Locke and Rousseau's Political Thoughts on Human Rights and Democracy and North Korean Human Rights
Authors:   Asia-Europe Perspective Association, Oh Young-Dahl 
Published: June 2018

This article looks into the meanings of 'human rights' and 'democracy' which are supposed to be 'essentially contested.' In this connection, it revisits the history of Western political ideas in which the political thoughts of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau on human rights and democracy are reviewed and contrasted. The ultimate purpose of this exercise is to elucidate the theoretical basis of contemporary debates on North Korean human rights within South Korea. For these debates seem to have to do with the multifarious meanings of 'human rights' and 'democracy.' While most people tend to support the concepts of both 'human rights' and 'democracy' with positive outlook, they do not seem to make an adequate differentiation of these terms. This phenomenon is not helpful in addressing the real problems of human rights in some sector of the world. In this sesne, a contrasted comparison between Locke and Rousseau regarding human rights and democracy can shed light on the contempoary debate in this field. Locke provided a comparatively thorough discussion on 'natural rights' in 17th century Europe and, in turn, the theoretical basis of contemporary liberal democracy. He emphasized that human beings were born with the natural rights of life, liberty, and property before the civil government had been established. Furthermore, he argued that the purpose of establishment of civil government was to preserve the natural rights of human beings. This means that Locke's view on natural rights underlies the 'civil and political rights' of contemporary international human rights norms. On the other hand, Rousseau, while paying keen attention to the same question of human liberty, provided a different methodology to achieve this goal in the 18th century. In other words, he advocated comparatively equal level of property among human beings for guaranteeing freedom of the people. In this sense, he placed priority on the equality over the liberty in reality of human life. In turn, he seemed clear that he had provided the theoretical basis for the 'economic and social rights' of the contemporary international human rights norms. At the same time, this article points out that whether Rousseau intended it or not, he contributed to the rise of social democracy or communism as put forward by Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. In particular, his thesis of 'general will' in political community embraces a crucial theoretical strand of totalitarianism as pointed out by scholars. While this interpretation of Rousseau is not common in contemporary debates on democracy, this article posits that such approach helps to clarify the contemporary debates and even confusion in the field of human rights protection. Seen in this way, the discourses of both human rights and democracy are both sides of the same coin. The 'civil and political rights' form the basis of liberal democracy while 'economic and social rights' social democracy or totalitarian communism. These two contrasted discourses have dominated modern political history, in particular, during the Cold War period. This is why the International Covenants on human rights were divided into two separate documents while the Universal Declaration of Human Rights represented a simple juxtaposition of these two ideological positions on human rights. The contrasted and even confrontational situations between the two theoretical positions were remarkably weakened with the collapse of the Berlin Wall as a proof of failed Eastern bloc. Nevertheless, the same contrasted discourse of human rights and democracy continues by way of now the concept of human security meaning both 'freedom from fear' and 'freedom from want.' The two political regimes on the Korean peninsula emerged as a byproduct of the two competitive visions of human rights and democracy.