By: Dr Matevž Tomšič
Concepts can change their meaning over time. Their interpretation depends on the prevailing cultural environment and the mentality of a given social space. This also applies – or especially applies – to those concepts that explain political phenomena.
Every political doctrine is based on its own conceptual framework. This includes its core values, which fall into the category of so-called normative concepts – that is, those that describe abstract aspects of social reality. Both in political theory and philosophy, as well as in everyday discourse, interpretations of these concepts often diverge. And the more frequently they are used, the more such differences arise.
There is, for instance, considerable confusion about what the core values and principles of modern democracy actually are – values which, in a broader sense, form the very cultural core of Western civilisation. In this context, the concept of human rights plays a key role. Freedoms are usually added to this concept. These two are often treated as synonyms, although there is a distinction between them. Freedoms are considered to be “naturally given” and therefore should not be restricted – except in exceptional circumstances. Rights, on the other hand, are granted and guaranteed by a certain authority – primarily by state institutions in the modern context.
In the decades following World War II, there was an expansion of human rights. To civil and political rights were added social rights, which are tied to the welfare state system that guarantees a certain level of well-being to all citizens. Recently, however, we are witnessing their inflation. This is connected to a progressive agenda that promotes the empowerment of social groups it views as marginalised. These include gender, racial, ethnic, religious, and other minorities. This goes beyond mere equality and the prohibition of discrimination – both of which are fundamental democratic norms. It is linked to various benefits, ranging from financial subsidies to preferential treatment in employment and education. A typical example is so-called affirmative action for certain racial groups in admissions to some American universities (a practice the U.S. Supreme Court has since ruled unconstitutional).
The problem with such preferential treatment is that it is often arbitrary – that is, the decision of who counts as marginalised and therefore deserves such treatment is a matter of political discretion. Left-leaning politics, in particular, uses this mechanism to build its clientele (put plainly: to “buy political support”). Even more problematic is that enforcing a “right to non-discrimination” in certain cases ends up harming others – including members of vulnerable groups.
This is most notoriously evident in cases where individuals wish to compete in sports categories not intended for their biological sex. Recall the scandal at last year’s Olympic Games in Paris, where a person with male chromosomes was allowed to compete in the women’s boxing category. The result: she literally “demolished” her female opponents. And it is telling that such cases almost exclusively involve biological males seeking to compete in female categories (the reverse is extremely rare). Often, it is someone who first tried competing in their own category without achieving much, and then realised they “feel like a woman” – so they aimed to compete in the female category, where, due to superior physical attributes, they would find success more easily. In such cases, it is plain fraud. And it is scandalous that some of them are actually accommodated. After all, a right does not mean anyone can get whatever they desire – especially if it is done out of sheer opportunism. And it is absurd that such abuses are defended by those who claim to be champions of the weak.
