivileged will still become the victims of advancing information technologies. Basic human rights, like commodities, are gradually bought and sold by society's elite.

Our challenge is not to strive to obtain advantages from the technological revolution. Nor should our goal merely be to strive for the profusion of information. Rather, we should concentrate on the distribution of its advantages across the greatest possible spectrum of society around this world. The enhancement of protection to human rights through institutionalization of democracy is the challenge of the information society.

The writer is a human rights activist and corporate lawyer based in Jakarta.