Proposed Approach And Application.
The West’s concept of human rights has always justified imperialism. The People(s)-Centered Human Rights framework offers a radical alternative—a practical tool for oppressed people to define their own liberation and build power from the ground up.
Since the launch of the North-South Project for People(s)-Centered Human Rights (North South Project) last year, the framework has been steadily increasing in the global lexicon. The framework itself was produced by Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) founder, Ajamu Baraka, who is also the Director of the North South Project, as a direct result of his observations and practice as a long-time human rights activist. Baraka’s observations and practice was systematized into what he refers to as, “the Black radical human rights tradition that is people(s)-centered – hence People(s)-Centered Human Rights (PCHRs). To this end, it’s imperative to distinguish PCHRs from the liberal and Western approach to “human rights” that derives from what the North South Project refers to as a, “classical European liberalism” that professed a fidelity to the “rights of man” and the proclamation that “all men are equal” while simultaneously providing philosophical justifications for slavery, genocide, settler colonialism, capitalism, patriarchy, and imperialism. Baraka recently showcased the illegitimacy and profound contradictions of the classical European liberalism approach to “human rights” as part of this distinction in a recent piece for Black Agenda Report
Using the ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing pogroms facilitated by the zionist ethnostate against Palestinians and the likely unlawful and barbaric warfare of the United States against civilian boats off the coast of Venezuela as a backdrop, Baraka notes, ”The notion that the “West,” responsible for the most horrific crimes in the annals of human history, could somehow be associated with the defense of something they called human rights was always an obscene proposition.” He continues, “But with the assistance of the human rights industry, which is infused with Eurocentrism and white saviorism, the collective West was given ideological cover to continue its project of racist plunder and colonial fascism…” BAP’s Zone of Peace declaration compounds this point by proclaiming, “Democracy and ‘human rights’ as dictated by the West must be understood as no more than ideological props,” while also proclaiming, “Building up the Zone of Peace means prioritizing People(s)-Centered Human Rights in the Americas by observing the principles of national sovereignty, equal rights, and self-determination of peoples.”
As noted by the North South Project, the PCHRs framework derives from, and is informed by the African American radical human rights tradition, “The modern expression of PCHRs developed out of the organizing and agitation directed at the newly formed United Nations between 1945 and 1951 and subsequently taken up by figures like Malcolm X and elements of the radical Black anti-colonial, revolutionary movements in the 1960s.” In turn, this expression and articulation of human rights, “combined the struggle against white ‘supremacy’ and anti colonialism with a commitment to domestic and global systemic transformation.” To this end, a PCHRs approach centers oppressed and colonized people first and foremost and development of said people as, “autonomous political subjects.” From this foundation, we arrive at the definition of PCHRs, “…those non-oppressive rights that reflect the highest commitment to universal human dignity and social justice that individuals and collectives define and secure for themselves and collective humanity through social struggle.”
That’s the what of PCHRs, yet many are rightfully inquiring about the how – what does a PCHRs framework look like in practice and, given that this framework centers oppressed and colonized peoples, how do they become effective practitioners? These are important inquiries because as the concept of PCHR continues to proliferate in the global lexicon, it’s imperative that we not only become more skilled PCHRs practitioners, we must, contemporaneously, become PCHRs vanguards to ensure that we efficaciously resist, reject, and vanquish any and all attempts at elite capture of this framework, that will be inevitably be exercised by the bourgeois and petit bourgeois acolytes and advocates.
For this reason, I prepared a set of criteria that can hopefully be utilized by the masses to evaluate and analyze the initiatives, declarations, and overarching work of movements, governments and governing bodies that purport to advance and secure “human rights” and weigh them against the tenets of PCHRs. I must emphasize that this offering should in no way be viewed as a definitive methodology to analyze the application of PCHRs, nor should it be considered a fully objective analysis. In fact, it should be noted that this hypothesis does not necessarily reflect the views or conclusions of North South center or BAP, including its Solidarity Network. It’s my hope that my comrades from both formations will ruthlessly scrutinize and interrogate my hypothesis such that our collective approach to and collective PCHRs praxis can be optimally utilized by, for and with the masses of colonized and oppressed people globally.
In order to better evaluate whether a given initiative, declaration, or larger corpus of work I hypothesize that the following criteria must be considered:
- Clear and lucid commitment to, and call for national sovereignty, equal rights, and self-determination;
- Demonstrably de-colonial, anti imperialist, and anti militarism;
- Specific call(s) for and demonstrated commitment to bottom/up popular and social struggle that are independent of nation states and bourgeois-serving governmental bodies;
- Communicates a clear and accessible methodology for building power for and shifting it to the masses;
- Leadership is in the hands of the masses – poor, working class, colonized and oppressed people in lieu of the petit-bourgeois;
- Offers an objective distinction from liberal frameworks of “humanitarianism” by rejecting pan European, white supremacist, colonial/racial capitalist patriarchy through calls to action and frameworks that are clearly grounded in, and guided by, the needs and aspiration of the masses/oppressed people; and
- Does not call for or allow itself to be subjected to recuperation/elite support through articulated guard rails and protocols.
It should be noted that criteria #7 is derived from the analysis of Peter Gelderloos included in their book, The Failure of Non Violence. Therein, Gelderloos notes, “Recuperation is the process by which those who attempt to break away from current power structures to rebel are induced to rejuvenate those power structures or create more effective ones. They either turn their rebellion into the mere symbol of rebellion, as a way to exorcise whatever anger or discontentment led them to rebel, or they direct it against only a small part of the system, creating a change that allows the State to function more effectively overall.” And on the issue of “elite support” Gelderloos goes on to say, “Because of the importance of recuperation in defeating social movements, one important criterion is whether a movement has elite support. If a part of the elite supports a movement, it is much more likely that the movement appears to achieve a victory, when in fact the victory is insubstantial and allows the elite to improve their own situation.”
In an effort to demonstrate what a PCHRs evaluation and analysis process could look like, I analyzed three declarations – The Black Alliance for Peace Zone of Peace Declaration, the declaration that was produced by the People’s Summit at the conclusion of the 30th Conference of Parties global climate summit (COP 30), and the declaration that was produced at the conclusion of the III Social Summit of the Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean. The PCHRs evaluation and analysis of each can be accessed by clicking here.
As noted earlier, this offering is a hypothesis and invitation to increase the participation of the masses as it pertains to participating in and leading the perpetual development of a PCHRs praxis. As we observe the increasingly emerging contradictions associated with and driven by the reactions of Western, colonial nations to late stage capitalism, we must not only arm ourselves with the theory of PCHRs but also with the tools to make this theory a common and collective practice as part of our larger struggle against racial capitalism and its praxis of war, natural resource extraction, and general oppression. .
No Compromise
No retreat
