Trade unions were the midwives of two of the most important historical events in the twentieth century: the fall of communism in Poland and communism’s subsequent loss of grip on large swathes of the world, and the end of apartheid in South Africa. Both would not have occurred without Solidarnosc in Poland or the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU).

In both the Polish and South African contexts, trade unions were the institutional channels through which tremendous steps in respect for human rights and dignity were secured. The feat is all the more impressive because they accomplished this largely without violence.

The key to the success of the trade union movements in Poland and South Africa offers some suggestions for those interested in furthering rights regimes, while also pointing to new realities which should affect the actions of both trade unions and governments in a very different era from the 1990s. I don’t want to touch upon the particular strengths and weaknesses of trade unions in addressing questions of poverty, global trade, living conditions, and so on, but will rather examine the role that trade unions can play in securing rights regimes. This term is intended to describe and reference a particular political system which demarcates certain boundaries around respect for individuals as defined by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. 1 1 I am grateful to Cardus Senior Fellow Jonathan Chaplin for assistance in articulating this definition. For more on the particular conception of human rights assumed in this paper please see: http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw10/FIW_2010_Methodology_Summary.pdf

In particular I hope to address the following points:

• Why trade unions have been such important contributors to rights regimes around the globe, and their particular institutional strength for doing so.
• The context in which trade unions working around the globe now exist, how it has changed and what is now needed, including changing ideological and institutional contexts.
• Policy suggestions for trade unions and governments on how to properly and most effectively work towards the furthering of rights regimes.

Trade unions’ particular strength in cultivating rights regimes comes from the interaction of four key areas of activity common to the unions. These areas are not necessarily unique to trade unions—there are a host of civil society institutions that can lay claim to any number of these. The four key strengths of trade unions are their constitutions, their constituencies, their ability to communicate, and their ability to compromise. Trade unions, because they are naturally situated at the intersection of individual workers, public law, and the various structures of the economy, are particularly well suited—given the right context—to leverage these four key areas for democratic rights.

Trade unions have characteristics that are instrumental in or equivalent to the practices associated with politics in liberal democracies. This is the focus of much of the discussion (including that among trade unionists) of their importance in cultivating rights regimes.

The first characteristic is respect for a constitution and policies created and upheld by a given constituency. The union’s constitution dictates the purpose of the union, the ways in which it will act to achieve those purposes, the powers of various leaders and sub-organizations within the union, the way in which leaders will be chosen and removed, how revenues for union activities will be generated and spent, how and when strike action can legitimately be taken, how deviants will be treated, and so on. For many, the political corollaries—respect for rule of law, elections, separation of powers, federalist structures, criminal law, tax policy, spending programs, military policy—will be obvious.

There are also other, more practical similarities between trade union activity and political activity. Some cite managing the diverse demands of a constituency as further evidence of this uniqueness. To be a leader in a trade union, one must be able to balance conflicting interests to find a solution the constituent group can abide without resort to other action. These various tasks require clear and effective communication—sometimes mass communication — and effective bargaining with internal and other stakeholders through both compromise and principle to arrive at solutions.

Finally, trade unions’ ability to mobilize a critical mass of its members to action and to maintain the discipline needed to make these actions effective are regularly cited as the key reason why trade unions are effective at social change in pursuit of rights regimes. Here the examples of COSATU and Solidarnosc are telling. While the constitution of Solidarnosc was recognized in 1980, it took the general strikes—launched and maintained in the face of severe repression—to transform Solidarnosc into the effective body that it was. Likewise, the series of strikes in South Africa, including those of the miners, helped weaken the South African economy and show the resolve and discipline of the tripartite alliance.

Regimes which violate human rights are, by their very nature, monistic and intolerant of any authority outside of their own, or they are so fragmented that they cannot control affairs within a given territory, despite their wishes and intent. Both maintain their power in one of two ways; how trade unions can contribute to cultivating rights regimes differs in each situation.

Totalitarian regimes maintain power by completely controlling all aspects of civic life, which they enforce through strict government surveillance, arrests, intimidation of family members, withholding of medical treatment and work, imprisonments, and, at times, killings. More subtly, they forbid association in any institution, or at the very least those other than those approved by the regime. These regimes try to mimic the normal impulses of human life—there are newspapers, churches, and trade unions—but they are essentially arms of the state, the party, the junta, and so on. Where these things exist apart from the control of the state, they are highly limited and strictly monitored.

