Universalism or cultural relativism: Bane of human rights discourse

In human rights discourse, one issue that has remained vexed and enduring is the tension between universalism and cultural relativism. 

At the core of this conundrum lies a simple yet profound question: are human rights truly universal or should their interpretation depend on cultural, religious, national and traditional contexts?

In recent times, there has been a resurgence in this debate in the rhetoric of discussions surrounding gender equality, freedom of expression and the rights of minority groups, including women, children and sexual minorities.

Without much ado, a brief definition of universalism and relativism might help to situate the argument.

Universalism of the principles of human rights basically asserts that human beings, irrespective of personal characteristics or situation, are entitled and guaranteed human rights.

The underlying factor or qualifying condition is the fact of one’s humanity. 

Universalist human rights advocates therefore posit that all human beings, regardless of nationality, culture, belief, gender, etc., possess and/or are entitled to human rights.

This contention is rooted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is the mother of modern human rights advocacy in the world. It is founded or grounded in the argument that dignity, equality and freedom are inherent and indivisible. 

Constitution

Closer to home, the framers of the 1992 Constitution echoed that sentiment when they proclaimed in Article 12 that the fundamental human rights and freedoms “shall be respected and upheld by the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary and all other organs of government”.

The inclusion of rights such as the right to life, personal liberty and equality before the law in Ghana’s Constitution is very instructive, signalling their non-negotiability insofar as enjoyment is concerned.

Ghana has also ratified almost all the major international human rights treaties, and all of them have universal underpinnings.

Any anxious scrutiny of Ghana’s Constitution incontrovertibly reveals, in yours truly’s opinion, that it is informed by universalist aspirations.

Indeed, the whole global human rights set up, from the United Nations to regional human rights bodies, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, affirms the universalist approach to the promotion, protection and enforcement of human rights.

Cultural relativism

Cultural relativism, on the other hand, insists that human rights cannot be divorced from the cultural and moral framework within which societies operate.

They (proponents of the cultural relativism tradition) argue that concepts of right and wrong, equality, justice, freedom, etc., are culturally constructed. In other words, these values are culture-specific.

The sponsors of the anti-LGBTQ+ bill and many traditional and religious leaders and self-styled moralists in Ghana invoke this cultural relativism argument.

When they argue that the practice (LGBTQ+) is alien to Ghanaian culture (an assertion that is debatable), they are simply deploying a classic cultural relativism argument.

The argument often rests on the claim that Ghana’s social cohesion, built on communalism and respect for tradition, is threatened by ‘foreign’ values imposed under the guise of universal rights.

This argument was aggressively deployed during the parliamentary debates on the controversial Promotion of Proper Human and Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill, where the sponsors framed their arguments as a defence of Ghanaian culture and morality against Western intrusion.

Tension

The tension, which is gradually proving to be intractable, is balancing respect for culture and tradition with the universal demand for human dignity and equality. 

While culture forms the moral backbone of society, it can also become an unwitting ally to injustice and discrimination, if not oppressive.

Practices such as ‘trokosi’, female genital mutilation, widowhood rites and gender-based discrimination, though rooted in cultural traditions, have been recognised as violations of fundamental human rights under Ghanaian and international law.

More importantly, cultural relativism risks entrenching inequality by allowing subjective moral standards of an intolerable majority to justify discrimination and abuse of the minority - a classic case of the tyranny of the majority.

Evidence

There is enough evidence, both objective and anecdotal, that demonstrates that the universal approach to human rights is the best course.

After all, our national motto is freedom and justice and the struggle for independence was founded on these virtues as well as that of equality.

Culture is also dynamic. Think of the many cultural practices that have been jettisoned with the advent of modernity. 

The eternal debate between universalism and cultural relativism will no doubt persist, but we live in a global world where we all aspire to a moral duty to protect all citizens equally.

If Ghana is to live up to our constitutional promise: “freedom and justice” then universalism must carry the day.

The writer is a lawyer.