THREE GENERATIONS OF RIGHTS:

Civil, Political, and Social Rights

Human thinking regarding rights has been continuously growing keeping pace with changing times and
circumstances. When new areas of safety and development of individual emerge, the list of existing
rights is suitably revised and enlarged so that favourable conditions are created to achieve these
objectives. To put it briefly:

• 1st generation rights: civil and political rights are considered in the
• 2nd generation rights: social and economic rights
• 3rd generation rights: the newly recognized human rights such as cultural rights of minorities
in a multicultural society
The three generations of rights give a broad picture of the sequence of rights as they have emerged in
their specific contexts which can be discussed accordingly.
First Generation Rights:
Civil rights are the basic legal rights a person must possess in order to secure the status of equal
citizenship in a liberal democratic state. During the 1950s and 1960s the term ‘civil rights’ is linked to
the struggle for equality of African Americans who aimed to secure such a status. These rights constitute
free and equal citizenship and include personal, political, and economic rights. It is generally agreed
that such rights cannot be legitimately denied to a person on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion,
national origin, or disability.
It was until the middle of the 20th century that civil rights were usually distinguished from ‘political
rights’. Civil rights included the rights to own property, the rights to make and enforce contracts, the
right to legal recourse and the right to one’s religion. They also covered freedom of speech and of the
press. Political rights, on the other hand, included the right to hold public office, vote, or to testify in
court. These rights were reserved for adult males. But this civil-political distinction was conceptually
and morally unstable insofar as it was used to sort citizens into different categories. It was part of an
ideology to deprive women of political rights. However, with the breaking down of that ideology the
civil-political distinction became increasingly implausible. Such distinction could not survive the
cogency of the principle that all citizens of a liberal democracy were entitled, in Rawls’ words, to ‘a
fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties’.
The first-generation of civil rights claims were the claims for which the American civil rights movement
ought in the 1950s and 1960s. The 18th century set of civil rights such as the right to legal recourse and
to make and enforce contracts were included in these rights. Besides they covered political rights as
well.
Second Generation Rights:
Later, it was argued by many that the first-generation rights were too narrow to define the scope of free
and equal citizenship. It was contended that an additional set of claims such as rights to food, shelter,
medical care, housing and employment could only lead to the realization of such citizenship. These
rights belong to the second generation (19th century) of economic ‘welfare rights’ which ensured that
the first-generation rights could be made effective in protecting the vital interests of citizens and were
not simply paper guarantees.
The traditional political and civil rights can be readily secured by legislation. As these rights are mostly
rights against government interference the legislation needed had to do no more than restrain the
executive’s own arm. However, in case of rights such as the ‘right to work’, the ‘right to social security’,
etc. it is no longer the same. These are positive rights which require of the state to undertake specific
measures like social welfare programmes and social legislation so as to enable people to enjoy these
rights effectively. Such rights have been duly recognized by many states all over the world through their
constitutions or International Covenants. The Directive Principles of the State Policy in part IV of the
Indian constitution is an example of this.
Third Generation Rights:
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) which came into force in
1976 insists on the member states for recognizing the ‘right of everyone to an adequate standard of
living’ and also to the ‘continuous improvement of living conditions’. ‘Rights of cultural membership’,
which include language rights for members of cultural minorities, and the rights of indigenous peoples
to preserve their cultural institutions and practices and to exercise some measure of political autonomy,
belong to the third generation of rights (20th century). Here though there is some overlap with the first-
generation rights, such as that of religious liberty, rights of cultural membership are broader and more
controversial.
Due to both historical reasons as well as large scale migrations of people with diverse cultures in search
of better opportunities in countries other than their own in this age of globalization a situation is arising
where more and more countries are having cultural minorities within their territories. The fact that such
minorities now wish to maintain the salient features of their respective cultures in terms of language,
symbols of identity, religion, custom, dress code etc. it is increasingly felt that they need to be given the
freedom and opportunity to preserve their cultural institutions and practices and to exercise some
measure of political autonomy. Such rights are known as third-generation rights.
More than a mere absence of interference by the state, which may be sufficient in case of the first-
generation rights, positive steps are needed for tangible protection as well as assistance in maintaining
their cultural identity. Cultural and Educational Rights of minorities as provided under Articles 29 and
30 of the Indian constitution in its Fundamental Rights section are good examples of these rights. Under
the provisions of these articles, minorities have their right to conserve their language, script or culture
and establish and administer educational institutions of their own choice without any fear of
discrimination to such institutions by the state. The state is also obliged to ensure due respect of sacred
books of various religious communities and full safety of their holy cities and places of worship. In
multicultural large countries, the provisions of such rights are helpful in the nation-building process as
they provide the cultural minorities with a sense of security and strengthen their allegiance and
commitment to the nation. Existence of variety of cultures makes a nation richer and healthier in many
respects as people have the opportunities to learn from each other’s experience in a truly democratic
spirit of give and take and fellow feeling.
However, when minority groups, in the name of protecting their identity, oppose progressive steps
intended to change or reform irrational, superstitious, inhuman, undemocratic and unjust practices it
could be counter-productive. Cooperation and collaboration in a congenial environment of mutual
appreciation and acknowledgement is the need of the hour.