In a fragmented regime, there is a deliberate policy of uncertainty—as in the case of Sudan or the Congo—or anarchy. Here rights are undermined by various parties exerting themselves to gain power, or through a deliberate policy to thwart stability. Citizens are kept on edge because they know that at any time their livelihood can be taken away from them—sometimes brutally. This uncertainty is particularly bad for economic activity: savings and other longer-term investments become highly risky when it could be taken the following day by raiding parties or government thugs.

The contribution trade unions can make in totalitarian regimes differs greatly from the contribution they might make in failed states or those which pursue deliberate uncertainty. In the former, the very existence of an institution that upholds a document outlining normative rules for conduct, and that articulates ends for a given constituency which differ from that of the totalitarian regime in question (a political party in a place like Cuba or China; a military junta in Burma; an oligopoly of clergy in Iran; a combination in Saudi Arabia), and which is able to mobilize its members is, in itself, a revolutionary act. This is distinct from the instrumental understanding of trade unions; trade unions, by their nature, question totalitarian regimes.

Note that the existence of an institution which derives its authority from a source unique to itself—workers in the case of trade unions—and not the institution which wants to dominate civic life is destabilizing. Often, this is positive (stability does not necessarily equal respect for human rights), but a powerful trade union’s ability to destabilize a given regime is worthy of consideration. This is particularly destabilizing because the vision—for civic life and of the role of individuals and communities contained in the constitution—is, itself, radically different from that the state’s. Institutional pluralism is deadly for totalitarian regimes and destabilizes a totalitarian regime; it is also necessary for a full account of human rights. In this case, a trade union’s marriage and exercise of the freedom of association and speech is a significant contribution.

In a failed state or fatally fragmented one, trade unions play a different role. Here, where the rule of law is absent, trade unions often supply the stability which is normally provided by a central political authority. This may take the shape of social services such as small loans for members in hardship, pooling of resources, and more. They may also play a judicial role, adjudicating differences between members and various parties in a community and calling the state to task for the treatment of its citizens.

In both cases, trades unions are often particularly well suited to helping bring about the political changes necessary to cultivate rights regimes, while also contributing to the strong social fabric necessary to maintain a political regime which supports human rights.

The global situation today has changed dramatically since the 1990s and the fall of apartheid and communism. This “end of history” has, in reality, introduced a new stage of history much more complex for those working for respect of human rights—and particularly for trade unions. These new realities have implications for those considering the role of trade unions in supporting human rights regimes from a policy perspective.

At the risk of overgeneralization, there are five general categories in which trade unions work. The first category is in areas where respect for basic rights such as the freedom of association, speech, and conscience are generally respected, and which are also relatively stable politically: countries such as Canada, the United States, South Africa, Israel, and Australia.

The second category includes countries which constitutionally respect basic rights, but where the political context does not necessarily secure human rights, due to either instability of government or corruption—for instance, Russia, Guatemala, Colombia, Nigeria, and many of the countries recovering from totalitarian rule, including those in the former Soviet bloc.

The third category includes totalitarian regimes in which the state controls virtually all aspects of life, or where the freedoms in a given country are reliant not on the moral ground of respect for human rights but on the will of the government. Examples here include China, Cuba, Myanmar, and North Korea, among others.

The fourth category encompasses Islamic regimes which differ from the secular totalitarian regimes in the third category by an explicit program of minimizing freedom of conscience and religion either through theocratic rule—as in Iran—or through rule by a given class in attempting to enforce a given creed in its population.

These are not watertight categories, but they provide the map against which the strengths of trade unions can be projected by policy makers onto pursuit of rights regimes.

