Constitutions must be embodiments of rule of law

Reportedly, police presence in a conflict situation is only when there is a breach of peace. Is then the UN's role similar in policing global squabbles? Why is it the UN refrains from playing a more functional role in nipping it in the bud as it were when signs of future conflict situations are evident?

Such intervention in the nick of time would prevent causing embarrassment to its own self and the government concerned when UN officials step into countries to check such governments on the digression of whatever is moral not to forget some member States itself are not guilt free of such digression.

For instance a country's constitutional drafts in blue print stage could be called for to be presented before a constitutional council in the world body to peruse its ill-effects on the social whole when implemented. This then should not be considered by respective States nor the world body as an interference into a country's internal affairs, for, anyway such interference invariably would follow when the UN's special envoy visits countries reportedly into human rights violations.

What then are the governing mechanisms that make violation of human rights very vulnerable? Understandably constitutional arrogance, perverseness and constitutional shortsightedness make ideal breeding ground for the negation of social justice.

Take for instance the 1972 constitution in its intense centredness is in fact a 'centred masterpiece' if you could call it that ran into widening the existing we/they dichotomy followed by extreme centre/periphery polarization. In such political bigotry purely based on power aggrandisement is the absence of the rule of law when socio / economic / ethnic marginalisation become inevitable.

Yet the plum on the pudding was still to be materialized and when it did in 1978 with the introduction of the executive presidency, the citizenry's fears were far from allayed. Instead of a political moral re-armament, Sri Lankans were entrenched into much scepticism and insecurity of all sorts - socio / political / economic / individual and so on. This constitution is a reflection of the character of its architect-self minded, quite unmindful of future national concerns - a political 'genius' as his club would have it - truly then unfailingly living up to his amended initials Genius Richard (GR) in place of Junius Richard (JR).

All this criticism is only applicable up to the point of such political power being in the hands of leaders whose concern would centre around not on wider and broader perspective of social development but purely on adorning greater political plumes - a far cry from the rule of law. Yet, if well placed in the hands of leadership that surrenders self in his/her search for moral vibrancy, the 1978 constitution cannot and will not find its constitutional parallel. Just one man with pervasive executive powers could make hell of a heaven and heaven of a hell.

However, exonerating human frailties is asking for too much in a social / political / economic environment that fosters such political expediency and fragile leadership unlike in the absence of systemic corruption when saintly kings were a common sight-the like of whom were not strange to the world including ancient Ceylon. Public spirited autocracy yields good and is attainable only amid unpolluted systemic environs where just rulers led unostentatious lives having only their citizens in mind.

This then substantiates the need for greater UN involvement in the countries of its membership prior to any explosive occurrence. Standing atop roof and screaming out its lungs on what it sees as human rights violations wouldn't suffice. Exemplary behaviour on the part of super power membership in the UN would add weight to its credentials.

They would even be taken seriously by countries that allow UN officials into their domain for whatever inspection - nuclear build up, weapons of mass destruction, human rights violations whatever. However, the question remains - who is inspecting whom? Are those insisting on inspection totally rid of such moral deviance?

Talking of evaluating constitutions, within some constitutional enclaves rests moral digression which later on triggers marginalization of sorts - political, economic, social, ethnic, intellectual whatever. The bottom line perhaps, is that it is not constitutions that are to be blamed but the people who implement it.

Given the frailties of human emotion, it is better when framing constitutions to be more pragmatic in the realization and acceptance of brass facts than be firmly rooted in fiction. Therefore constitutional elegance and finesse are necessary guides to good governance in the absence of leadership capital that could perceive the constitutional spirit instead of going by surface rules, regulations and designs. Social justice, equity, human dignity are all part of social development which a heavily centred constitution cannot arrive at of course with the exception of statesmanlike leadership looking beyond petty, narrow political expediency. Elegant constitutions could contribute in no small measure to social development goals.

The moral dislodge that a heavily powered centre could arrive at is evident in global history. The global fraternity time and again has witnessed the rule of law being flouted openly as a result of system politicization - again an offspring of a highly centralized administration.

Sri Lanka's reputation as one of the most politicized societies is not a recent happening. The failed State that we have been listed in, has been a steady, gradual process what with some constitutions particularly the '72 and '78 one's facilitating leadership inadequacies. To top it all is the whole concept of impunity - the security cover for legitimizing moral deviance.

The States' executive powers often misused into bringing about ineffective socio/econ/political/legal systems is all part of global history. The only relief for a frustrated world populace is an independent judiciary - the politicization of which is akin to damaging the spinal cord. The social spine as it were is a country's judiciary on which rests societal well-being. Political interference of its apex let alone all else in the legal hierarchy displays to a great extent the absence of a political leadership that treasures the citizenry's well-being closest to its heart. The discrepancies in any judicial system itself cannot be questioned due to its 'exalted' state of enjoying impunity. The same applies to constitutional provisions that enable a state head into such unquestionable position. The negative impact of impunity is seen in the global sphere.

In de-politicised environs, impunity bears some kind of sanctity for the unbiased manner in which the legal system may operate which when corrupt due to politicization loses credibility yet enjoys high degree impunity.

Thus, the UN has a far more responsible role to play in imposing rules and conditions to maintain an independent judiciary and executive for the effective functioning of checks and balances leading to the rule of law. For this purpose inter-alia the UN should make a close study of member states' constitutions.

Should such a unique decision be arrived at, the threat of war would recede. But what of the global arms manufacturing industry? Who will stand to lose if such permanent peace initiatives are made?

[email protected]