“Able-bodied people have so many problems already. What more do you want?”
In Azerbaijan, it is almost impossible to discuss the rights, daily struggles, or social barriers faced by people with disabilities without hearing some version of this remark.
At first glance, it may even sound reasonable. After all, the country struggles with unemployment, poverty, rising living costs, and an ongoing housing crisis.
But look beneath the surface, and an entirely different picture emerges.
This argument does not compare problems—it pits one group’s fundamental rights against another group’s hardships. In doing so, it reinforces a dangerous idea: that people with disabilities should simply wait their turn, that their rights can be postponed until everyone else’s problems have been solved.
But human suffering is not a competition.
In social policy, there is no hierarchy of rights. Ensuring one group’s rights does not come at the expense of another’s.
Take unsafe pedestrian crossings. They are not just a problem for wheelchair users. They endanger older people, parents pushing strollers, individuals with visual impairments, and every pedestrian who uses them.
The same is true of accessible public transportation. It is not a convenience reserved for people with disabilities—it improves daily life for countless others as well.
That is precisely why developed countries embrace the principle of universal design. Inclusive environments are not created for a minority; they are designed to serve society as a whole.
How does this way of thinking take root?
These reactions do not appear out of nowhere.
For years, people have been conditioned to see social issues not through the lens of rights, but through the lens of scarcity.
The underlying message is subtle but persistent:
“The state’s resources are limited. There isn’t enough for everyone. If one group’s problems are addressed, someone else will inevitably lose out.”
This mindset distracts society from the real question:
Why aren’t all of these problems being addressed at the same time?
Instead of scrutinizing the quality of governance, public debate shifts toward comparing one social group with another.
Divide and rule
Sociologists have long described variations of this phenomenon: public frustration is redirected away from structural causes and toward conflicts between different groups within society.
Rather than questioning the effectiveness of public policy, people begin questioning one another.
One person says:
“Teachers are underpaid.”
Another responds:
“Doctors have it even worse.”
A third adds:
“Pensioners suffer the most.”
And when people with disabilities raise their concerns, the reply is often immediate:
“Able-bodied people have plenty of problems too.”
The same pattern can even emerge within the disability community itself.
Someone with a visual impairment may argue that their challenges are greater than those faced by others with disabilities and therefore deserve more attention.
The outcome is always the same.
No one’s problems are addressed systematically.
Instead, different groups find themselves weakening one another’s arguments rather than demanding meaningful solutions.
Few people pay a higher price for this than people with disabilities.
Disability is not simply another social problem
Imagine two people earning exactly the same income.
If one of them has a disability, they will almost certainly face higher daily expenses, more physical barriers, and greater dependence on external support.
An inaccessible building.
An apartment block without an elevator.
A government office with no ramp.
A bus that cannot be boarded.
Workplaces that remain out of reach.
The cost of rehabilitation.
The high price of assistive technologies.
These are not isolated inconveniences. Together, they deepen poverty.
Economists describe this as the extra costs of disability—the reality that maintaining the same standard of living often requires significantly greater resources for a person with a disability.
That is why equating disability-related barriers with general social problems fundamentally misses the point.
The hidden cost of this mindset
Perhaps the greatest danger is that it gradually erodes social responsibility.
People stop listening to one another’s struggles.
Instead, they explain why someone else should not be speaking about theirs.
In societies shaped by this mentality, concern for rights gives way to a far narrower instinct:
“As long as my own problems are solved, nothing else matters.”
People no longer defend rights.
They simply decide whose problems deserve attention first.
But rights do not wait in line.
If someone cannot leave their home because the streets are inaccessible, that injustice will still exist tomorrow.
If a child cannot attend school, telling them to “wait a little longer” will never restore the education they have already lost.
Inclusion is an investment—not a burden
From an economic perspective, this way of thinking is equally flawed.
When people with disabilities are able to study, work, and participate fully in society, they do not become a burden on public finances.
Quite the opposite.
Over time, they strengthen the economy.
They pay taxes.
They create value.
They provide services.
They consume goods.
They innovate.
They contribute to growth.
Building an accessible society is therefore not simply another government expense.
It is an investment in human capital.
That is why many developed countries no longer view inclusion as an act of charity or social assistance.
They see it as an essential pillar of long-term economic development.
When silence becomes discrimination
Perhaps the most damaging consequence of all is psychological.
Over time, many people with disabilities begin to hesitate before speaking about the obstacles they face.
They start asking themselves:
“Maybe we don’t have the right to complain.”
That is where invisible discrimination begins.
When people fall silent, their problems disappear from public view.
And problems that remain unseen are rarely solved.
Every social issue matters.
The concerns of pensioners, teachers, doctors, students, workers, and families all deserve attention.
But none of those challenges can justify pushing the rights of people with disabilities to the back of the queue.
Rights do not compete with one another.
Justice is not something to be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis.
If a society continually postpones the rights of certain groups with the promise that someone else’s problems must be solved first, then eventually no one’s problems will truly be solved.
Because the true measure of a developed society is not its average level of prosperity.
It is whether even those who face the greatest barriers are able to live with dignity, safety, and equal opportunity.
Defending the rights of people with disabilities is not about demanding special treatment.
It is about defending the principle that every member of society is entitled to equal rights.
And once that principle begins to erode, the damage does not stop with people with disabilities.
It ultimately weakens society as a whole.
Orkhan Adigozal
19.07.2026