The key factors in each of these categories are the source of the law, the stability of the rule of law, and its recognition of the appropriate pluralities required for human rights to be respected. The existence of the final category gives hints toward why policy-makers must include less obvious factors in their work: namely, the cultures in which human rights work is being done. And a key cultural factor is an understanding of the role of religion and various faith communities in the country under examination. 2 2 There has been a great deal of fruitful study on the necessity of including religion among the factors considered when making foreign policy. See for instance, the forthcoming http://www.baylorpress.com/en-gb/Book/221/God_and_Global_Order.html

One further factor, specific to the likelihood of success in trade unions aiding in securing human rights, is the state of industrialization of a given country. Historically, trade unions tend to be strongest and most effective in countries with a relatively advanced state of industrialization; such an environment provides the best opportunity for the trade union to exercise the strengths noted above.

These strengths which trade unions possess in cultivating rights regimes lead to a number of policy suggestions. These will necessarily be brief, but together with the items noted above, might provide a framework for further policy reflection.

First, government should be open to working alongside trade unions in support of human rights. While the state certainly maintains primacy in international relations, there is an increasing recognition of the need to involve not only government agencies, but also non-governmental agencies and multi-national actors in both setting and implementing human rights policy so as to ensure proper accountability and an international respect for human rights. 3 3 The work of Anne-Marie Slaughter, currently Director of Policy Planning for US Department of State is particularly helpful in this regard. See, for instance: Government Networks: The Heart of the Liberal Democratic Order in DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 199 (Gregory H. Fox and Brad R. Roth, eds., 2000). And , Governing the Global Economy through Government Networks in THE ROLE OF LAW IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS 177 (Michael Byers, ed., 2000).

If the assessment above is accurate, it follows that there is an opportunity for a partnership in which the particular goal of trade unions—justice for workers—can be linked into the wider public justice aim of states. The civic space occupied by trade unions is at the crux of government, business, and the individual. As such, they can provide deeper insight into strategies for protecting or enhancing human rights than an embassy official or government visitor in a given country might (this is also true for broader questions of poverty reduction, but that is for another paper). The accounts provided by trade unions can be more frank than those offered by others in official positions, including those at international institutions such as the U.N. or the I.L.O. Likewise, frank government feedback to trade unions on the ground can be immensely helpful for improving strategies for trade unions hoping to make gains in the realm of human rights.

The second policy suggestion is a need to distinguish between a trade unions’ ability to address specific human rights concerns (such as child labour, slave labour, and human trafficking) and their ability to move a given country towards the institution of a political regime where rights are respected. A given trade union might be able to address an issue of, say, the use of children as slaves, while not necessarily effecting political change in which these violations—and others—are made illegal. Here there is the need for sound judgment as to where energies will be most effectively directed.

That judgment must consider that trade unions have historically been stronger in countries which exhibit a high degree of industrialization and relatively stable rule of law. While there might be tremendous human rights violations in countries such as the Sudan, trade unions likely will not be the key players in instituting a political regime where human rights are respected. Trade union/government partnerships are much more likely to be effective in countries which have an industrial base, where violations occur through the exercise of totalitarian control or through corruptions outside of the law, as these are the places where they can leverage their key strengths: institutional independence and their ability to mobilize their membership.

First, the key strength of trade unions with regard to human rights lies in the very fact that they are not political institutions. While some certainly hope trade unions will play a transformative role in the politics of a country such as China, both governments and trade unions need to be vigilant in ensuring that they aim not to change of the regime per se, but to secure space for independent civic action. After all, in places like Cuba or China, where everything is political, the work of an organization in which the primary concern is for the individual in his or her capacity as a worker is enough. It is a fine line to tread, but it is nonetheless key.

Second, trade unions should act in good faith. Trade unions themselves—while not guilty of rights violations—are subject to the same type of overreach as states. A comparison of the relative role of post-revolutionary COSATU and Solidarnosc is telling. While Solidarnosc did transform into a wide-based political movement immediately after the fall of communism, it did not remain such. Today its status is akin to the other trade unions in Poland. While some have lamented this, it is preferable to the situation in South Africa, where it is often difficult to distinguish COSATU from its partners in the tri-partite alliance, including the ruling ANC—and not always for the better.

In both cases, the integrity of each institution needs to be respected. If the legitimate activities of either institution are subsumed by the other, each loses dignity, which impinges upon the dignity of individuals.

Conclusively, in their role of cultivating rights regimes, trade unions are most effective as midwives. They can aid, assist, and serve as guides to securing freedom, but they are not the mother. Best to deliver and then take their proper place in celebration of the newborn.