Critically Review the Degree to Which Globalisation Has Shaped ‘Transition’ Processes in Former Authoritarian Countries.
Name: Shaun Haley
Student Number: W1370944
Is Arendt’s argument on human rights still relevant? Or has something changed today?
Hannah Arendt [1] introduces us to the expression of the “right to have rights”, a universal right to speak and act in public which according to Arendt was more valuable even than the right to life. It exists because we are human beings and therefore part of a pluralistic society that is detached from a sovereign state or government. This was first realised by Arendt when she spoke of totalitarian European nation states which had an inability to protect people’s human rights; specifically focusing on Communism and Nazism [p.296]. In fact Arendt [1] suggests that people during totalitarian regimes who lost the states protection also lost their rights and this created a void for them to exist in, an internment camp; a place where people who had lost their home could exist [p.297].
To Arendt the lack of power to peoples [1] “opinions and actions” [p.176] are part of the occurrence of their loss of right to any form of political stature or a right to reside as part of a nation state. In the Origins of Totalitarianism Arendt states “nobody even wants to oppress them” [Bernstein 1996, p.81]. It is that lack of worth that is so prevalent today; the consensus that a stateless person is devoid of all political life and so has no authority to manipulate the world around them, they are right-less and powerless to do anything. When Arendt’s argument on stateless people is compared to today’s contemporary society we see a strong argument that still exists. Arendt [4] focuses greatly on the occurrence of refugees and displaced persons and the incompatibility of sovereignty and human rights [p.133]. It can be suggested the relevance of her argument is apparent in that the world today has refugees and internally displaced persons that number in their tens of millions. This is one part of Arendt’s argument that has changed little since
Student Number: W1370944
Is Arendt’s argument on human rights still relevant? Or has something changed today?
Hannah Arendt [1] introduces us to the expression of the “right to have rights”, a universal right to speak and act in public which according to Arendt was more valuable even than the right to life. It exists because we are human beings and therefore part of a pluralistic society that is detached from a sovereign state or government. This was first realised by Arendt when she spoke of totalitarian European nation states which had an inability to protect people’s human rights; specifically focusing on Communism and Nazism [p.296]. In fact Arendt [1] suggests that people during totalitarian regimes who lost the states protection also lost their rights and this created a void for them to exist in, an internment camp; a place where people who had lost their home could exist [p.297].
To Arendt the lack of power to peoples [1] “opinions and actions” [p.176] are part of the occurrence of their loss of right to any form of political stature or a right to reside as part of a nation state. In the Origins of Totalitarianism Arendt states “nobody even wants to oppress them” [Bernstein 1996, p.81]. It is that lack of worth that is so prevalent today; the consensus that a stateless person is devoid of all political life and so has no authority to manipulate the world around them, they are right-less and powerless to do anything. When Arendt’s argument on stateless people is compared to today’s contemporary society we see a strong argument that still exists. Arendt [4] focuses greatly on the occurrence of refugees and displaced persons and the incompatibility of sovereignty and human rights [p.133]. It can be suggested the relevance of her argument is apparent in that the world today has refugees and internally displaced persons that number in their tens of millions. This is one part of Arendt’s argument that has changed little since
References: 1. Arendt, H. (1976). The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace and Javanovich 2 3. Richard J. (2006) Bernstein. Hannah Arendt and the Jewish Question. MIT Press Birmingham, P (2006) Hannah Arendt & human rights: the predicament of common responsibility Canovan, M (1974) The Political Thought of Hannah Arendt. New York. Harcourt Brace Jovanovzch. Tsao, Roy T (2004) “Arendt and the Modern State: Variations on Hegel in “The Origins of Totalitarianism”. The Review of Politics 66.1: 105-36. Jstor. Web. 25 Oct. 2010 4 5. Kreisler, H (2004) Institute of International Studies Transcript: Seyla Benhabib-Conversations With History, Regents of the University of California 6 7. Cotter, Bridget L (2005) “Hannah Arendt and the “Right to Have Rights”.” Centre for the study for democracy, University of Westminster, London 8