But, yet the world's most trusted "constitutional councils' are present in institutions such as the press - and of course that vast intangible force in any democratic polity called public opinion. Why so?

We seem to be in an era in which we think that new methods of 'good governance' (never liked that word, but how can you make yourself understood these days without recourse to the prevailing jargon?) can be invented. Society has evolved and mutated, they say, and therefore, new institutions have to evolve to keep up with the flux.

So, there are ideas going cheap, and everybody seems to have a new one. The idea of constitutional councils, though not necessarily bad, has been already accorded the status of wonder cure - what do they say, a "panacea'. Words such as panacea are not to be used in Sri Lanka without appropriately qualifying. In these parts, writers of Letters to the Editor have used these words at the drop of a hat. They are almost totally threadbare now.

Anyway, the wonder boys of 'civil society' from their cocoons in the peripheries, in order to try and stabilize a deteriorating spectacle of disorder in the public sphere, touted constitutional councils.

In the meantime, old values have been all thrown out of the window. I daresay it is a conspiracy!

Though it is said to be an affliction - this business of seeing a conspiracy behind everything - it appears that the constitutional councils are part of a plan to subvert the old devices of accountability, which are ensured in the system of a separation of powers, reinforced of course by the power of the Fourth Estate. Locke authored the Fundamental Constitution of Carolina, and proposed the separation of powers later expanded by Montesquieu. Essentially his theories such as those of the social contract, have withstood the test of time. But, while granting that they may not be the perfect political devices for all time, it is arguable that theories such as separation of powers cannot be enforced when there is a commingling of powers in one person - or in one branch of government.

When that is the case, the only hope of a society is the Fourth Estate (as the media is known.) But can the doctrine of separation of powers work, when even the Fourth Estate, the last and only hope for a constitution, has been swamped by the wrong value systems.

There is no accountability in society today for the simple reason that there are no good men in society today. Now, that may sound rather simplistic a generalization, but some situations can be boiled down to simplistic generalizations because they are no longer very complex! No system of governance - - whether it depends on the doctrine of separation of powers for accountability, or whether it depends on daring new institutions such as the 'constitutional councils', can work, if the individuals that people a society are rotten or indifferent at their core.

There is little point talking in the abstract of theory. For example, if the powers that be in a society feel that institutions such as the Judiciary need not be cleansed, because politically it might raise a can of worms, that is called in old fashioned terms the politics of 'expediency'. If gross violations of the constitution are to be, for instance, defended by ministers of state themselves, for purposes of keeping the government popular, that is called expediency.

There is no reason to debate the fact that our legislature is a repository for the expedient politician. That is a fact that is now accepted and given, particularly after events that led upto the formation of the largest Cabinet since independence. (Last government?)

But even so, our institutions and systems of government can survive if there is a Fourth Estate that is upright and responsible, and if there is a body of public opinion that gives a damn for what the Fourth Estate says. But, the current tragedy of Sri Lanka seems not so much to be the fact that the legislature is packed with opportunists. It is in a way partly to be expected - for instance, look at the way in which the British Prime Minister is disgracing his country by supporting, without any questions asked, the US policy of going to war with Iraq.

But Prime Ministers - - especially of the modern age - -have tended to be this way. The politician is a rascal, and which fourth grader does not know that? But, in Britain for instance, writers and activists such as Harold Pinter and John Pilger, have excoriated the political leaders, such as Blair and all his henchmen, for leading the people up the garden path.

You should see how Pinter trashes Ministers. He says in his latest article 'War Against Reason'. Blair and Bush are of course totally indifferent to such facts, not forgetting the charming, grinning, beguiling Bill Clinton, who was apparently given a standing ovation at the Labour Party conference. For what? Killing Iraqi children? Or Serbian children? Bush has said: "We will not allow the world's worst weapons to remain in the hands of the world's worst leaders." Quite right. Look in the mirror chum. That's you.''

But our society is so totally indifferent to the fact that rascals can get away with anything, that it has basically given up. When the press should be telling the politicians enough is enough, here, the politicians are telling the press and the people all kinds of drivel - and the press just says, okay, we have had enough, so we will not publish anymore. Public opinion doesn't care either way. A country such as this is done for - not because its institutions have gone bad, not because there are no constitutional councils that are functioning, but because its people are basically morally jaded or indifferent. They do not believe the press and public opinion has a duty to stamp out political pretenders. They are bound to pay the price, one way or the other, for such indifference one day.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster