Komoa (deprivation of rights) vs. "democracy"

 


Komoa - deprive of rights, rend asunder.

The notion of “democracy” in Eurasian societies except maybe among tribal Saxons has generally been a process of reaction against deprivation of rights rather than a natural inherent political system as has been among several Indigenous nations in Africa. Consequently, in contemporary societies largely influenced by Eurasian nations, the meaning of the term “democratic society” has been rendered vague given the different countries of differing ideological perspectives claiming to be democracies. In the Eurasian sense therefore, democracy is definitely not about casting an election ballot but the protection of human rights and civil liberties. The overused mischievous Eurasian rhetoric of falsely equating democracy to only doing often dubious elections is the biggest conmanship in the contemporary world. Propagated by countries which themselves don’t hold comprehensive popular elections for political positions.

At the international level, both the Siracusa principles and the Limburg principles state that while there is no single model of a democratic state, a society which recognizes and respects the human rights set out in the United Nations charter and the universal declaration, as a minimum, may be viewed as meeting this definition. This means that a society, whether developed or developing, is considered democratic as long as those minimum standards are maintained.

Beyond these minimum standards, the determination of what is reasonably justifiable in any democratic society should be an objective test, despite the fact that it might mean different things for different people. The term “democratic society” is therefore often appended to constitutions more so for its emotive and ideological appeal than for any regard for what is conveyed. Therefore, there is a loophole for the utilization of the rhetoric of “democracy” for political purposes in a fashion not based on law and human rights but sentiment and propaganda.

States of emergency

The Siracusa principles on the limitation and derogation of civil and political rights were drawn up in 1984 by an eminent group of international lawyers. In 1986, a further meeting was held at which the Limburg principles on economic, social and cultural rights were established which reflected what was considered to be the present state of internal law on the topic.

Throughout state of emergency cases by some neocolonial undemocratic African states, there is a general failure of governments to publicize emergency regulation. They are often published in the government gazette which is quite insufficient given its very restricted availability and readership. This deliberately puts citizens in ignorance of the scope of government powers. It leaves free reign for compromised liberal media operating in a competitive terrain of sensationalism and paid propaganda for higher ratings/views. There’s often intermittent publishing of shifting emergency regulations in national and local newspapers, often in brief, popularized or even vulgarized format which does little more than fan media sensationalism and which often exacerbates the violation of the law and human rights.

References

Hatchard, J. (1993). Individual freedoms and state security in the African context: The case of Zimbabwe

TUKI (2001), Kamusi Ya Kiswahili-Kiingereza; Swahili-English Dictionary. Published by Taasisi ya Uchunguzi wa Kiswahili (TUKI), Chuo Kikuu cha Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.


Comments