Returning to basics

Returning to basics

Published February 11, 2026

International networks of national human rights institutions and ombudsman offices are increasingly at the forefront of a crucial and timely insistence: a return to basics. 

In an era marked by political fragmentation, democratic fatigue, and growing distrust in institutions, this call is neither nostalgic nor simplistic. It is rather a reassertion of the principle that the protection of defenseless persons must remain central in governance and public accountability.

Oversight institutions are witnessing a widening gap between formal commitments to human rights and the lived realities of the most vulnerable. Declarations proliferate, strategies multiply, and rhetoric abounds, yet countless are those who continue to experience injustice, exclusion, and abuse with little meaningful remedy. Against this backdrop, the insistence on “returning to basics” is a call to restore substance where procedure has become hollow, and integrity where public confidence has eroded.

Meaning

Returning to basics requires clarity of purpose amid complex situations of fact. The basic commitment of human rights institutions is not to abstract ideals but to people — particularly those who lack power, voice, or protection.

Defenceless persons take many forms: persons caught in systems they cannot influence, others who are sidelined by economic or social structures, migrants navigating hostile bureaucracies, victims of discrimination whose experiences are minimized or denied. These are people who are too often used as pawns in political narratives, reduced to statistics in policy debates, or invoked symbolically while being ignored in practice.

For them, human rights are the marked difference between dignity and its loss, safety and fear, justice and dereliction. A return to basics means placing these lived realities at the centre of institutional action.

Empty words

Empty words or expressions devoid of real commitment damage trust.  Many people are exhausted. They have heard repeated assurances of reform, protection, and inclusion, yet their daily experiences tell a different story. Promises are made, reports are published, and speeches are delivered, but accountability remains elusive.

This fatigue is particularly evident among those who engage most frequently with state systems — including asylum seekers, persons with disabilities, and others who depend on public institutions for protection rather than privilege. When their complaints are met with delay, deflection, or indifference, trust in democratic governance itself begins to fray.

Human rights institutions and ombudsman offices occupy a unique space in this context. They are neither political actors nor judicial bodies, yet they carry moral and institutional authority precisely because they are meant to stand apart from partisan interest. 

Independence

Independence is not an abstract principle. It is the foundation upon which trust is built. Where oversight bodies are perceived as restricted because of strategic or other compromises, are not adequately funded or are politically constrained, their findings lose legitimacy.

International networks play a vital role. By setting standards, facilitating peer review, and offering mutual support, they help reinforce independence at the national level. They also provide protection through visibility because an institution that operates within a global network is harder to isolate or intimidate.

For individuals seeking justice, independence matters. When people look up to ombudsman offices or human rights institutions, they are not simply seeking resolution to a complaint but support that their experience matters and that fairness is possible.

Moral Measure

A country`s commitment to human rights is best considered not by how it treats persons who have power, but by how it treats those who have little leverage. 

Persons without a voice often bear the brunt of administrative failures, policy blind spots, and discriminatory practices. They encounter systems that are complex and unresponsive, and they rarely have the resources required to go through them without harm.

By keeping their focus on these people, human rights institutions reaffirm the fact that equality before the law is meaningless unless it is accessible in practice. Complaint-handling, investigations, and recommendations are not merely procedural tools, but should be restorative instruments of dignity.  When institutions anchor their work in concrete cases and real harms, they resist being drawn into ideological battles. The human story becomes the point of reference.

Systemic Change

Returning to basics does not mean limiting action to individual cases. On the contrary, the experiences of the vulnerable and the voiceless often reveal systemic failures that demand structural reform. Patterns of recurring complaints, persistent maladministration, or discriminatory outcomes point to deeper issues that cannot be resolved case by case.

Here the role of national and international networks is critical. Shared learning enables institutions to identify common challenges, exchange effective practices, and coordinate responses to cross-border or global phenomena such as migration, digital surveillance, or environmental harm.

Systemic advocacy, when grounded in strong evidence and lived experience, strengthens democratic governance and provides policymakers with informed and practical recommendations, while reminding them that legitimacy is sustained through responsiveness does not control.

Response

Insistence on return to basics is also a response to broader global trends that threaten human dignity. In many contexts, economic pressures, security concerns, and political polarization have led to the normalization of practices that once would have provoked widespread alarm. Emergency measures become permanent and exceptional treatment becomes routine.

Rights cannot be restricted in the name of efficiency or security.  Safeguards cannot be dismissed under the pretext of necessity. Human rights institutions serve as an essential counterweight, reminding the political class that dignity is not a luxury to be suspended when it is not convenient any longer.

A response of this nature requires courage as well as competence. Speaking uncomfortable truths, particularly in times of crisis, is never easy. Yet history has shown that silence can be as damaging as much as open violation.

Listening

Listening is crucial when returning to basics.  Many approach ombudsman offices or human rights institutions after exhausting other avenues. They are often frustrated, mistrustful, and wary of further disappointment.  Being heard with respectful patience in itself is a form of justice because the experience of a person should be worthy of attention. Even where outcomes are constrained, the process of attentive engagement can restore a good measure of trust and restorative dignity.  Oversight institutions are not measured solely by resolution rates, but by the quality of engagement with those who seek help.

Conclusion

Returning to basics reaffirms purpose.  Rapidly evolving daily challenges at all levels and from all aspects should serve as wake-up calls but as constant reminders as to what and why we are all here for and who we are all meant to serve.  For those persons who are used as pawns, those who have become weary of political language, and those seeking credible defenders in their pleas for justice, fairness should not be merely promised but pursued, because dignity is not conditional and accountability is possible.  Upholding the basics oversight institutions sustain the moral infrastructure of democratic societies. In doing so, they affirm a simple yet powerful truth: justice begins with people.