“Savage, Victim, Saviour: The Metaphor of Human Rights,” Professor Makau Mutua
provides an analysis of international human rights by taking apart its framework. He argues that human rights discourse relies on a fundamental and flawed model, the Savage-Victim-Saviour (SVS) framework, where the West is cast as the force that is helping the non-Western world from its barbarism. This is not only rhetorical but structurally constitutive of how human rights function internationally: reproducing power contradictions, effacing cultural difference, and perpetuating imperial domination in the name of civilization. This paper reflects on this metaphor in detail, regarding the role of the Global South in the current human rights domain, with special emphasis on post-colonial African societies. I would like to maintain that although the human rights paradigm is still relevant in many fights, it needs to be rethought and reframed in terms of plurality, resistance, and decolonial imagination to escape its imperial foundations.
As it is depicted by Mutua, the SVS metaphor unfolds like a three-act drama. The “savage” is traditionally defined as a state or culture from the developing world and is portrayed as barbaric, oppressive to women, or seen as having a propensity for violence. Essentially, the “victim” is the one who bears the burden of this vicious culture or regime, often women, children, or the marginalized. The “saviour” is then Western liberalism, institutions, NGOs, and actors who rescue the victim from the clutches of the savage. As described by Mutua, this narrative is far from being a politically correct one. It is also highly racialized, gendered, and geopolitical. It portrays non-Western cultures as primitive and needing the White man’s shower of civilization and grace, thus justifying colonialism as moral intervention.
On the one hand, Mutua’s analysis made me feel provoked, on the other, affirmed. I first understood human rights as a system of legal norms that aimed at the protection of the dignity and freedoms of a person. However, Mutua challenges: who else determines these rights, how they are implemented, and whose norms shape them. His critique is not a rejection of human rights, and it is not saying that human rights are a farce: it is saying that there is a need for honesty about the movement for human rights not being as democratic or as global as is claimed. In the African settings where colonial and postcolonial imprints on governance, development, and justice persist, the savior narrative is all too familiar. It is seen in the donor policies, in international courts, humanitarian advocacy, and even in the frameworks for peacebuilding. Often, local others are marginalized, and communities are reduced to passive victims receiving ready-made solutions.
One powerful aspect of Mutua’s work is useful as a reminder of the performative nature of international human rights. He claims that the language of human rights and human rights discourse is alien to the African people. Movement tribunals, reports, missions, and resolutions resemble a moral theater in which the West continues to stage itself as a saviour of humanity. This metaphor can be demonstrated, for example, by the obsession that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has with African leaders and figures, while Western actors are often let off the hook as being too powerful. Mutua’s insight makes us consider important questions: Is international law objective, or is it just an instrument that reflects global hierarchies? And how can a human rights movement that often speaks about communities be just?
At the same time, it is also pertinent to briefly consider some of the weaknesses of Mutua’s argument. Even though the SVS metaphor is a useful analytic tool, it can lead to generalizing the bad aspects of all international human rights efforts with the same broad brush. There are grassroots actors and movements mainly in Africa, Latin America, and Asia that use human rights language in deeply transformative ways. For instance, in Mathare, social activism is characterized by the fights against police violence, gender based violence, and forcible eviction, and is structured by discourses of dignity, justice, and rights. But again, these articulations are based on real-life experiences, not external impositions. This means that the challenge is not to completely reject the human rights regime but rather to redefine and reshape it from a saviour model of development to a solidarity model. Human rights must become a language of resistance and not domination.
I have gained more insight into analyzing the field of human rights, and it has helped me to interrogate my positionality: what I consider justice, whose voices I center in advocacy, and how I navigate power dynamics in research and activism. It also brought back awareness about decolonizing knowledge production, realizing that African philosophies, struggles, and systems of justice are not derivative or marginal to global discourses but constitutive of them. Thus, as we face modern adversities ranging from climate justice to the question of state violence, we must ask if what we wield is part of the problem or part of the solution.
In conclusion, Professor Makau’s “Savage, Victim, Saviour” is still a classic criticism of the human rights paradigm. It challenges the possibility of human rights, but also the stories that undergird them. The movement itself has accomplished much, though we must recognize its flaws as well. As scholars and activists, that means it is high time we leave the saviour complex behind and engage in human rights activism based on solidarity, human dignity, and radical thinking. In this vein, the pursuit of human rights is not an entitlement bestowed by the hegemonic powers.
However, it was built and sustained on the basis of the Indigenous people’s own struggles, processes of construction, and claims.
Tiffany Wanjiru
mbuguatiff@gmail.com
Tiffany Wanjiru Mbugua is a Kenyan human rights scholar-activist and community organizer working with the Mathare Social Justice Centre (MSJC). She is currently pursuing a Master of Arts degree in Human Rights in the Department of Philosophy & Religious Studies at the University of Nairobi.
Her academic work so far focuses on the intersection of militarization, politics, and human rights in Africa, with a particular emphasis on Kenya. In January 2025, she published a paper titled “The Militarization of Politics and Politicization of the Military: African and Kenyan Perspective,” which explores the impact of military involvement in politics on democracy and socio-economic structures in the region.
At MSJC, Tiffany engages in grassroots activism, contributing to community-led research and advocacy efforts aimed at addressing systemic injustices in informal settlements like Mathare. Her work includes documenting human rights violations, promoting environmental justice, and empowering marginalized groups through education and community organizing.
Through her combined academic and activist endeavors, Tiffany Wanjiru Mbugua exemplifies a commitment to decolonial approaches to human rights and social justice in Kenya.