Human rights are costly

Many authoritarian governments have managed to exercise centralised control without much funding. In contrast, when a democratic government starts to observe human rights, this can prove very costly. The right of both parties to be properly heard and to appeal, and the necessary limitation of police powers, are amongst various resource-hungry aspects of a human rights regime.

Since 1994, South Africa has been trying to spend roughly the same on policing and justice as was spent in the preceding authoritarian era. Thus it is no surprise, and should have been predicted, that there has been a massive increase in crime.

In the old South Africa, the police would suspect someone of criminal behaviour, arrest him, and rough him up, so the criminals were naturally terrified. Now there are various technical aspects to consider in order to avoid procedural errors. Bringing a criminal to justice is a demanding task, and it is difficult to secure a conviction. A whole range of new skills are needed for effective policing in a human rights culture, and to develop and deploy those skills requires a big budget. Unlike a totalitarian regime, democracies have to allocate a lot of tax resources to policing and justice.

If for no other reason, this consideration should encourage government to do well what it ought to be doing, and to stop doing other things that are simply not the business of government. Instead of spreading itself around so thinly that it fails to do anything well, government should concentrate its resources on its proper task of assisting us all to defend ourselves against threats to life, limb and property.

For any state to survive and prosper, the top priorities and crucial state-provided services should be effective policing and justice. To this can be added the defence of citizens and state against external aggression where such a possibility seems even remotely likely (unlike now). A human rights regime comes after these core government functions in a democratic order and is a desirable luxury. It does not come free, and in fact it bears a high price that can only be raised in one of two ways.

One way is to increase the size and cost of government significantly. However, it is now well understood that such an increase is bound to stifle growth and development, so it is not the ideal option to follow. The other way is to reduce the other functions of government in order to release at least enough tax funding to sustain the legitimate policing/justice functions of government at effective levels.

Various successful nations have chosen, particularly in the last two decades, to concentrate on their core functions. Such nations are characterised by fairly low levels of government spending, of the order of 10-25% of gross domestic product, substantially lower than South Africa's 35%. Their governments focus mainly on protecting individual freedom and keeping crime levels low, and their largely private sector economies grow relatively rapidly with low unemployment. Not only is this a real-world choice – it is also a win-win route for both government and individual citizens of all income levels.

Source: Leon Louw is the Executive Director of the Free Market Foundation. This article may be re-published without consent but with acknowledgement. The views of the author of this article are not necessarily shared by the members, council or patrons of the Foundation.


FMF Feature Article / 01 August 2001 - Policy Bulletin / 17 June 2009