SL/JM/MM: Instead of a well-Balanced & Functioning Democracy,We have an Angry Society Where Hatred,Jealousy, Greed & Selfishness are All Too Common!!!

CONVOCATION ADDRESS BY MILINDA MORAGODA, MINISTER OF JUSTICE
AND LAW REFORM AT THE GRADUATION CEREMONY OF THE INSTITUTE OF
ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES OF THE INCORPORATED COUNCIL OF LEGAL
EDUCATION HELD ON 17 NOVEMBER 2009.
Post-conflict Sri Lanka: Moving Away From an Angry
to a Compassionate Society
His Lordship the Chief Justice Honourable Asoka De Silva, eminent guests, ladies
and gentlemen, at the outset I would like to commend Mr. Yasantha Kodagoda,
Director, and Ms. Ayesha Jinasena, Assistant Director, of the Institute of Advanced
Legal Studies of the Incorporated Council of Legal Education, for the leadership they
have given to the cause of legal studies in Sri Lanka. I would also like to congratulate
all those of you who will be receiving their degrees and diplomas today. As we enter
a critical and decisive stage in our post-independence history, the knowledge you
have gained through participating in the various programmes of the Institute will
equip you to face the many challenges this period presents.
When it comes down to it, law and politics have one thing in common - people.
Through good laws politicians as legislators create the framework for a just society in
which people can live, work and prosper, while lawyers apply and interpret the laws
so that fairness and justice prevail. Under these circumstances, citizens will have
confidence in the law and justice system. It is important that people should respect
the law and not fear it.
In a well functioning democracy this process works well and a creative balance is
achieved. The legal system works impartially - independent of parochial politics.
Politicians as legislators create good laws through vigorous debate, converging at
times when the country needs consensus, sometimes diverging due to different
priorities, or political philosophies regarding solutions to the problems faced by the
people. This is the basis of adversarial politics as seen in many democratic societies
across the world today.
Most democracies such as India, Japan, the United States, the UK, and Australia,
have either two main opposing parties or coalitions, often representing two
ideologies or philosophies. In modern times, the differences between both sides
have become more nuanced and can even be seen as bearing a distinction without
real substantive differences. They develop their policies and they promote their
ideas. They clash in debate and their ideas and policies are tested through the
rigour of that adversarial challenge. But in all cases, it is expected that respect for
the ideas and for the individual delivering them be shown. This adversarial but
respectful approach to debate stimulates more ideas, teasing out the workable from
the unworkable, creating laws that are both relevant and beneficial to society.
The purpose of this adversarial process is to build a dynamic, adaptable, and living
framework for a society in which people can live in peace and prosper. It is an
ongoing process because society changes; and the body of laws that are created
build one upon the other to refine that framework.
When an election takes place adversarial politics intensifies. With the full attention of
the media focused on the political battle, politicians present their policies for the
people to judge. This should not be done as a ‘periodic auction of non-existent
resources’ as Lee Kuan Yew once described Sri Lankan democracy, but as a debate
to shape the future of a nation.
Of course, election campaigns require a fine balance between rhetoric and
substance. It is easy to slip into bad habits. When your policies are bankrupt of
ideas then it is easier to attack the other side, to ridicule what they have to offer and
to personalise the election. It happens from time to time, in every democracy. When
this happens, the role of the media, would include exposing the rhetoric, and bringing
the substance back to the forefront of the debate, holding political excess in check.
This is how the creative balance which sustains a democracy should ideally function.
When it does, democracy thrives. When it goes wrong, an imbalance occurs and
democracy withers. Politicians, lawyers, and the media, together with civil society
must all play their part in achieving this balance, which provides stability within a
democratic framework. Today, in Sri Lanka, after thirty years of conflict and
violence, we must take stock of our democracy and the role played by each of these
actors.
