Can human rights endure where people do not care?

Can human rights endure where people do not care?

Published August 13, 2026

by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Judge Joseph Zammit McKeon

Introduction

Human rights are often considered as if they stand independently of the society where they should receive observance and application.  At law, they are universal, inalienable, and enduring in nature.  Yet behind every right acknowledged at law lies a more uncertain and fragile issue, the disposition of people themselves, a matter that raises an intriguing question with disarming simplicity: “can there be a strong concern for the protection of human rights in a society where persons do not care?”

Modern democracies are built on institutions designed to shield rights from the whims of some: constitutions entrench human rights and freedoms; the judiciary applies and enforces; ombudsmen (when empowered) and regulatory bodies provide oversight and redress; and international treaties impose obligations on States that should put aside domestic indifference. 

Culture

But this confidence, though not entirely misplaced, should not give rise what could become a false sense of security, because laws and institutions cannot replace the need for a culture that understands, values and insists upon upholding rights in practice. Where indifference takes root, the framework of rights begins slowly to give way unless strengthened by good practices.

Human rights are not just legal concepts, but they also involve social commitments. Their true worth depends not only on formal recognition but on lived practice, on the willingness of people to acknowledge the dignity of others, to resist injustice, and to demand accountability. In a society where such vital dispositions are absent, rights risk becoming hollow declarations: present in form and absent in substance.

Indifference

Indifference is a real danger.  It can manifest itself when violations are dismissed as isolated incidents rather than symptoms of deeper problems.  Indifference becomes all the more evident when the suffering of others is met with apathy rather than empathy, when public statements are not motivated by what should be the right thing to do, reducing the observance of rights to tools for use by way of convenience rather than the application of justice. Such attitudes bear the risk of transforming into normal what should be the exception.  What once would have caused outrage becomes routine. What once demanded remedy is accepted.

Institutions

The effectiveness of institutions depends in part on the willingness of the public to engage with them, to bring forward complaints, to respect their findings, and to support their role. Where there is widespread mistrust, accountability weakens, breaches go unreported, recommendations are not implemented or worse ignored and institutional authority, though formally intact, is practically diminished.

History offers hard lessons; rights have been made law yet have attracted lip service through gradual neglect. Indifference has permitted systemic and evident breaches to proceed unchallenged. By the time awareness comes about, the cost of restoring trust becomes all the more demanding.

This is not to suggest that the absence of public concern renders rights without defence.  Independent institutions often shield against neglect. The judicial system upholds rights.  Oversight bodies expose maladministration. These institutions are indispensable as they  provide continuity, stability, and a measure of protection even in adverse conditions.

Nonetheless their capacity is not unlimited. Legitimacy, resources, and effectiveness are influenced by public perception and political support. Without a baseline of engagement by the public, they risk becoming isolated—technically functional but substantively constrained.  Therefore the deeper issue is not whether rights are sustainable in the absence of interest from the public, but whether they can endure.

Endurance

This requires resilience, willingness to adjust and sustained relevance. These are qualities that cannot be secured by laws alone but require a culture of rights that is founded on awareness, empathy, and responsibility. It can come about when placed at the centre of civic education initiatives.  Teaching should not be restricted just to content but extended to include purpose and meaning.

Institutions can promote awareness, set standards, and good practices. They can do their fair share to make rights visible and accessible. But they cannot, on their own, generate the moral conviction that should underly a rights-respecting society because such a delicate matter must be cultivated—patiently, persistently, and inclusively.

Outreach

Institutions cannot limit themselves to reactive functions. They must engage proactively with the public, explaining their role, demonstrating their impact, and reinforcing the relevance of rights in everyday life.  At the same time, there must be leadership that articulates the value of human rights.

Education

Education plays a crucial role that has to extend beyond formal schooling. A population that does not understand its rights is unlikely to defend them. Civic education should therefore be seen not as an optional add-on but as a foundational component of democratic life. It should foster critical thinking, encourage engagement, and encourage a sense of shared responsibility, not attract direct or indirect censorship from public authorities. 

There is also a need to address the factors that trigger indifference. It can come from a belief that individual action makes little difference. It can also derive from fatigue, particularly in contexts where violations are frequent or strongly rooted.  Then there are financial pressures, social divisions, and political divisions that can further distract attention from rights-related issues. To counter indifference requires not only raising awareness but also creating meaningful avenues for participation and redress.

Care

When the collective recognition of human dignity weakens, structures that are intended to support rights become vulnerable. Laws can delay the effects of indifference but will not overcome them indefinitely. The endurance of human rights depends on continuous effort.  It requires vigilance, engagement, and, above all, care.

A society that does not care about human rights may retain outward forms of protection. Constitutions will remain in place. Courts will continue to function. Reports will be written and recommendations made. But without the force of public concern, these institutions risk becoming procedural shells.

On the other hand, where people do care, even imperfect systems can produce meaningful protection. Collective awareness can drive reform. A culture of rights can sustain and strengthen the legal framework.

The choice is between indifference and engagement. Human rights endure where they are valued, defended, and lived. They falter where they are taken for granted.  The protection of human rights starts with their recognition—the simple but deep acknowledgement that the dignity of others matters. From that acknowledgement flows concern followed by protection. Where persons do not care, human rights may persist in name, but their endurance will be artificial and short-lived.

This article was published on newsbook.com.mt on 12 August 2026