Replacing paramount law with a paramount personae

“Let us be frank. Do you think that we can persuade people to work for the government and hold high office, if they are to be told that they have account for every cent they spend, that they would have keep books and be audited; that they can’t use their official position to help their family or friends and the like?”
_______________

By Basil Fernando

(July 09, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) This is a discussion among several imaginary characters. These imaginary characters do not represent any living persons.

The Characters:

A journalist, conducting the interview;
A senior police officer who has agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity;
A retired judge;
A political scientist;
A philosopher.

Journalist: We have now discussed some important transformations in our country. We discussed about the Gyges’ ring, which makes the wearer invisible as part of our local experience now. In that transformation the 1978 Constitution played a very significant role. Now, the executive president can wear the Gyges’ ring and what this does is make him quite invisible. Perhaps we need to discuss this more.

Philosopher: At this stage, I thought it is better to recall the legend of the Gyges’ Ring. I found this description of it in Google: According to the legend, the ancestor (in Book 10 Socrates refers to the ring as belonging to Gyges himself, not his ancestor as Glaucon states in Book 2) of Gyges of Lydia was a shepherd in the service of King Candaules of Lydia. After an earthquake, a cave was revealed in a mountainside where Gyges was feeding his flock. Entering the cave, Gyges discovered that it was in fact a tomb with a bronze horse containing a corpse, larger than that of a man, who wore a golden ring, which Gyges pocketed. He discovered that the ring gave him the power to become invisible by adjusting it. Gyges then arranged to be chosen as one of the messengers who reported to the king as to the status of the flocks. Arriving at the palace, Gyges used his new power of invisibility to seduce the queen, and with her help he murdered the king, and became king of Lydia himself. King Croesus, famous for his wealth, was Gyges' descendant.

Political Scientist: Now, the moral of the story is that a typical person would not be moral if he or she did not have to fear the consequences of their actions. If anyone can be invisible, it is possible to do things that one may not be willing to do because of bad publicity and other adverse consequences.

Retired Police Officer: I think I understand this legend and what it tries to say. But, I cannot agree that we should encourage our officers or leaders to follow the moral of this story.

Political Scientist: You mean it is too western?

Retired Police Officer: Whatever. If we have to become visible, we cannot do anything. We will become powerless. How can we ask our officers to kill undesirable people, bad criminals, if they have to do that openly. If their wives and children know these things, they will think they are bad people. Ordinary folk need to observe morals. If they know what we do, they will try to emulate us and then there will be more problems. We need to have the capacity to do many things in an invisible way.

Retired Judicial Officer: Some people might say that what our police officer says is wrong. However, he is simply saying honestly what everybody knows to be happening.
Political Scientist: Now, let us go back to our original question: in 1978 when the Executive Presidential system was created the President gave himself, the Gyges’ Ring. We created a very powerful president, as powerful as those Kings who ruled before this thing called democracy came to the world. We rejected the Western Democracy and created our own thing.

Philosopher: What you mean, I think, is that we replaced the paramount law idea with the idea of the paramount personae. Large, big, tall, fat personae as we see them in ancient statues, which is really, our thing, our idea of who the powerful person should be.

Retired Police Officer: Let us be frank. Do you think that we can persuade people to work for the government and hold high office, if they are to be told that they have account for every cent they spend, that they would have keep books and be audited; that they can’t use their official position to help their family or friends and the like? If we ask our officers to bring every suspect before judges, that they should not torture people who do not give information, or that they have to produce every dead body before a magistrate to have a post mortem, will they do anything? We will have to pay officers who do nothing

Retired Judicial Officer: I think what you are saying is that we must be more flexible. We must give people room to exercise power, more freedom. Freedom of those in authority is more important than ‘the so called people’s freedom’. People are free only if they obey rulers and respect rulers.

Philosopher: According to our officer and judicial officer, this is what has happened since 1978. This is our new order.

Journalist: Now I understand why so many journalists are being killed. Since, we journalists believe in transparency and accountability we no longer have any place under this new order.

-Sri Lanka Guardian