Ajjava: the discourse on honesty and integrity in
governance
This is not to say that rules are irrelevant and should be done away with it. Frameworks, I believe, are useful in that they operate as controlling mechanisms. On the other hand, human beings, however meticulous they may be, are frail and cannot account for each and every eventuality. A friend of mine told me a couple of months before the 9/11 attacks that technology, regardless of impregnability claim, is nevertheless full of holes. ‘9/11’ proved his right. I think Wanniyaletto was not dismissing out of hand the notion of ‘rules’ but merely pointing out their inadequacy.
In the 21st Century there is ‘formalization’ in ways that did not exist and perhaps were not required because word was word and agreement-ratification in black-white terms was therefore unnecessary. The formalization has not produced the kind of streamlining and compliance that one might expect act and article to yield, and yet it is not possible to say that this makes such efforts superfluous. All it implies is that while formal structures and mechanisms are useful they are not sufficient.
InSri
Lanka , the 1978 constitution, looking back,
regardless of the knowledge/ignorance of its architects, was anti-transparency
and anti-accountability. It was an
anything-the-president-says-goes kind of document and 18 amendments later this
has not changed. It is not the worst
constitution in the world but it is certainly a far cry from being the
best. The 17th Amendment, in
spirit and objective, came the closest to rectifying the errors with respect to
accountability and transparency requirements, but was flawed in ways that
necessitated amendment or abrogation. It was abrogated recently but not
replaced by a more effective piece of legislation that could deliver what the
17th promise. It was, put
simple, done away with not on account of it being flawed in terms of delivering
promise but because the movers in the abrogation felt both law and objective
were impediments.
The ‘formal’ situation thus doesn’t make for bubbly comment. On the other hand, it is theoretically possible for there to be a sunshine story regardless of what the formal transcript reads like. This is possible only if the informal structures of control, self-discipline and being are robust and if those who are powerful are given to abiding by them.
We are nation that does not lack in sirith relevant to the notion of Ajjava. Wanniyaletto was correct when he observed that things which laws and regulations cannot protect or find difficult to protect are better safeguarded by sirith. He was referring to both the natural and social spheres of life. We have compromised the integrity and sustainability of both entities by making laws meant to be broken and indeed facilitating of subversion and by a marked ignorance and/or disavowal of sirith.
[First published in the Daily Mirror, October 2, 2012, under the column heading 'Subterranean Transcripts']
The following is the complete set of articles on the Dasa Raja Dharma
Siddhartha Gauthama, the Enlightened One, in his discourse
of the prerequisites for a system of governance that is sustainable, productive,
wholesome and peaceful, i.e. the incomparable tract called the Dasa Raja
Dharma, refers to something called Ajjava, meaning ‘honesty’ and
‘integrity’. The ruler(s) are required, if
good governance is stated objective honestly pursued, to ensure that the
above qualities drive and inhabit all executions within and pertaining to
matters of governance.
These are not the preferred terms in the present-day
discourse on governance, however. Today we talk about ‘accountability’ and
‘transparency’. Today we talk about
systems that ensure these things, checks and balances, safeguards. We even have names for these systems such as
the 17th Amendment. We forget
however that the one effective binder that holds together such systems is that
which cannot be obtained through legislative enactment: ethics.
The Veddah leader, Uruvarige Wanniyaletto, captured it all
thus, about 8 years ago.
“…in the 1940s something called ‘independence’
happened. Then we also heard about a
thing called ‘development’. Our national
leaders tried to civilize us and develop us.
As a result we lost our livelihoods as well as our culture. Governments tried to bring us to heel using
laws and regulations. We never had
laws. We only had sirith or
customs. Laws are made by those who want
to violate them. Sirith, on the other hand, cannot be broken. They can only be maintained. Both the natural world and our people were
protected by these sirith. What
no one was successful in safeguarding through laws and regulations we protected
through our sirith. All we ever
wanted was to protect our customs, our culture and livelihood. All we ask is that we are left alone.”
This is not to say that rules are irrelevant and should be done away with it. Frameworks, I believe, are useful in that they operate as controlling mechanisms. On the other hand, human beings, however meticulous they may be, are frail and cannot account for each and every eventuality. A friend of mine told me a couple of months before the 9/11 attacks that technology, regardless of impregnability claim, is nevertheless full of holes. ‘9/11’ proved his right. I think Wanniyaletto was not dismissing out of hand the notion of ‘rules’ but merely pointing out their inadequacy.
‘Sirith’ or customs are born and exist not on account
of formal agreement but as product of less tangible but nevertheless not less
binding process of social interaction, wrapped, naturally, in a cloth made of
multiple cultural threads. They do not resonate with things like transparency
and accountability but are made relevant by concepts such as honesty and
integrity. ‘Sirith’ is to
custodian what Constitution is to President, I might add.
In the 21st Century there is ‘formalization’ in ways that did not exist and perhaps were not required because word was word and agreement-ratification in black-white terms was therefore unnecessary. The formalization has not produced the kind of streamlining and compliance that one might expect act and article to yield, and yet it is not possible to say that this makes such efforts superfluous. All it implies is that while formal structures and mechanisms are useful they are not sufficient.
