During the early 2000s, the then minister of education, Professor Kader Asmal, commissioned school-based research that would identify values to be promoted in schools. The 10 “fundamental values” that were identified are the values of the constitution, namely: democracy, social justice, equality, non-racism and non-sexism, ubuntu, an open society, accountability, the rule of law, respect and reconciliation.
The question might be raised as to whether the schools-based research, the glossy manifesto on values, education and democracy, and the concomitant conferences were in, fact, necessary - all costly endeavours. Nevertheless, the focus on values was necessary at that time in our history, and in schooling.
However, values should be practised, not only learnt cerebrally.
A value I focus on here is the value of human rights.
This week the People’s Post announced that its campaign this month is a special one in honour of Human Rights Day (March 21). The campaign is about encouraging readers to become aware of those less fortunate and to provide donations. It is a noteworthy day. Before the advent of our democracy, the human rights of the majority of persons in this country were not recognised, or hardly recognised.
Kader Asmal
I have elsewhere referred to human rights as moral vision. Human rights are the rights one has by virtue of being human. One source makes the link between human rights and morality, with the view that human rights are certain moral guarantees. Morality may be used in normative or descriptive senses. A normative use of morality would apply to all rational persons, while a descriptive use of morality would apply to specific groups of persons who share a moral code, for example a religious grouping.
Morality governs the behaviour of persons that affects others, and it has as its purpose the lessening of evil or harm. Morality is unique to human beings and resides in the nature of human beings. If we recognise human beings as moral beings we simultaneously recognise the social nature of human beings, as well as the participatory nature of relationships between human beings. The concept “morality” does not make sense without the presence of the other – the social – and presupposes a unique relationship between humans as moral beings.
Human rights are the rights not only of certain categories of persons, but of all human beings the world over. In this sense, human rights are universal in that they are rights applicable to every human being. A source points out that human rights must not be regarded as “things” to be had; instead we must recognise that human rights constitute a social practice.
A social practice evolves over time and it has a history. Any practice is governed by rules. As with any practice there are rules that govern human rights as practice. The notion of rules in relation to “human rights as practice” points to particular types of relationships between persons.
In order for human rights as practice to flourish, there must be particular kinds of relationships between persons, for example relationships of profound respect for the other. These relationships find expression in human actions.Thus, the idea of human rights as practice also illuminates the connectedness between human rights, human action and moral vision.
Choices regarding a particular moral vision or visions for society have seen, at various times in history, at various places in the world, the formulation of these respective visions. In 1996, with the adoption of our new constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights, South Africa’s particular moral vision of the potential of human beings and the institutions for realising that vision was realised. The constitution of South Africa is a written construct of this moral vision.
Parliament and the Constitutional Court are but two of the institutions by means of which that moral vision may be realised. The constitution that South Africa adopted in 1996 was preceded by human rights initiatives that culminated in documents such as the Women’s Charter of 1954 and the Freedom Charter of 1955.
Chapter one of the constitution, the founding provisions (section 1 a-d) states explicitly that South Africa is a sovereign, democratic state and that it is founded on the following values: human dignity, the achievement of equality, the advancement of human rights and freedom, non-racialism, supremacy of the constitution, the rule of law, universal adult suffrage, a national common voters roll, regular elections and a multi-party system of democratic government to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness.
The link between human rights and values is clear: “human rights” is itself a value. Furthermore, as stated above, human rights is a practice. But this practice can be sustained only if there is vigorous engagement with the practice itself.
But a vigorous engagement with the practice of human rights is possible only if other values such as respect and openness are brought on board. In other words, human rights' practices go hand-in-hand with practices that are underpinned by values, such as respect and openness. In order for a practice to flourish in a community of practitioners there has to be some shared understanding among the participants in respect of what the practice entails.That is, there must be some shared understanding of the standards of the practice.
Therefore, in order for the practice of human rights to flourish there must be some shared understanding of what the practice human rights entails. Human rights are manifested only in a community where there is a shared understanding of the values that underpin the value of “human rights”.
I conclude with two thoughts; one sad and the other both sad and happy, and both which have their place in the story of human rights in South Africa.
Over the past few days many people have taken note of the passing of Judge Essa Moosa. He was an individual who fought against injustice and oppression. It would appear that he remained a humble man who did not seek self-enrichment or self-aggrandisement.
My thoughts, as I am sure are the thoughts of many (those who knew him in person and those who did not), are with his family and friends.
Then a sad, but in the end also an uplifting story. This concerns Reggie Dreyer, about whom there have been a number of reports.
This highly talented musician was, because of apartheid, denied the right to play with the Cape Town Philharmonic Orchestra some 56-years ago.
Dreyer’s story resonates with the stories of many other South Africans, black and brown, whose chances of reaching the apex of their talents were curtailed by apartheid legislation and practices.
Recently, Dreyer played at the Artscape Theatre Centre’s line-up of classical musicians. What a pity the opportunity came so late in his life – he is 74 years old.
Nevertheless, it makes me happy to see his smile and his obvious happiness at being where he belongs - at the keys of his beloved piano.