I would argue that the corrosive impact of this conflict has destroyed many of these
institutions, affected our values and ideals and torn apart our society. Instead of a
well-balanced and functioning democracy, we have an angry society where hatred,
jealousy, greed and selfishness are all too common. Our society has undergone this
transformation incrementally, almost imperceptibly. In this post-conflict period, which
offers unlimited opportunities and every reason for people and parties to come
together to work towards a better future, we appear to be having to contend with the
residual impact of the trauma we have collectively endured.
We must all share the blame. Through the years, we failed to stop our society from
succumbing to hatred and division along race, religion, caste class and political lines.
We allowed the hatred to grow through our own ignorance. When it came to politics
and governance, we chose expediency over principle, manipulation over fair play,
demagoguery over substance, and cynicism over idealism.
If we do not take a hard look at ourselves even at this late stage, and correct our
course, there is a great danger that the sacrifices our soldiers and our people have
made to defeat terrorism and bring about this new dawn would have been in vain.
As an example, take an average election manifesto. Is it a document containing high
ideals, well developed policies and a vision for a better future nation? Or is it a
collection of giveaways designed to buy a vote here and scoop up a group of voters
there.
What about our election campaigns? Are they a rigorous debate about the best way
forward? Or are they a series of meetings where speakers vociferously criticise,
deride and slander their political opponents? How many of you would feel
comfortable having your children attend an election rally, or for that matter, our
Parliament?
What of the media? Are their pages and current affairs programmes filled with
dispassionate analysis of political and policy issues? Do they seek to present all
sides of an issue? Do they merely look for controversy or do they seek to be
constructive? Do they focus on personal abuse and character assassination as
opposed to substantive political debate?
What of civil society? How often are these voices drowned out by political charades
rather than reasoned discussion about the problems facing the poorest in our
society, and the hard economic choices we have to make collectively to ensure that
the quality of our education, healthcare system and infrastructure can be improved?
As politicians, do we espouse policies that will bring the poor out of poverty or simply
buy their votes with promises of short-term palliatives?
And what of the legal system? Do all of you here believe that we have the most fair
and equitable legal system that delivers timely justice for all our citizens? I regret to
say that after thirty years of war, our angry society has distorted all that should be
good and upset the creative balance of a thriving democracy. It has contributed to
short-term thinking and an undercurrent within society, which will be hard to change
without a determined and resolute effort by politicians, lawyers, media and civil
society.
Ninety years ago, our country faced different but equally challenging issues. At a
time when our country was under colonial rule, some of our greatest thinkers and
leaders from all communities united together to work towards social and political
reforms and independence. They had high ideals, and espoused strong values.
Those values were centred on religious values, peaceful discourse, reasoned
argument, respect for others and the belief in self determination. Those past leaders
had differing political views, they were not all of the same mind and their solutions to
problems varied. Nevertheless, they came together for a common cause, the
freedom of their motherland.
Today, I believe our country is at a similar crossroads. We need to understand that
discourse and debate is better than violence and slander. We need people to have
respect for others even when they do not share the same views; and we need
politicians who are able to agree to disagree on some issues, but have the maturity
and statesmanship to unite when the needs of the nation are more important than
party political advantage.
In this post-conflict phase, our democracy should achieve an equilibrium, in which
our political system, legal system, civil society and the media, perform their
respective roles in a constructive manner, to move our society forward, while
ensuring that no one force dominates the other. This is the creative balance we need
in our democracy.
Today, we must seek to build a society which is free of envy, where people can
pursue their ideas and speak freely even when others disagree, a secure and
confident nation, which fully engages with the world and seeks trading and
investment partners while maintaining our identity and protecting our nation’s
interests. In short, we must transform our angry society into a compassionate
society, at peace with itself and tolerant of others. Where all communities have
respect for each other, where violence and hatred are a thing of the past.
To quote from the Dhammapada, “Do not speak harshly to anybody; those who are
spoken to will answer thee in the same way. Angry speech is painful, blows for blows
will touch thee”.
If we follow the teachings of the Buddha, or those of any of our other great religions -
Hinduism, Islam and Christianity – we can collectively help create a more
compassionate, peaceful and prosperous nation.
