The rhetoric in human rights discourse

Abstract

The constitutional amendment of human rights, according to specialised jurists, is the most important innovation that the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States of 1917 has undergone in its more than 100 years of existence. While it is true that numerous studies have examined in depth the impact of this legislative transformation on national legal life, it is even more true that little or nothing has been discussed in relation to the rhetorical discourse emanating from it. 

            Following Aristotle, rhetoric must be oriented towards convincing through reasons and not merely persuading by manipulating the emotions of the audience, as it was used in antiquity by the sophists, considering it as an argumentative skill and an art of suggestion, which has always had an undeniable usefulness. Through rhetoric, discourses are created, for example, that of human rights, which is widely used in the field of professional politics and as a practical tool should be used to express the truth, However, its use can also be seen on the contrary, that is, the creation of sophistries that carry with them power interests, as is the case here.

The discourse of human rights in Mexico has become an accumulation of political dissertations that attempt to demonstrate a utopian reality, not innocently, nor much less involuntarily, since those who control these messages create hypothetical ideal scenarios and impose their will, protecting hegemonic interests and logics, They turn them into demagogy, in order to achieve public acceptance and affinity with the political project to which they are aligned, through false promises about the effective application of these rights, appealing to the emotions and false expectations of citizens.