| by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne
“Thou shalt be my witness”…Isaiah, 43-10.
( January 20, 2013, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) Hana Ibrahim, in an article entitled “Heed the Warnings” gives the following example: “Chanakya, Emperor Chandragupta’s chief advisor wrote in his famous book, ‘Arthasashthra’, thousands of years ago that “the fundamental function of the ruler is to make his subjects fearless.’’ If no fundamental change takes place in the mind-set of the people in the near future, we will be saddled with a population that is utterly afraid and cowardly, so much so that they would be running away from their own shadows”.
This clear and apt statement was embodied in my article “Defragilizing Sri Lanka” in which I tried to articulate the theme “what’s done is done…now let’s get on with it” and the fact that we can do nothing to restore the status quo ante. My question was “where do we go from here”? And contained the thought that the judiciary and appointments thereto should be monitored for their impartiality and that they will indeed be open to criticism by a fearless society, as much as the future acts of both the legislature and the executive.
I also tried to portray the insidiousness of abuse of power and to say that now we should be antifragile and bounce back into a true democracy by opening the doors to that which would lead to criticisms of anyone who wields power if their acts are unjust and iniquitous.
What does a fearless society do? In my view, it acts according to a clear understanding of what is moral and the right thing to do. Governments should act categorically and not consequentially. To explain this rather high sounding principle, I would say that the moral worth of governmental acts must be unconditionally and universally acceptable as being for the good of the people governed. Michael Sandel, one of the most popular professors at Harvard Law School who teaches a course simply called Justice, in his book, Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? cites the example of a shopkeeper who sells an item from his shop to an intellectually challenged person. The shopkeeper knows that he can give his disadvantaged customer the wrong change and make a huge profit. But then he desists, and gives the correct change on the basis that, if the fact that he overcharged his customer gets out, he would lose business. Professor Sandel argues that the shopkeeper in this instance did the right thing, but for the wrong reason. The right reason would have been that the correct change was given because the shopkeeper acted autonomously, i.e. according to a law that he gives himself, that requires him to be a good person universally, who respects the dignity of the other person without discrimination.
A fearless society would not hesitate to criticise a system that acts in a heteronomous manner that cedes to social practice. A system of governance must apply the universal and categorical principle of the dignity and freedom of every individual. It should not treat the individual as a means but as an end. In an article published earlier I said: “overall public interest in good governance is now a common feature in the modern state, and is not restricted to the academics and practitioners who bore the burden of evaluating governance in the past. The increasing concern and interest in good governance may be attributed to the public being more educated and aware than before, which is now popularly known as “civic literacy”, coupled with the proliferation of complex issues that have emerged with globalization and an international awareness that has spread to national boundaries. Therefore, an empirical demonstration of good governance has now become a compelling need that could provide the necessary tools for the public to develop their own desired models of governance which are capable of delivering goods that accord with their expectations”.
Good governance and fearless societies define our times. Thomas Jefferson once wrote that the purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors. As Benjamin Franklin wrote, "In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns." The ultimate powers in a society, therefore, rest in the people themselves, and they should exercise those powers, either directly or through representatives, in every way they are competent and practicable.
Political ethics, also known as political morality or public ethics, is the practice of making moral judgments about political action and political agents. These moral judgments, as said earlier, must essentially be universal and be based on the dignity and freedom of the individual. Political ethics should be monitored by a fearless society. Dr. Satya Pal Singh, in his excellent essay “Building a Fearless Society” gives the ingredients that go towards building a fearless society. They are Determination: The foundation for success and achievement of a goal; Boldness: the ability to look people in the eye and confront them if they are morally wrong. It is human nature to back down in the face of confrontation with the good; Alertness; keeping our ears and eyes open and never letting any immoral act go unnoticed and unpunished; Self Help and Self Defence; if one is attacked, one fights back; and, perhaps the most important, Unity; being always together as one voice and one force.
Finally, I might add that the last quality – unity – is essential, purely because, as history has it, bad things happen to good people because we, as a society stand by and let things happen. If the people of the United States shouted sufficiently against the gun lobby, massacres in schools and public buildings would not have happened. If there was a united fearless society that was vigilant on the streets of New Delhi, a young woman may not have been raped and tortured to death. If society stands up against domestic violence, women may be better protected.
As a member of the legal profession, I believe that the law of outrage must be a part of any legal system. This means that any citizen should have the right to exercise the civil liberties that he or she is entitled to. The Rule of Law, which is the foundation of civil liberty and order, and the underlying constitutional principle requiring government to be conducted according to law, makes all public officers answerable for their acts in the ordinary courts. Common law jurisdictions such as the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom take pride in their long tradition of parliamentary democracy which would effectively preclude arbitrary acts of the executive in curbing civil liberties guaranteed by the law. This principle is embodied in the dissenting judgment of Lord Atkin in Liversidge v. Anderson, to which courts pay frequent lip service, that :“amidst the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace”.
The writer has worked in international affairs for over 30 years and is currently the Senior Legal Officer at the International Civil Aviation Organization. He has published 22 books on international law and politics and numerous journal articles on contemporary issues.
