Since the early twentieth century there has been a change in political thinking about what rights are and where they come from. The American Declaration of Independence states that people are, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights “. The early liberal view represented by the Declaration of Independence held that rights are natural to humans. This is a stark contrast to when Cass Sunstein (2001) says that early constitutions protected rights without “...creating rights to minimally decent conditions of life. But in the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century, the trend is otherwise, with international documents, and most constitutions, creating rights to food shelter and more” (2001, 222) To be sure, these things are necessities, but they cannot be rights. Many who argue that government can create rights at the same time declare that there are universal human rights. If a government can create rights, then all rights are subjective and there are no universal rights. So in order for there to be universal human rights, they must be inherent in the human condition, and therefore not able to be created by any government.
To call necessities of life a right is to completely misunderstand what rights are. Rights are something a person is born with by the simple fact of being human, irrespective of where in the world that person is located. If it is not something inherent in being a person, then it simply is not a right. Things such as food, water, clothing, healthcare and housing are not something a person is born with, although they are necessities to be sure. When a person is born, no matter where they are in the world, they have one thing: their body. A person born in Ethiopia doesn't have food , a person born in Yemen doesn't have water, and so on.
If a body is the only thing each person naturally has, then it must follow that rights extend from a person owning his or her own body. If one owns his or her own body, they have the ability to communicate (as some people do not have the ability to vocally speak). Given that humans are the only species able to understand the complexities of rights and the consequences of violations of the rights of others, humans are the only species to have rights. So, humans can occupy and improve land that is not inhabited by another human. The improvements of this land can then be traded. To be able to trade, a person must communicate with another his or her willingness to do so, and in doing so enters into a contract. These contracts can then be used to trade for goods which are not provided on the land which the person occupies, i.e.: water, food, etc., since not every parcel of land is equally equitable. For those who are unable to find uninhabited parcels of land, they can use this right of contract to trade labor for these goods, which in turn may be traded for ones own parcel of land.
Necessities do not follow this logical progression from the body, as when a person is born they do not inherently have any of these items. In the case of a child these things are usually traded for by the parents or other caregivers. This is not to say the inhabitants of a country cannot decide to provide these items, but they cannot, and should not call them rights. Rights must be protected by a government, which does bear a cost for the protection; but necessities must be provided by these governments, which costs a great deal more. This presented itself in Hungary, where the Constitution stated, “Citizens of the Republic of Hungary have the right to social security”(Constitution of the Republic of Hungary). Solyom and Brunner (2000) described the difficulties which befell Hungary when its government was unable to provide these benefits due to a severe economic decline. Sajo (1996) points out how the government and the people came to an impasse when the International Monetary Fund (IMF) put restrictions on a loan which would have alleviated some of the governments fiscal problems. The IMF demanded that the Hungarian Government place restrictions on these rights in order the receive aid, an idea which the people rejected (Sajo, 1996). In this case, the Hungarian benefits were permitted to stand for the time as the IMF accepted a slower reform process and granted the loan (Sajo 1996).
After the economic downturn in 2008 and 2009 the cost of such programs has again become a problem for many European countries. In Greece there have been many accounts of riots as the government attempts to reign in the cost of benefits in the wake of a collapse which led to the Greek Government being bailed out by other members of the European Union. More recently, Ireland has fallen into trouble over its spending habits. With each collapse, these governments are losing sovereignty and being forced to acquiesce to the will of other countries.
Countries with extant constitutions which provide for these necessities cannot ignore what is written. A constitution is a promise to the people of what that government can and cannot due. If that promise is broken, then the government loses legitimacy and there is little hope for salvage. Instead what these countries should do is try to amend their constitutions to make these items priorities rather than calling them rights. To call them rights is to say that these things must be provided for the citizens, which is not sustainable. To call them priorities shows a commitment to the practices, but allows the systems to be re-evaluated when there is not enough capital to provide them.
Even if necessities are not rights, it is the right of the citizens to contractually obligate their government to address certain issues through a constitution. These constitutions should allow for breathing room in case of economic downturn. And if these necessities are guaranteed as rights in an extant constitution a government cannot ignore the obligation, but rather should attempt to amend the constitution to set these items as priorities instead of falsely and with great cost calling them rights.
References
Sunstein, Cass. “Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do”
Oxford University Press. 2001.
Solyom, Laszlo and Brunner, Georg. 2000. “Hungarian Benefits Case”
In “Comparative Constitutional Law 2nd Edition”
Ed. Jackson & Tushnet.
The Foundation Press. New York. 2006
Sajo, Andras. 1996. “How the Rule of Law Killed Hungarian Welfare Reform”
In “Comparative Constitutional Law 2nd Edition”
Ed. Jackson & Tushnet.
The Foundation Press. New York. 2006
