Governments prefer us to be unaware of our entitlements to dignity, equality and justice, writes Sean Love.
The current political "debate" about left- and right-wing policies is really just a game of semantics. While some of Ireland's political parties have, in principle, specific ideologies, our political system is one that perpetuates a populist client-based power structure.
Over the past 15 years successive coalition governments have presided over broadly consistent, relatively centrist policies in which the same circle of influential people enjoy access to power. In real terms, for the majority of people, this has meant a huge decrease in unemployment and an increased standard of living - real developments, significant achievements, clearly to be welcomed wholeheartedly.
Meanwhile, social and economic gaps in Irish society have become more pronounced, and large numbers of people, through no fault of their own, have been cast further adrift.
This is not to suggest that there are politicians who are not deeply committed to alleviating poverty (or the "impoverished underclass" as described recently in The Irish Times) and alienation, but that the number of marginalised, and those living in relative poverty, is growing, because they have no political clout.
The left and right arguments have been redundant since the end of the east-west divide, and so have the terms used to describe party ideologies. We have all had to listen to prominent Irish politicians define themselves in words that bear no resemblance to their actions, to the extent that terms such as "liberal", "socialist", "republican", even "democrat" can mean whatever they want them to mean.
The only definitions with any real meaning are those of human rights, because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN conventions on economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights, and the UN convention on children's rights have been accepted, ratified and adopted by every political system throughout the world.
These rights are part of international law, and Ireland has solemnly guaranteed to promote, protect and fulfil these rights. Their legal enforceability is constantly expanding and, as an option of last resort, is a necessity, for the very reason that our political system of clientelism, populism (and, on occasion, corruption) militates directly against a total even-handed approach by the State.
Successive Irish governments have done very little to educate their citizens about their human rights (despite unequivocal international obligations to do so), precisely because they would rather we remain unaware of our entitlements to dignity, equality and justice as set out in international law.
The Minister for Human Rights is based in the Department of Foreign Affairs and specifically precluded from commenting about Ireland.
All our political parties claim that they are in favour of social justice. So we should look at the states that offer the best systems, which are those incorporating a genuine human rights culture. These include Scandinavian, Dutch, South African and, perhaps most interesting of all, Indian states.
These are not utopian societies, and all have significant social problems, but they have begun to address the guarantees of human rights, and how best to secure them.
Why is it that the Indian Supreme Court accepts jurisdiction in the realm of economic, social and cultural rights when our Supreme Court does not, given that we have broadly similar constitutions? Public-interest litigation to address discrimination, marginalisation and social injustice in India is a leading global example of how human rights are justiciable.
The politicians who jump up and down, furrow their brows and offer grave concerns and misinformation about a rights-based approach are just a sideshow. The real power-brokers on successive governments' opposition to the rights-based approach are unelected officials. Indeed, almost any TD faced with difficult questions from a constituent whose child has a serious disability or mental health problem will not hesitate to identify the Department of Finance as the big bad wolf.
It is the dilution of governmental control and power, as people's needs are addressed in law, that the power-brokers are resisting. And there does not appear to be a single political figure with the arguments or the vision to face them down.
Does Irish society really believe that people with disability and their relatives, or parents and teachers upset at their children attending rodent-infested schools, are part of an "impoverished underclass"? That just because taxes are reduced and employment increased, social difficulties, to which any of us can fall prey, are our own fault and responsibility?
Could we imagine recent administrations in this country, in a time of unparalleled wealth, introducing visionary, but costly, projects such as the long-term illness scheme, as introduced by Erskine Childers in 1971? This has given a quality of life to many thousands of people who have themselves reinvested their own inestimable contribution into our development.
This sort of long-term thinking, viewing people as the most important element, is absent. Were this scheme to be mooted now, all the usual suspects would be straight out to explain that it is impossible, that we simply cannot afford it.
But, there are some straws in the wind. Mr Martin's strategic plans for healthcare reform offer a vision of the highest attainable standard of healthcare, although he carefully avoids saying the "rights" word.
What we require is a system that is uncontaminated by institutionalised discrimination, one divorced from clientelism, one that ensures the government is legally bound to respect the human rights of all its citizens on an equal basis.
Any potential government that guaranteed to deliver a human-rights based approach to economic and social issues, through progressive realisation, would be new and different.
Human rights are not capitalist or communist, liberal or conservative, republican or monarchist, democratic or dictatorial. They are an internationally accepted foundation, and they offer the best basis for a peaceful, comfortable, secure, egalitarian, global society.
Sean Love is director of Amnesty Ireland