Relationship between Politics and Human RightsJune 28, 2021
Today, human rights issues are seen and discussed more as a legal issue.
Human rights education is generally carried out as “human rights law” education, and legal solutions are tried to be found for human rights problems. Undoubtedly, human rights problems often appear as legal problems, and the protection of human rights is basically possible with legal regulations. On the other hand, seeing human rights only as a legal issue brings with it many difficulties, from the definition of the concept of human rights to the protection of human rights.
The question of human rights is as much a question of law, and perhaps even before that, a question of philosophy, an ethical question, a question of politics. Human rights issues cannot be clarified without having a clear concept of human rights—knowledge of what are human rights and what are not—without seeing that human rights norms are basically ethical norms. In order to protect human rights in a country and to ensure freedom in a country, some political arrangements must be made. Human rights in a country can only be protected if the constitution, laws and regulations to be enacted with the aim of protecting fundamental rights by the rulers of the country are prepared with this aim in mind and implemented in accordance with its purpose. Laws, or the legal institution as a whole, are never entirely outside politics in this sense.
Every law emerges as a result of a political decision or reflects a political decision. There is always a parliament, a council or, in the most general sense, a political authority that makes the laws. Law is the product of this political authority, it always bears its stamp. Although the legislature and the executive are separate powers in contemporary democracies, the two powers are not as separate in practice as they are in theory, since the parties that have the majority in the legislature also undertake the executive task. Even the judicial institution is directly affected by both the executive and the legislature. The laws and regulations that determine the functioning of the judicial institution are enacted by the legislative and executive organs. The budgets of the legislative bodies are determined by the executive, and the executive is as effective as the higher judicial institutions, which are expected to be independent but not much in practice, in personnel recruitment and appointment-promotion. For this reason, the principle of separation of powers, which is envisaged to be between the legislative-executive and judicial powers, often remains in theory, although there are some important differences between countries according to the political and cultural development levels of the countries. In practice, those who hold political power or power try to dominate the parliament, as well as to take on the executive task, and try to influence and even direct the judiciary, whose independence is essential for the functioning of modern democracies. This ultimately raises the question of the functioning of democracies, “How long can contemporary democracies survive or survive in accordance with their purpose without following the principle of separation of powers?” raises the question.
It is the state that will protect human rights, sometimes directly – with the institutions and organizations it will create – and sometimes indirectly – when there is an interference with the fundamental rights of individuals – or it is the state’s foremost duty to protect human rights.
The Theory of Contracting, which tries to explain the formation of the state and to justify its legitimacy, argues that people give up their unlimited freedoms because they cannot protect their own existence and freedom on their own and hand over the power to a higher authority or authority, and that is how the state came into existence.
Although there are various debates and differences of opinion on the reason for the existence of the state, there is almost a consensus that the first thing expected from the state is to protect the fundamental rights of the individuals and to ensure the fundamental freedoms in the country. The debate is more about whether what is expected from the state is limited to this. For this reason, it is not an exaggeration to say that what is expected from the state is to protect human rights in the first place. If the aim of politics or politicians is to ensure the “happiness” and “well-being” of citizens, theoretically and practically, as is often expressed, the prerequisite for this is to ensure that all citizens benefit from fundamental rights and freedoms as much as possible and equally. Today, the state as a legal institution, a state established and functioning in accordance with its purpose, can be mentioned with two main functions: to guarantee the fundamental rights of the citizens and to ensure that these rights can be lived in the country in question -by preventing the aggressors when these rights are attacked. In today’s conditions, the duties of the state can be revealed by clarifying these two aims. In other words, if the fundamental rights of citizens are guaranteed by laws and institutions, and if the barriers preventing individuals from exercising these rights are removed, that is, if a free society is established, there is no state.