So having recently discussed the idea of basic rights in a new democracy and when people are willing to stand up for these rights I thought this article was interesting.
The Road to a South African Driver's License
This article talks about how difficult it is to get a driver's license in South Africa. Fewer than 4 out of 10 people who applied for a license actually received one. In America I know that some people consider having a license to be a basic need. Trying to get a license is "so daunting that it set off riots this year"
Do you think that not being able to receive a license is violating a right?
What is considered a basic human right?
Does basic human rights vary from place to place?
What rights do you think people are willing to die to protect?
9 comments:
I think that in America, we lead a priveleged life. Yes, many people take a liscense for granted because it is something that is pretty easy to obtain. Here, most of us have the luxury of owning a car, and just with this, a liscense is pretty simple to get.
In Africa however, the daily life of many people is very different. We depend on cars to commute to and from work, but in Africa many work at home and are self-sufficient within their communities. The standards of living are so different between the two countries.
I think that being able to receive a liscense is a basic right, but I don't know South Africa's history behind this. However, I think more basic rights include freedom of speech, freedom of the press....all those American values.
Basic human rights definitely vary from place to place depending on the government and basic values among the people. A country that is not a democracy is going to have different human rights than we do.
I would not consider the right to a drivers license a completely basic human right. Basic human rights, similar to what Aileen said, I believe to be freedom of speech, privacy, those kinds of things. When I think about all the oppression and such in Africa, it is hard for me to think about a drivers lisence as a top priority, when there are so many other rights that should be fought to be enforced first.
One's rights vary from place to place. The rights of South Africans are very different from those of Americans living in the U.S. While many South Africans do not have licenses, I think that because their conditions are different than ours, it's not as big a deal. I think that since the situation in America requires commuting between long distances, having a lisence is more meaningful for Americans.
Like Aileen and Rachel, I agree that basic human rights are strongly connected to one's freedoms. It is the rights that are intricately connected to our identity, the rights that are necessary for one to function in life that should be protected and worth dying for. Without these rights, one cannot establish themselves as a functioning member of society.
Though I agree with Aileen that Africa has different needs and having a license isn't necessarily a basic human right, I do have to disagree with Aaron's comment about it not being a "big deal". I think having a license, especially in a country where not as many people have licenses, presents new opprotunities in terms of jobs and travel. From reading the article, it seems like the drivers test is unnecessarily hard and is trying to fail people. My question is if this is true, why would the government do that? Are there reasons that South Africans shouldn't have their licenses? It might not be a basic right, but when it can help employment rates why deny that?
According to the article, local governments have found that it is beneficial to fail drivers because they receive $25 for every test taken. Basically, they can make money of continuously failing bus drivers. Many of the transportation officials also claim that the difficult test it is a way to ensure safe driving even though there are still 5 times more fatalities per mile than the US.
I think what has been said kind of strikes the question we began addressing class about what is more important - rights like free speech, press. etc. or provisions for day-to-day living. I think ideologically free speech, fee press, etc. are more important to uphold, but in reality, most people are just trying to survive and maintain their jobs and families. If being able to get a license affects a person's whole livelihood, does it then become a right?
Also, many people have mentioned that human rights vary from place to place, but there is a universal set of human rights established by the UN. If rights do, in fact, vary from place to place, then what is the purpose or effect of the UN's declaration? Can rights be internationalized successfully? If not, what is the point in having such a declaration?
to build off of melanie's comment... the idea of trains running and the direct effect of human rights on an individual may make some people consider having a license be more important than actually having freedom of press for example.
And i also do not necessarily agree with some of the previous statements that rights vary from place to place. I think basic human rights are universal. (or at least should be universal.) Just because a government may not value hearing a minorities opinion does not mean that as humans that minority suddenly does not have the right to share their opinion.
To answer melanie's question I do not believe that rights can be internationalized successfully... at least not at this point. unless the UN suddenly gets an army or all of its members threaten to go to war against all of the governments that don't meat the UNs policies that rights will become internationalized any time soon. That said, in the far future it may occur as more uprisings within countries happen as they realize their need for rights.
also - what separates a person who decides to stand up for their rights and risk physical harm from those who don't? Do you guys think there is a specific characteristic or experience such a person may have had?
I feel like most of what the U.N. declares is followed without enforcement. They agree to instigating peace and stopping conflict in many countries, but this is rarely followed up. Having a set of internationalized basic human rights laws is somewhat pointless. Yes, they can exist, but what is the chance that each government will actually enforce them? Like Tal said, they would need real support (military?) to enforce such laws.
In response to Tal's last question, I think what separates these two kinds of people is that one is an upstander, while the other is a bystander. The upstander is more dedicated to fighting for a cause and thinks that a solution to the problem is worth their life. The upstanders have more likely been directly affected by the problem. Bystanders, rather take things the way they are and hope for a better change.
I agree with Gaby in that having a license isn't necessarily a vital human right. However, I believe that having a license is important in the sense that it validates citizenship. The right to have a license is a confirmation that one is a citizen equal to every other citizen; it shows that no one is better or "more equal" than anyone else.
Post a Comment