Dr. A.C. Visvalingam, President, Citizens’ Movement for Good
Governance (CIMOGG), commenting on the horrific murder in broad daylight of
Balavarnam Sivakumar, (reportedly a mentally challenged individual) by some
police officers, argues for the resurrection of the 17th Amendment.
It is a fact, as Visvalingam points out, that the 17th
Amendment was passed in a hurry ‘in a serendipitous moment’. He is also correct in that it contained
serious flaws. He is also correct when he says that it was nevertheless a step
forward in the process of de-politicizing governance structures. I lament with him and CIMOGG the fact that
‘flaw’ was read as ‘loophole’ and that pledges to ensure the setting up of
structures robust enough to insulate citizen from overzealous and self-seeking
politician have been compromised by foot-dragging, abuse of constitutional
‘outs’ and of course the distraction of other overarching issues. Quibbling among parties who have marginal
clout in Parliament and wording-flaws that foster chauvinistic drives have not
helped either.
For me, the 17th was at best a ‘starting point’
in the long and arduous process of correcting the flaws of the country’s
institutional arrangement. The 17th
Amendment is dead as CIMOGG tacitly acknowledges by calling for its
‘resurrection’. If it is dead and it can
be resurrected, flaws and all, I would still support this. If one does not
believe resurrection is possible, then it should be buried once and for
all. Burial of course will not resolve
the problems that gave rise to the 17th Amendment. Burial confers on
all of us the responsibility of searching for an alternative, an 18th
Amendment perhaps, written in the same spirit but with greater attention being
placed on plugging the kinds of holes that sank the 17th.
This is not an essay about constitutional reform,
though. My friend Pradeep Jeganathan,
while appreciating my sentiments regarding the intent of the 17th,
also expressed certain reservations. His thesis, essentially, is that getting
the wording right, fiddling with structures or even overhauling them, while not
necessarily being useless, would not be ‘enough’. He strongly recommends a
return to ethics.
What struck me most in this incident was not the mindless
brutality of the murderer and his accomplices but the silence and immobility of
the spectators. Apparently some people
did ‘act’ in that the Police and a TV station were informed, but the footage
didn’t show anyone intervening or even trying to intervene.
Marissa De Silva, writing to
the Groundviews website (‘We the spectator state’), elaborates adequately on
the troubling horror of this spectatorship.
I am not in agreement with the parallel she draws with respect to IDP
camps and the conclusions she draws about the Government, the international
community and battlefield realities, but she does paint an accurate, vivid and
horrifying picture of a kind of apathy that can only exacerbate the general
problems this society is beset with.
I remember seeing a man
brutally assaulting a woman, apparently his wife, in broad daylight near the
Pettah bus stand. It was ‘spectacle’.
There were spectators. I saw a policeman
on the other side of the street and quickly informed him. He casually and
rudely asked me if I had a problem. I
told him that he is required to help maintain the peace. He responded ‘just mind your own business and
you’ll be ok’. The quarrelling parties had sorted out their problem by this
time.
A few days later I saw three
blind lottery-sellers assaulting a man who they believed had robbed one of
them. The ‘suspect’ had been recognized
by his voice. This was ‘citizens’ justice’
to the spectators. One of the blind men
threatened to and even attempt to gouge the man’s eyes out. Again, I told a police office and this person
intervened and took all four men to the Police Station. This happened outside
the Fort Railway Station.
Even the best institutions and
the most disciplined police force cannot prevent some nutcase taking the law
into his/her hand and assaulting or poisoning someone. And there aren’t any laws to forbid a witness
from opting to look the other way.
That’s where ethics comes in, or should come in. It is in these tiny incidents that we see the
flaws of our societal psyche and it is this apathy that gets multiplied into a
general ‘look-aside’ when it comes to matter of greater magnitude. One can argue that it is the structures and
political culture that promotes this kind of inaction of course but the
chicken-or-egg discussion is meaningless.
An individual can plead
innocence to the world and point finger at structure. But he/she must live with him/herself and the
choices he/she makes or does not make.
I believe there’s a scandalous dismissal
of or negligence of this thing called ‘ethics’ in our society and too often we
get caught up in the supposedly overarching ‘political’ and defer a
consideration of this simple issue.
Until it hits us in the face.
After that, we cannot be silent.
Not to our conscience at any rate.
This was first published in the Daily News, November 6, 2009
0 comments:
Post a Comment