2 - Setting the Opposition Agenda: The Issue of Human Rights, 1929–1931

Summary

Human rights are claims upon society that every individual should have, including the right to be free – both “free from” and “free to.” They are thought to be inalienable, that is, they cannot be waived, transferred, or traded away, because they are implied in one's humanity. “Human rights,” writes Louis Henkin, “enjoy at least a prima facie, presumptive inviolability, bowing only to important societal interests, in limited circumstances, for limited times and purposes, and by limited means.” They must, therefore, be protected against malevolence, corruption, and transgressions by the state. The contemporary view is that a liberal democratic system by far affords the best protection, and democratic social conditions are the most reliable vehicle for achieving happiness for the greatest majority. Conversely, constant violations of human rights by a repressive regime provide a cause for liberal opposition and political change. Democracy and human rights are not the same things, but the nexus between them is a significant one. Today, Westerners talking about democracy link it with human rights, calling governments that ban street demonstrations and censor newspapers undemocratic.

Writing on human rights in the People's Republic of China (PRC), Merle Goldman notes that concern for human rights is “neither alien to China nor merely a Western import” and that its roots “are deep in Chinese history and tradition.”