The Evolution of Democracy and Human Rights in Latin America

                This post is a summary of the report with the incomplete title above published at https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r35102.pdf

               For years, scholars have attempted to provide a concrete definition of democracy and to establish its linkage to human rights. Both concepts have evolved alongside western culture. On the one hand, ancient Greeks developed democracy to be a system of government that would provide an effective, legitimate means of making decisions for the citizenry. On the other hand, human rights doctrine developed from Aristotle's teachings on equity and the debates that arose about justice as a value. In contemporary times, democracy and human rights have merged in the movement for social justice. In the American continent, the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, proclaimed in Bogotá in 1948, eight months before the UDHR, clearly stipulates a link between human rights and democracy. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, a systematic evolution of democracvy took place around the world. At the time, the main challenge for Latin America was to complete its own democratic transition and begin to consolidate and strengthen its political infrastructure. Latin American governments have failed to raise the standard of living and have ineffectively addressed economic, social and cultural rights. In general, Latin America, has failed to inspire even moderate optimism for a more sound economic future, of the kind that should naturally result from democracy and a climate of participation by the population. One of the primary impediments to the full consolidation of democracy in Latin America is the exclusion of broad sectors of society. Such systematic exclusion clearly violates the principles of equality and non-discrimination articulated in the human rights instruments currently in force throughout the region. The 1991 Santiago Commitment marked the most optimistic moment in Latin America's transition to democracy. It was the consequence of a constructive and positive attitude toward the system of protection of human rights and the consolidation of democratic governments in the region. Unquestionably, "fundamental freedoms" are at the heart of this process, but democracy will surely fail if it does not attend to question of poverty and other issues related to the quality of life. Social, including political; economic and cultural rights, however, are still perceived as "second class" rights and most of the governments in the region do not have the political will to comply with them. These challenges are emblematic of the current flaws in Latin America democracy. Consolidating democracy requires strong national institutions, and in this sense, Latin America has a long way to go. A large and often corrupt bureaucracy makes modernizing the state structures an almost insurmountable task. Interest groups resist much needed changes in the three branches of power. Transparency and a new culture of accountability are essential for strong and credible state institutions. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are increasingly seen as reliable alternatives for the pursuit of justice when national systems of justice prove ineffective. Recent amendments to the statutes of the Commission and the Court will help the two organs cooperate more in the future. The Court has allowed victim-petitioners greater participation, which should result in more access to justice. As a result, the credibility of the inter-American system has increased over the last decade and the scope of its work has grown to encompass many delicate issues of human rights abuses that were previously ignored. These advances, however, are not occurring on a large enough scale and the inter-American organs can only respond effectively to the challenges they face if they receive sufficient funding. The OAS continues to be crippled by budgetary restrictions which severely limit the extent to which it can practically pursue its mandate.