Originally posted in Awate Forum comment section, here these three items are explained in rush. I am not sure whether it helps or not but it is coming from a layman’s mind.
A quote that initiated the idea to talk about these three items
Amanuel Hidrat of Awate wrote
“If civil right movement is a political movement for justice, and if justice comes as the product of a political struggle, then justice has always a political connotation when they are adjudicated as social justice.”
Here the writer has composed interesting points in one but I would prefer to divide them for detailed analysis.
Just to extract the juice out of this, lets filter it out so that it will fit into a question that says, “is justice politics?”
“…a political movement for justice…”
If I understood you clearly, here <strong>”justice”</strong> is a product and political movement is the process. If so,whether justice is enforced by laws or not, it is not politics by itself. Justice is a consequential outcome, hence <strong>’consequentialism’*</strong>”. Therefore, politics is nothing but a means to achieve the end, (The end justifies the means).
Justice and Social Justice are different things. Social justice is a process, hence politics by itself. The struggle done under the banner of social justice is nothing but to achieve an justice. However the justice promoted under the banner of social justice is always misleading where it is up to date a center of chaos and instability across the world. I myself do not concur the concept of social justice promoted by socialists.
From these two points therefore we can extract “justice”, as the ultimate quest for human freedom and all others are tools to achieve it. My understanding, which is mentored by Saleh Johar Ghadi relies on this simple concept of justice: justice, justice, justice. Point.
Having said that any process/movement that ignores justice, for example, creation of political free zone, is nothing but against justice.