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.

Just Society

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.

Sharing the blame

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.

Challenging issues

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.


Balance in a democracy

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.

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.