Inclusion Is a Human Right – Not a Dispensable Luxury

Equal participation is clearly anchored in law. No one may be discriminated against because of a disability. This obligation applies regardless of the state of public finances. Anyone who puts inclusion up for debate is, in effect, questioning fundamental rights. That is not legitimate fiscal policy, it is political regression. 

Aleksander Pavkovic, Chair of the German Catholic Association for the Blind and active in the field of digital accessibility, is not surprised that this debate resurfaces time and again. For him, it confirms an experience he has had for years: 

This shifts a structural financial problem onto a group that is already disadvantaged. That is questionable from a factual standpoint and potentially harmful from a societal one.

Pavkovic criticizes the fact that key realities are ignored in this discussion. For example, that no one chooses to have a disability and that it can affect anyone. Likewise, many people with disabilities would be fully capable of performing if accessibility enabled their access. Above all, the issue is not about comfort. It is about fundamental rights. 

The claim that people with disabilities benefit excessively does not stand up to reality. Barriers still shape everyday life  in education, in the labor market, in housing, in public administration, and in the digital sphere. Support does not enable a life of luxury; it enables self-determination and participation in the first place. 

Speaking of overprovision deliberately distorts the picture and distracts from the real problems: missing structures, inefficient processes, and insufficient funding coordination between levels of government. 

This distortion becomes particularly evident in the labor market. Despite good qualifications, many people with disabilities remain excluded. Participation benefits are not a substitute for work and not an incentive to withdraw from employment: 

Using blindness as an example, he illustrates the scale of untapped potential: 

Of course, public funds must be used efficiently. But the real question is not whether participation is too expensive, but whether it is implemented intelligently. 

From Aleksander Pavkovic’s perspective, even the frequently invoked economic argument falls short. Even if participation is viewed purely from a cost perspective, across-the-board cuts are not the solution: 

Digital accessibility, in particular, shows that sustainable solutions are possible when accessibility is integrated from the outset rather than “fixed” later. Accessible documents, websites, and digital processes are not a nice-to-have. They are a prerequisite for enabling people to access information, public administration, and social participation in the first place. This not only strengthens individual participation, but also promotes greater independence and thus can reduce societal costs in the long term. 

This is not merely a question of attitude; it is also a legal obligation. Digital accessibility is legally binding in many parts of the world. In the European Union, the European Accessibility Act (EAA) sets clear requirements. In the United States, laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act impose comparable obligations for public entities and, in many cases, private organizations. Cutting corners here is not efficient cost-saving, it creates new barriers, increases legal risks, and generates significantly higher costs in the long run.

Inclusion is not negotiable, neither in the analog nor in the digital world. A society that cuts participation first when finances are tight is saving in the wrong place, namely at the expense of dignity, equality, and long-term viability.