Disorder within, disorder without

April 17, 2015

There are two ways of being a politician, the first is to bring to politics all
ones ideas, energies and even possessions to enrich it with ones riches
and yet in the midst of it to maintain ones own intellectual and inner
preoccupations, so that the management of public affairs maybe ennobled
by them. The second way is the exact opposite. It consists of taking from
politics all ones ideas, along with the power and many other resources.
This is living off politics instead of giving it life Paul Valery
How petty are the thoughts of small men! Believe me; I do not regard the
acquisition of a Ministers portfolio as a thing worth striving for. I do not hold
it worthy of a great man to endeavour to go down in history just by
becoming a Minister. One might be in danger of being buried beside other
Ministers! I aimed from the first at something a thousand times higher than
a Minister. Adolf Hitler
Gandhi looked at India as no Indian was able to; his vision was direct, and
this directness was, and is revolutionary. He sees exactly what the visitor
sees; he does not ignore the obvious. He sees the beggars and the
shameless pundits and the filth of Banaras; he sees the atrocious sanitary
habits of doctors, lawyers and journalists. He sees the Indian callousness,
the Indian refusal to see An Area of Darkness, V.S. Naipaul
Whatever we Sri Lankans may be accused of, it cannot be said that we are
possessed of the instincts of the Teutons. Through our long history, we have
caused no anxiety to our neighbours on account of our military prowess or
economic interests. On the contrary, it were mainly the periodic incursions
over the Palk Straight that eventually led to the disintegration of the then-

flourishing Sinhala kingdoms of the north-central plains of

the
island. A mere glance at the map of South Asia is sufficient to comprehend
the vulnerability of a small country with a relatively small population in
such a geographic setting.
It is most unlikely that an unbiased observer would think of us as war-like in
the way that warrior races, such as the ancient Nordic tribes, were often
perceived. Although there are several historical instances of brutal violence
when roused, by and large the impression is of a temper; sedentary and
easily tempted, but given to a great deal of discourse. Much of our
aggression in the past has been directed against indigenous rivals and
threats. We did not go forth to conquer but since about the mid-20th
Century have gone out in numbers for employment, compelled by the need
to keep the home fires burning.
Homogenous systems of governance
Historical developments in the past three centuries (18, 19 and 20 mainly)
have imposed a certain homogeneity on nearly all countries where systems
of governance are concerned, at least in appearance. There is almost no
country today without a parliament (whatever it may be called in the
individual country) and courts of law modelled more or less on those
functioning in the metropolitan countries, the former colonial powers.
The mimic goes down to even the nomenclature, the mode of address,
parliamentarians are addressed with the prefix honourable, senior judges
are lordships while it is your worship for the mayor, just like in England!
Needless to say such honorific titles (and of course the office) evolved
among a people, a clime and culture very different to us.
If it were suggested even as recent as 150 years ago that on a future date
descendants of those conquered and colonised so would compete with each

other for such honorific titles, that suggestion would have barely sounded
credible.
The cultural gap would have seemed too wide for meaningful adoption or
even a dependable imitation of the concept. What was before the direction
changing Colebrooke/Cameron reforms (1833) were a very different
approach to the relationship between man and ruler and even between
man and man.
Their perception of the role of man in relation to the universe was very
unlike what it is now.
The Colebrooke/Cameron reforms were not on account of any urging on the
part of a population seeking greater democratisation, but were motivated
mainly by the need for the colonial power to increase revenue to support
their colonial responsibilities. But the process of modernisation was firmly
established thereby.
However, that these children of the tropics could one day be ministers,
city fathers and judges, be possessed of the capabilities to hold down such
positions, while exercising the required level of integrity, responsibility and
foresight, would have been a proposition fraught with doubt at the time.
They may covet the title, but would the essence escape them?
Blatant hypocrisy
Great Britain has for a few centuries been a rich and stable country now.
From the City of London to the Privy Council, From the Oxford University to
Sandhurst Military Academy, from the Wembley Stadium to Wimbledon,
their institutions are world class, enjoying international prestige. The
occasional malinger notwithstanding, public life in that country retains an
enviable image of rectitude, even leading the unbelieving visitors from
societies with vastly different standards to suspect a trick in the record.
And all this has been achieved by them without even one single document
to call a Constitution.
Even today, nearly 70 years after independence, for many a Sri Lankan a
visa to enter England is a guarantee of not only a better life but also the
protection of a democratic system. In the recent times there is hardly a
minister (or a parliamentarian or for that matter even a senior public
servant) in our country whose children do (or have) not live or study in a
First World country, a most emphatic denial of all they publicly stand for!
That is the blatant hypocrisy of their politics, but the more obvious

dishonesty of their ways is too well-rooted to even draw public interest.

Only a very few among these public figures are taxpayers, i.e. earn more
than $ 3,000 a year approximately, by way of non-exempted income. We
must believe that it is only by the help of an unearthly power that they are
able to finance their childrens sojourn in the West!
The mimic has turned into a farce
We began our own efforts at Constitution making in 1972 which led to the
1978 Constitution and now are at the 19th Amendment thereto, with none
of this commanding general acceptance nor giving an appearance of a
long-term relevance. It seems the mimic has turned into a farce.
There are certainly no adherents of Hitlers denunciation of ministerial
ambitions in Sri Lanka, a commonplace and vulgar goal in life as the future
Warlord saw it. On the other hand, our politicians are willing to jockey for a
ministerial portfolio in the most shameless manner, taking it as a sure
avenue to financial and social bliss, a quick journey from being a nobody to
a somebody.
All the brouhaha in the Parliament about Constitutional reforms has nothing
to do with an aversion to the concentration of power in the office of the
president or the obvious failings of the system of elections.
To argue so would be to consider our political culture as honest and selfless.
In the last few years most of these legislators enjoyed whatever came their
way from the well-laden table of Mahinda Rajapaksa, while the sun was
shining brightly the Hambantota way.
Leave alone checking his powers, they even voted to do away with the twoterm limit on the presidency only about a year ago! As to the electoral
system, under which the quality of the legislators has nosedived, it is
unrealistic to expect the only real beneficiaries of a system to want to
change it. It is argued that a democracy is a better system because
ultimately the people may choose the rulers they want. But it was never
meant that a Parliament would merely reflect the lowest common
denominator.
Herein perhaps lies a conundrum, does the disorder within the Parliament
only reflect a greater disorder without?
(The writer is an Attorney-at-Law and a freelance writer.)
Posted by Thavam