Together, we must all advocate and advance the ethical and social values that I
believe would enable our great nation to reach its full potential as:
A nation where political parties refuse to tolerate aggressive rivalry that finds
expression in slander, violence and revenge, and have chosen to follow instead a
path of compassion, respect and goodwill toward all; a path that leads inevitably to
harmony and progress.
A nation of peoples of different cultural traditions, each free to practice and develop
those traditions, thereby enriching and strengthening the nation as a whole, and
where women, no less than men, are enabled to make their full contribution and
reach their full potential.
A market-oriented economy through which our resourceful peoples may once more
ensure steady economic growth, while making provision for assisting those who, for
one reason or another, are not able to succeed in their endeavors.
A confident nation open to the world, encouraging investment, and seeking to
broaden the range of its trading partners.
A nation that derives strength from its age-old traditions as well as its inherent
capacity to adapt and to innovate while taking what is of value from the world at
large.
To achieve this, every one of us has to play our part.
Today we live in an era of empowerment. Communications have opened us up to
the world whether we like it or not. The Sri Lankan diaspora is spread out in many
countries, the US, Canada, the UK, Scandinavia, Germany, Italy, Australia, and of
course the Middle East. We cannot avoid interaction with the world.
Equally, telecommunications and the internet have linked us much more closely to
each other, to trade, to debate, to information. Young and old are adept at using
Skype and other internet technologies, while some of our youth spend their time on
the internet, reading or writing blogs, or checking their pages on social networks
such as Facebook.
These changes have had a dramatic impact on our media as well. The internet now
threatens written media and even television, and is up-ending the established order
of media and journalism. The instantaneity of on-line news sites has caused a large
number of newspapers to close shop. News is now 24/7 and interactive. Citizen
journalism and blogs now compete with televised news and on-line newspapers. The
recent political crisis in Iran demonstrated how a technology such as Twitter was
able to get the story out faster than traditional media and could even bypass political
authorities. In Sri Lanka, too, internet technologies are catching on, not only in
English but in Sinhala and Tamil as well. We should harness these technologies to
use them in constructive ways to achieve the objectives I have outlined earlier in my
address.
But even with such tools, we need an informed society. The soul of any nation
resides in its history and this collective memory forms the basis of a national identity,
and hence a secure society. For example, every Indian is knowledgeable about their
struggle for Independence from colonial rule, the freedom fighters and the framers of
their constitution such as Gandhi, Nehru and B.R. Ambedkar. In the US, any child of
school age is familiar with the philosophical tenets of the American constitution and
the debates that surrounded the founding of their political system. In the UK, school
children are taught about the Magna Carta, King John, Cromwell and parliamentary
democracy.
Here in Sri Lanka we seem to have forgotten the importance of understanding our
history and the fundamental experiences that have led us to where we are today.
For three decades we have allowed our anger to blind us from the things that should
matter to a society at peace with itself.
With technology and communications, you, as opinion leaders working within our
legal community, are well-positioned to facilitate this change. Hence, I urge you to
seize this opportunity to make a difference. You can be the catalyst for change.
We need you to question every old concept and every new idea. Do not be rigid.
Take time to consider ideas of others as there is more than one side to an issue.
Have respect for others, however humble he or she may be, because in a
democracy, each has a right to their opinion. But continue to challenge and
constructively question everything until the correct path is found.
Be true to the people, because ultimately they are whom you and I both serve.
Remember that each person deserves one hundred percent of your effort.
And lead, because it is through you that we can expect to transform our society. You
as lawyers enjoy a privileged and influential position in our society and people look
up to you. Hence, you as a one group hold a big responsibility and can make a great
contribution towards change.

We as a country have reached a fork in the road. It is up to us to think carefully
which way we want to go next. I leave you with some stanzas from a poem by the
Scottish poet, Robert Frost as you reflect on this thought.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveller, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and II
took the one less travelled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Thank you.