Framing a new Constitution:
Avoiding democracy's hidden tyranny
by Somapala Gunadheera
An appeal to avoid tyranny in democracy may appear to be a
contradiction in terms. It is taken for granted that democracy is a form
of 'government of the people, by the people and for the people.' This
naturally leads to the deduction that such a system can do no harm to
the people.
But an analytical look at how democracy operates in practice, would
reveal contradictions in that conclusion.As it is not practicable to
please all the people all the time, democracy seeks to get over such
situations by upstaging the will of the majority over that of the
minority. But the solution may result in manifestations in which the
rational and ethical position of the latter is overridden by the former,
through sheer force of numbers, however erratic the majority view might
be.
My play, Umathusanvarusava, written in the '60s, was intended to
illustrate this truth dramatically. Briefly, the plot of the play was
based on a mythical shower. It was predicted by the king's chaplain who
declared that those who got wet in the rain would go mad. The king
proclaimed that anyone who jumped out to get wet in the rain would be
summarily shot and positioned his soldiers to carry out his order. But
when it started raining, all the people, including the soldiers and even
the king's family members, barring the king and the chaplain, could not
resist the temptation to expose themselves to the shower.
They jumped out and started dancing in a frenzy. The drenched called
the sun the moon and forced the king and the chaplain also to say so and
on their refusal to comply, orders were issued to behead them. The duo
saved their lives by wilfully going mad, after soaking themselves with a
can of rainwater they had collected from the shower.
Clash of interests
The story illustrates the hidden tyranny in democracy. What prevails
under it is the number supporting a proposition, not its validity or
fairness. If it was otherwise, Socrates and Jesus would have lived their
lifespan to the full. A democratic country is presumed to be run by the
majority living in that country. But under a Parliamentary system,
people's direct control abates after an election. Elected
representatives take over the reins and govern the country under the
name of the people who elected them to power, although in the course of
time, they had lost the confidence of their electors.But the elected can
be removed from power only at the next election, short of a revolution
to oust them, which is a rare occurrence.
In the meantime, the representatives continue to govern the country
at their pleasure and naturally their personal interest takes precedence
over the peoples.' How else can one explain legislative decisions to
increase parliamentarians' salaries while the bulk of their electors
were under the poverty line or to give them permits and finance to buy
luxury cars under a flagging economy? Would the people have approved
such selfish, extravagant expenditure, if they had a choice to oppose?
Under the Hundred-Day Program, the 19th Amendment was actively put
through Parliament, satisfying a long-repressed wish of the people. It
piously limited the number of ministries to 35, creating jubilation
countrywide. But within a couple of months that restriction was
surreptitiously violated using a Trojan horse, furtively placed in the
Amendment.
Demonizing the Constitution
The enabling provision appeared to be based on the illogical
assumption that the size of a Cabinet ought to be based not on the
workload available, but on the number of kudos-seekers to be won
over.The move enabled the Governmen to create as many ministries as
there were MPs to fatten the ruling power block but caused consternation
among the people who elected it to power and had to bear the brunt of
the resulting waste of public funds. This is only one example out of
many instances of tyrannical abuse of democracy supposedly, in the
interest of the people but actually to their detriment and to the
advantage of the elected.
This gimmick was only the last of the stunts perpetrated over the
people by governments elected by them since independence. Under colonial
rule, decisions affecting the people were made by officials of the
British Raj. Their decisions were necessarily objective as they had no
personal stake in them. For this reason, constitutions promulgated up to
the Soulberry Commission bore no personal bias.
But the very first Constitution introduced by the people's
representatives in 1972 contained elements of autocracy, despite the
participation of legal and political leaders of high calibre in its
making process. Note the Assembly that framed the Constitution was
exclusively composed of elected representatives. This despotic trend was
further aggravated by the 1978 Constitution. Though successive
presidents promised to remove the anomaly, none complied with the
promise, evidently because it was against their private interest to do
so.
The penultimate amendment perpetuated the despotism, unilaterally
imposed. All this in the name of democracy! It is needless to repeat
that this denial of the people's choice was the inevitable result of
their will being sabotaged by the personal interest of those whom they
elected to Parliament, may be under duress from the representatives'
dictatorial leader.
What happened in the past contains a lesson for the current
dispensation in its effort to formulate a new constitution. That is that
the participation of sitting MPs in the formulation process is bound to
distort it in the clash of their private interests with those of the
public. This could happen by elimination or inclusion of provisions that
upstage the interests of the legislators over those of the citizens, as
the former become judges in their own cause. Besides, the purview and
the vision of the document get restricted to the limits of the
legislators' capacity. The obvious safeguard in such a situation is to
have the text of the draft Constitution drawn up by a Constitutional
Council (CC) not open to politicians in practice, to avoid personal bias
and limitations. In France as well as in Cambodia, former presidents of
the republic are ex-officio members of the CC, but even they are shut
out if they remain politically active. Of course in France, the CC may
not create constitutions but it presides over national elections and
rules on the constitutionality of legislation. Nonetheless, the
intention to depoliticize legislation by keeping out practicing
politicians is clear.
As much as no serving parliamentarian is included in the CC, it is
important to avoid such persons having a hand in selections to the
Council, for obvious reasons. But Parliament may prescribe the
structural framework of the CC on an impersonal basis. For instance, it
may lay down the numbers to be nominated by concerned bodies like
universities, professional bodies and interest groups.
Inclusion of a world famous constitutional lawyer of the calibre of
Sir Ivor Jennings in the CC would optimize its quality. It is possible
that despite the erudition and competence of the framers, the draft
constitution produced by the CC contained Homer's nods. For that reason,
it would be prudent to have the document checked by a third party. That
function is best discharged by the full bench of the Supreme Court,
sitting together as a Constitutional Court and scrutinizing the draft
under international standards set up by the United Nations. The draft is
presented to Parliament after approval by the SC.
If certain provisions are objected to by Parliament, they may be
referred back to the Supreme Court for re-examination, may be, in
consultation with the CC that framed them. Ideally, the text thus
amended becomes the new constitution after passing through Parliament
without more.
But it is more easily said than done for it is idealistic to believe
that the MPs will take that imposition lying down, if any of the
provisions are contrary to their positions or personal interest. In that
event, they would use the loopholes in the Standing Orders to prevent
the passage of the bill through Parliament, thus creating a deadlock.
There is a dichotomy here. It is a negation of democracy to
superimpose on the elected representatives, propositions unacceptable to
them. On the other hand, such provisions could harm the public interest
as happened in the homemade constitutions.
People as final arbiters
A possible solution to this deadlock would be to refer all provisions
objected to by the MPs, even after review by the SC, to the people
themselves at a referendum. The text thus ratified by the ultimate
beneficiaries of the constitution then becomes the law of the land,
filtered through the experts, the judiciary and the people themselves,
but untainted by the selfish interests of transient stakeholders who
nevertheless play a role as moderators.A constitution obstinately
imposed on the people following past practice may please those in power
temporarily but frustrate the people at large in the long run. How
Yahapalanaya tackles this challenge will be an acid test of its
credentials.
|