To the extent that they are useful and necessary we need to
talk about transparency and accountability in the context of the ‘Ajjiva’
element of the Dasa Raja Dharma. Ajjiva
in today’s democratic world requires ruler/government to ensure a continuous
assessment of governance structures to make sure that there is transparency and
accountability. ‘Holes’ as such there may be or may develop as
time moves, technologies develop and people and values are transformed, need to
be plugged. Laws need to be amended to correct for new situations.
In
The ‘formal’ situation thus doesn’t make for bubbly comment. On the other hand, it is theoretically possible for there to be a sunshine story regardless of what the formal transcript reads like. This is possible only if the informal structures of control, self-discipline and being are robust and if those who are powerful are given to abiding by them.
What is honesty?
Telling the truth. Being the
truth. Saying the whole truth. Not hiding things, not being vague. It is about
avoiding white lies. It is about not
giving wrong signals deliberately. It is about making sure you don’t say one
thing to Perimpanayagam, something else to Muhamadullah and something totally
different to Karalliyadda after having made a pact with Fitzgerald or
Bhattacharya that no one gets to know about.
It is about being clear about what one plans to do and reporting what
one does without embellishment or subtraction.
Honesty is not just about telling the truth. It is something
that is pregnant (in absence) in all crimes, all wrong-doing, all trespasses,
all transgressions, legal and otherwise, ‘loopholed’ and not. It is about cuts, graft, commissions,
under-the-tabling, nepotism, favouring friend and family, mutual
back-scratching, looking the other way, applying rule and regulation
selectively, abusing authority etc.
Yesterday someone told me about a procurement officer in a
state institution. Apparently he’s being harassed with the objective of making
him resign or opt for a transfer. The reason is clear. Someone wants to get some dirty hands on a
money-making opportunity. The person who
told me made this observation: ‘he is honest to the point that he doesn’t even
take the so-called legitimate cuts that companies give as gifts to those in
charge of procurement’. Are our leaders
like that? Have we had leaders who embodied such qualities? How many of our elected politicians and
politicians seeking elections would do what M.D. Banda did when his election
was challenged in a petition, stating that which he need not have stated and
thereby losing his seat?
Uprightness, consistency, humility, clarity and dignity in
all things is absolutely non-negotiable for good governance in terms of the
Buddha’s recommendations embedded in the Dasa Raja Dharma. If one person is
punished and another allowed to remain free after committing the same or a
worse kind of transgression the ruler immediately compromises the 4th
condition of the Dasa Raja Dharma, that of ‘Ajjava’. If
the ruler thieves or encourages theft, directly, indirectly, through ignorance
or neglect, he/she is guilty of compromising this article. In the 21st Century, if the ruler
pooh poohs the formalizing of these rules, then too he is guilty of being
negligent in this regard.
The notion Ajjava
is naturally nourished by other aspects of the dhamma and in its basic
articulation in the very least the 5 precepts.
Constant referencing of these can help leader/government correct error
and stick to a path that has a better chance of producing overall benefit.
We are nation that does not lack in sirith relevant to the notion of Ajjava. Wanniyaletto was correct when he observed that things which laws and regulations cannot protect or find difficult to protect are better safeguarded by sirith. He was referring to both the natural and social spheres of life. We have compromised the integrity and sustainability of both entities by making laws meant to be broken and indeed facilitating of subversion and by a marked ignorance and/or disavowal of sirith.
We are, thus, a nation that has impoverished ourselves by
choice. Happily, we can still work
‘choice’ in our favour. Our leaders can
do this. Or else we can as a citizenry informed and empowered by sirith
make them do this. Or just go ahead and do it ourselves. This too is possible.
[First published in the Daily Mirror, October 2, 2012, under the column heading 'Subterranean Transcripts']
The following is the complete set of articles on the Dasa Raja Dharma
Dana: the virtue of giving
Sila: the moral component of the Dasa Raja Dharma]
Pariccaga: the third element of the Dasa Raja Dharma
Ajjava: the discourse on honesty and integrity in governance
Majjava: the kinder, gentler elements of governance
Tapa: the virtues of austerity and restraint
Akkodha: the need to eschew enmity
Avihimsa: incorporating non-violence into good governance
Khanti: the virtue of patience and tolerance
Avirodha: a must-cultivate for the effective and benevolent ruler
1 comments:
In the west people often talk about "allowed to" and "not allowed" to even on things that not even occur to our minds. "Are nt allowed to drink alcohol by your religion?" "No, it is not prohibitten for me to drink alcohol."
In the developed world, many things function than it usually does in our country: Discipline on the road, less corruption. My observation is that it is not because that they are more disciplined than we are as individuals. Certainly not. They are afraid of the law.
In a village, a Gama-Pansala society, simple adherence to sirith may be enough keep a healthy society. The society that we live in is getting complicated day by day; and it would be idiotic to imagine its possible to ensure coexistence of diverse beings simply by adhering to sirith. If that were possible Budun wouldnt have enforced "Vinaya" rules on his disciples. What we may need is not strong laws, strong law enforcement. And, I doubt by nature we will ever achieve the levels seen in the developed world. We all have friends, relatives we want to entertain, to save from trouble. Wait. What did u say? Taking cut in procurments is legitimate? The west that we often blame, manage it better than we do. In their businesses they define what is what level of gifts are acceptable. So it is "transparent".
Sirith doesnt necessarily define things. I feel it is something like the 3rd precept in Pansil. The student asked, "does it mean monogomy?", the professor said "No", "polygomy then?", "no, thats not either".
Post a Comment