| by Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
I write in response to Sri Lanka Guardian article ‘Scheduled Impeachment Debate Is Not Constitutional’ by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne.
( January 16, 2013, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) Dr. Aberatne states ‘Independence of the judiciary is a direct result of what lawyers call the Doctrine of Separation of Powers where, in a democratic State, three distinct institutions: the Legislature (Parliament), the Judiciary (Courts) and the Executive (Civil Service) are separate and mutually exclusive. According to this principle, no single person or body could be in more than one of these three areas. In particular, judicial and legislative functions are scrupulously kept separate in a democratic State.’
To me, the parallels of the above three sections in my part of society are ‘Family elders; Community leaders & Active workers in the family. In terms of workplace, they are Governing Councils representing shareholders; Administrators and Workers respectively. Separation is needed in both – hierarchical management as well as democratic management. In the latter, the separation is required to be physical and in the former it is largely mental.
These separations are very like the separations between Science and Arts. They are very like the separation of places of worship of different religions. Strangely, the issue is being raised in Sri Lanka at the same time as Miss Rizana Rafeek’s tragedy. Rizana was a Muslim and yet that did not earn her the protection of a Muslim Government. This is also the risk for Sri Lankan Tamils in Tamil Nadu – as it was for Indian Tamils in Sri Lanka. These Natural energies work automatically for those who live close to their Truth.
The parallel of the above in the case of Sri Lanka’s Chief Justice is that her identity as Sri Lankan was not respected by the Politicians. To most of them the Chief Justice was lower in status than the President – the same way a Buddhist monk would be shown greater respect than a Hindu, Christian or Muslim Priest. The natural world of Rizana was the Muslim world. It would have been more easy for her to give form to her belief through a Muslim than through a Buddhist. But then unless the structures of her workplace were similar to the ones she grew up with – she could not have consciously worked the system she was in. Unless therefore the employers had belief in her through their common religion, Rizana was effectively a slave – given that she was bound by cultural rules set by higher powers without the protection of higher common religious belief. Likewise the Sri Lankan citizen who is seen as a minority for one reason or the other.
In the case of Sri Lanka’s Judiciary – the Parliament is the parallel of the Muslim world of Rizana, Judiciary is the parallel of Sri Lankan structured systems that Rizana was familiar with, but left behind for economic reasons. Unless therefore the Judiciary has invested more in Justice than the Executive, it cannot justly claim that the Executive had erred – except through theories and/or objective evidence. At the moment, it is more theory and less evidence. Unless both groups practice the law at around equal level – it is difficult to measure as to who is more wrong than the other. To rule objectively – one needs to not directly relate to the subjects. That way one uses only the outcomes that are objectively measurable and not through personalities and their gunas/attributes.
Hence one may conclude that where there is Separation of Powers, the right side cannot be in one group and the wrong side in the other. A Christian cannot judge a Hindu through Christian laws and v.v. The foundation on which we apply laws to ‘judge’ is our belief that we are One. The weaker this foundation the weaker the system through which we calculate and deliver judgment.
How many in the Sri Lankan Judiciary consider the Government’s victory over the LTTE through the use of ‘Sovereign Rights’ to be a justly earned victory? Sovereign rights are earned due to belief of Oneness. Hence punishing that person/group would be like punishing ourselves – as happens with children. Hence we would not punish openly unless we would punish ourselves for the same level of wrongs. These wrongs would be as per our own judgments – before our conscience/inner god. To the extent the Sri Lankan Government did not consider the LTTE to be Sri Lankans and therefore sought the help of non-Sri Lankans – it has the responsibility to use Common Laws and Processes and be transparent or remain silent and confidential about its actions. This was not the case – not only with the Sri Lankan Government but many Sri Lankan leaders – especially of Sinhalese origin. They ‘saw’ and they concluded that the terrorists had been wiped out. Those without belief would seek benefits from such activities.
Did the Sri Lankan Judiciary then protest that the victims were Tamils and therefore were entitled to be punished by their own through belief and/or through international laws? Doctrine of Separation of Powers is an International principle. So is judging and punishing ‘outsiders’ through rational thinking and/or on the basis of objectively measurable outcomes. Those who failed to uphold this Doctrine of Separation of Powers in the case of ethnic war are not entitled to its protection now. All lawyers of Sri Lankan origin who failed to find anything wrong with the Process through which the LTTE were eliminated – do not have the right to now criticize that government except through objective measures delivered through Transparent processes. If their investment was wide enough to embrace the politicians who got rid of the LTTE for them – then they are on the side of politicians and not on the side of the judiciary. To the extent their investment is not enough to embrace/include their politicians – they are outsiders and hence need to use common principles and laws in judging either side.
The Canadian government has opposed the Sri Lankan government in this matter. What about Dr. Abeyratne? Whose side is he on at the international level – Canada’s or Sri Lanka’s? Likewise other migrants of Sri Lankan origin.
Recent communications confirm that some parts of the Tamil Diaspora in Australia are disappointed with the current Australian Federal Government due to lack of support during their time of need. When we are in need and do not expect support – whoever provides that support would be our savior. Until this reaches the highest level of practice – the support needs to be confidential – as the Sri Lankan government’s ought to have been if it were to help its folks on the basis of its belief. Whatever we express/do until that highest level is reached needs to be through the language of our official systems. It is beyond that level that one is entitled to openly use one’s own belief beyond the official structures. That is the Spiritual world of Natural Energies in which we silently influence each other.
Educated Politicians often have difficulty with Separation of Powers. Likewise, Judiciary driven more by belief and/or emotions than by discriminative thinking as per their education. Neither side has demonstrated actual practice of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. The Hon M.A. Sumanthiran, MP has written on this subject under the heading ‘Death Knell of Judicial Independence, Rule of Law, Justice, Freedom, Liberty, Security and OUR RIGHTS’. To me, the article is from the Judicial side of Mr. Sumanthiran and is not written as a Politician. When lawyers studied Law – they believed and connected to each other through the Judicial path. When they become Politicians officially or unofficially – that is like changing religions. That is the natural point at which the Doctrine of Separation of Powers is breached – for better or for worse. Better for the politician and worse for the public whose resources were used for the politician to learn the application of law like a lawyer. The same law is interpreted differently by those of different beliefs. After our parents we develop belief through our Gurus. Until therefore Buddhism remains the first religion of Sri Lanka as per the Constitution, all this discussion would not go towards a more democratic system for Sri Lanka. They may help us get grades with each other – but would not go down to the grassroots to support the commoner driven by belief.
