Focus on Rights

Gender issues concerning election to religious and public office
Indisputably, organised religion, (or a philosophy that has become institutionalised, possessing thereon all the trappings of religious doctrine), is the last bastion of the conservative, if not the unashamedly sexist. Whether it continues to constitute the opium of the masses is, of course, a connected and vital question still.

The awe-inspiring pomp and circumstance surrounding the recent election of the head of the Roman Catholic Church may have been somewhat removed from the heartrending humility of the life lived by the first Fisherman as well as the message passed thereon to humanity. However, there is no belying the historical authority embodied in the process nor the considerable moral power wielded thereto.

A visitor from Mars, (hopefully coming from a culture, eons ahead in enlightenment as opposed to the struggling masses of humanoids), in witnessing this ceremony, might be puzzled though at the singular absence of women among the magnificent panoply of colour coordinated cardinals. He or she (or 'it' for that matter might then need to be educated in regard to the precise manner in which organised religion conducts itself on Earth and it is to be hoped that tempers will not fray in the result.

It is not my intention to venture further into this debate in discussing commonalties discriminatory to gender as evidenced in the appointment of trustees of a Hindu kovil or a Muslim mosque or the head of the Catholic church.

This discussion is regarding a different question; namely the emergence of problematic stipulations in connection to the conducting of the election of the Diyawadana Nilame which runs contrary to the common perception that the philosophy that the Buddha disseminated was without gender distinction. It is axiomatic that the functioning of institutions needs to be differentiated from the essential tenets of the religious philosophy in any given case. Yet the issues that arise from this analysis have an impact on the functioning of not only religious institutions but public institutions as well as indicated later on. The discussion concerns questions arising from the election process, its impact on the functioning of public institutions and the prevailing discriminatory nature of the process.

Pivotal in this regard is Section 40 of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance which enacts that; "No person shall be entitled to be a member of the advisory board or to be a member or to nominate a member of the Atamasthana Committee or to be a trustee or to vote at the election of a trustee of a temple unless he is of the male sex, unless he is a Buddhist by religion and unless he has completed his twenty first year."

While the stipulation regarding the religious beliefs of the persons entitled to vote is obviously logical, the question may be well posed as to whether the same could be asserted of the condition that, such person should necessarily be a male? The scheme of the Ordinance as spelt out in its several provisions means that a person of the female sex is debarred from holding any of the said offices as legislatively decreed.

This has also meant that female Divisional Secretaries are debarred from voting in connection with the election of the custodian of the Maligawa, for example as would be evidenced in the forthcoming elections. Apparently, as revealed in discussions with female Divisional Secretaries, this problem has been met in a singularly expedient manner where female officers are prevailed upon to temporarily relinquish their offices on agreeing to permit persons of the male sex to hold such office in order to enable them to exercise the relevant voting rights at elections in question. Consequent upon the said elections being held, the female officers revert back to the substantive offices.

The reduction of the authority of the female Divisional Secretaries who are public officers in this manner is a dubious practice which amounts not only to a social mockery but is wholly at variance with Articles 27(6) and 12(2) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka.

It is also pertinent that by reason of the provisions of Section 40 of the Ordinance, none of the members of the advisory board assisting the Public Trustee under Section 6(1) of the Ordinance could be from the female sex.

This gender restriction applies even in relation to female members of Parliament as evident from Section 6(1). Indeed, on a reading of the relevant sections of the Public Trustees Ordinance read with the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, the restriction seems to apply to the office of the Public Trustee itself.

Logically, it appears that the appointment of a female Public Trustee (or for that matter, a non-Buddhist Public Trustee) will also pose problems inasmuch as Section 2 of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance (read with Section 2 of the Public Trustee Ordinance does not include 'his' deputy or deputies.

There has emerged an imperative need to amend relevant sections of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance as well as the Public Trustee Ordinance in order to minimise some of these problems. The issues raised in this instance have a special relevance as they impact on not only the functioning of religious institutions but public institutions as well.

It may appropriately be questioned as to whether an impetus towards reform in all these respects may not begin in this century as undoubtedly it will have to begin somewhere.

Back to Columns