Justice in the Street

Justice in the street is not a given. Dignity, too, through justice, is not where it might be, in the air or on the ground. This comment arises from the article by Tassie Seneviratne (TS) in The Sunday Times 20th Sept 2020 over a person sworn in as an MP, despite a criminal conviction record.

Oath of public office: The swearing in and the oath administered, and witnessed, raise questions as to its validity in law and on its effect on Justice and Dignity of public office. Mainly, the question is the purpose whether it has serious intention of the oath, not reduced to a plain utterance. Even the oath of office, as for justice and dignity ,is now in effect empty. Oath without dignity does not bind. Killing is not a disqualification for public office as legislators. It is contemptible to even think of such disqualification to hold public office in the Police, the Public Service, and the Judiciary. Even a questionable reputation of a remote distant relation of a candidate to public office was unacceptable to hold office. Promotions in public service depended much on the reputation of the aspirant, apart from some conviction. The reason is that their social background was important to swear an oath, in law and in society. It is impossible to think of killers, bribe takers and wastrels, in our public and police service, to pledge their word, since they cannot discharge their functions with such a murky character background. Only the clear could take their oath. With MPP there is little let or hindrance to take oath from unclear social background. Oath of public office is therefore not easily administered.

Oath of public office and the Law. It is even said the oath can be sworn as a ghost may swear. The effect of law on the oath of office is now, perhaps, only little beyond nominal. Legality and morality are also at odds with justice on the streets, as one sees. But sight again is only as one sees. Many have seen it one way and are shocked. To many others as they see, it is business as usual with some profit thrown in, in the while. Legal arguments are a waste of time if the return is good. Moral public concerns are still trying their utmost best, in Parliament and outside, even with less profit and takings. This is however the drama unfolding to hold the public in the pay off.

Many questions yet arise which reflect on administer of the oath and the validity of its attestation. These may be legal issues which may be explained away in various ways; that the words and the action are separate and hardly related to each other. These arguments will soon be forgotten. Where the law which is for justice does not help, one may then look to religion, at least for the reason that the oath is vowed with a religious intonation.

Oath of public office and Religion. Oath is subscribed to solemnly with a religious intonation. Religion too may then lend its claims and enter the fray but, apparently, does not help dignity of office. Many an oath is administered in the cloak of religion that is yet not worth the breath exhaled. Such is also the matter of everyday life experience of oath taking in medicine, in ethics, in many other professions, even law, and now in Parliament. Yet religion is spread through far and wide for other good effect in this country. Somehow religion barely matters to push dignity. Religious preaching is not at a loss, not less, though its effect is doubtful. If religion speaks to promote dignity in public life, the reality in Parliament and outside, may do much to help dignity in public office. The fault is still not with religion, but with those who may use religion otherwise. Public life nonetheless goes on, that even religious places may, perhaps, have uses that serve them better.

Oath of public office with conviction and with previous conviction. Into this void of a legal and religious effect of the oath, comes a social video, just at this time. Bribery and corruption took place there, the video said, before the very eyes of the dignitaries in those identical precincts dedicated to law and justice. In another sense, the market place has come into Hulftsdorf with transactions in and around the very pillars of justice. They were all involved, leaving no exception. They all are those who had subscribed to a solemn oath for justice and dignity with conviction, with no previous conviction. For every turn then of the administration in the law offices, taking extracts, moving files, and in the myriad interactions among these who alone are admitted to these premises, the exchanges are transactions, the video said. These are reduced to commodities for exchange at a price. The video says this clear and loud in the presence of police and other dignitaries who held a stoic face.

Oath of public office in the market. A market place, as described, in these hallowed precincts, is therefore yet another exercise to deal with. A form of market society has perhaps taken hold where much is up for buy and sale exchange, notwithstanding oath of public office. This scene in the area of the halls of justice, around the pillars of justice, is not easily countenanced with. The wigs, the robes, the pinstripes, the khaki, the flowing white banian, the variety, they did not cover that within. And all this is but some distance away from the Pettah market. Many would shoot the messenger who brought it to the public eye, the video compeer, as the only means they can think of to contend with reality.

Sworn to public office. Law does not help. Religion probably has other purposes. Can the public service, the public office, then steer through this morass? That has been the recurring problem diagnosed variously as problems of life; of a structural, of a systemic nature, of that between those in the public service and those who consider themselves beyond those niceties, the MPP, none of them resolved.

The public service, the police and many others, have therefore only to depend on themselves, as best or otherwise as they may. The issue with them still remains one of Justice, Public good and Morality. Dignity of public office goes with it. With it, dignity governs the conduct of public officers. This is the continuing problem for Public officers who occupy public office. Public servants have even to discharge their duties in courts where his duty makes a high call on his dignity. As a witness in court, the public servant’s dignity comes to the fore in the reception of his evidence. The public servant’s dignity then stands on its own. MPP have their speeches in Parliament untested in any manner. They are delivered with some narcissi glee and glow.

MPP as Legislators hardly consider themselves to thus hold public office. Such constraints and niceties do not stay them. Inappropriate dress offends MPP dignity. Conviction for murder does not offend MPP sense of dignity. So there is confusion along the way, when dignity is, when dignity is not. The confusion is quite useful to some that there is space for manoeuvre to confuse many, of the validity of the oath, of their attire and much else, against dignity of public office. For much flows from dignity than from law and religion, and much else, now shows. Dignity of public office yet stands though it can be bulldozed away as one incident showed. The mangrove incident at Negombo showed the clash of the two interests and of the dignity of their respective offices. The dignity and the career of the public officer with the mangrove were razed away. The politician got his promotion.

Bribery and corruption are collectively the malady in the absence of justice and dignity. Waste and defalcation all follow in its train. In fact a series of other forms of misdemeanour have been vindicated in the political life of many in Parliament. None of the MPP stood up to protest their innocence or be exposed, when so challenged in Parliament. Dignity can wait the MPP said. But none of this rubbed on the body of the legislator. In Parliament all is different. Questionable conduct is even a proud distinction; it is a qualification. This apparently is the reason that none of the MPP who were dared to, did stand up and risk their conduct being exposed in Parliament. They only kept their seats wearing only a sheepish grin in contempt of the accusers. Speeches in Parliament are not restrained by oath or fraught by problematic social background, MPP are spared quandary.

Oath of public office then and now. Could an article, as this, have been written 50, 40, 30 years ago, then? Politicians, Judges, Lawyers, Police and Prison Commissioners, University dons, Election Commissioner (singular) Public servants, then, all were of repute and dignity. Do names need to be mentioned? What then and whence was the difference? Many reasons, now, are ascribed for the breakdown. The replacement of social values by market values in about 2008/09 with the financial crisis is given as the breaking point. That breakdown was ,however, coming, in slow change, before the crisis. Social institutions, political and religious organisations, law associations and traditions and much else, none excepted, were caught in the throes of this silent revolution. Money now mattered. None are clear. This opinion cannot be dismissed.

A matter of regret, then, is that much that is awry including law and order can be accounted so for this collapse. The dysfunction of law and order process has quite well set in now. Much of the malfunction though freely termed ‘laws delay’ is now, as in a market society, described even as a way of life! If one applies this same analysis around that is equally applicable to all.

Justice and dignity are yet in the street, not in the Hall.

Frank de Silva

Narahenpita.