Pols301: Declarations of Independence

301, the first of the “actual” classes. Political Theory. The assignment here was a one-pager, just a quick compare/contrast between several Declarations. A funny bit of trivia- this class didn’t take much in the way of writing, but the professor was married to the one who assigned tons of it. It’s like the husband was throwing a bone to students of the wife.

The founding declarations of the United States, Haiti, and the United Nations each contain bold statements of the principles held by their authors. While they approach the subject of new beginnings from markedly different perspectives, they establish as axioms some common fictions of modern political practice. The United States is the pioneer among the group with its earliest founding. Even in the broader world, the approach taken by the Declaration of Independence to the notion of individual freedoms was exceptional in its defiance of the social status quo. Thomas Jefferson’s “unalienable” rights stood apart from the accepted servitude of peoples to their king. Holding these rights – freedoms from undue harm or imposition from governing authority – as the foundation of a society was simply unheard of in the Western world.

The identification and elevation of individual rights begun by the Colonies reached a plateau with the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. An important distinction exists in that the UN is not a sovereign nation, and its declaration lacks the force or consequence of rebellion. Freedom from existential retribution gave the authors freedom to more fully explore their ideas over dozens of Articles. That the “inalienable” rights they explore tend to build upon those codified by Jefferson, is both validation and propagation of those ideals. The freedoms identified by the UN are broader and more explicit those of the US, but the differences reflect only a shifting of mores along the same gradient.

Haiti’s Declaration of Independence bears some resemblance in process to that of the United States. They were a colony demanding freedom from a distant European overlord. Like the United States, they are explicit in their grievances against their King. But there the structural similarities come to an end. In a stroke of political irony, the nation’s positive and individually affirming principles are captured in their Declaration’s negative space. Their description of French tyranny is a depiction of the breaking of their felt rights- they establish an “acceptable” standard of treatment for people by establishing what has been unacceptable. This has allowed for some flexibility of interpretation, but the core freedom-seeking sentiment remains.

Each of these declarations are written in a different voice, with a different tone. The United States’ seeks a balance between addressing the problems they face and the inherent solutions they propose. Haiti’s Jean-Jacques Dessalines brought a passionate anger to bear against their slavemasters, but left some of the details to be sorted out later. Their ideas were a normative expression of what they felt “should be”. Over a hundred years later, the General Assembly of the governments of the world would affirm both the freedoms of people, alongside their rights to assert that freedom collectively. No objective reference to humanity asserts any dominance of “people”; for thousands of years the world had spun under the inalienable grace of Kings. Where people are free, a common founding circumstance tends to be a choice made to meaningfully pursue a new normal. In their own ways, these Declarations contribute to a growing shared reality of governing ethics and individual freedoms.