Jackass logic

February 16, 2005

Read this (at first I wanted to write, “listen” to this): the Prime Minister wishes to remove the Chief Justice because of a number of recent cases, legal matters, in which decisions went against the State. So says the Opposition.

What is the logic here? The inherent logic in that statement is that the Chief Justice, by some means, by some yardstick known only to Panday and company, has been the key variable in the resolution of these legal matters against the State.

That the Chief Justice has seen to it that these matters were resolved against the State therefore the Prime Minister wishes to remove the Chief Justice.

That is the logic! Not that the State has been abominable in its treatment of its employees, public servants, working within its ambit and that most public servants, regardless of race or social status, would readily win before the courts in litigation arising out of their conditions of work.

One would have thought that the Opposition would have chosen to praise the good work of lawyers like Anand Ramlogan in exposing the atrocious record of the State in this context, rather than insinuate the subjectivity of the Chief Justice as the major consideration.

I am one who has always maintained that the State is by nature conservative and anti-progressive. The dynamic of the State is to resist change. It is about maintaining status-quo, maintaining equilibrium regardless of how fragile this equilibrium may in fact be.

The State, it is said, administrates and arbitrates in a manner favourable to some “sacred national good” above and beyond the “individual good.” The State arbitrates the natural tension that exists between the individual and the society as a whole.

In the democratic way of life, it is fundamental that there are built-in processes and checks and balances that seek to protect the rights of the individual against that of the collective whole.

But the State starts off by being primarily about the objective good of society as a whole until it is challenged by the rights of individuals.

It is such challenges that ensure the broadening of the concepts and the constant redefinition of the sense of balance.

In societies that are not driven by various forms of madness, the results of such individual challenges would logically bring amendments to the constitutional arrangements.

Read this: if the present Government removes the Chief Justice, this would mean the complete eradication of the independence of the judiciary and the result would be that young people in this country will resort to violent means. That’s the word of the Maha Sabha.

And the Catholic Commission for Social Justice, in the over-anxiety of its quixotic leadership to find “causes,” has been drawn into this web of delusion, suggesting that we are on a “slippery slope.”

What an embarrassment this will surely prove to be!

Suddenly the dynamic work of all the present young lawyers like Ramlogan, Douglas Mendes, etc in defending and expanding the rights of individuals against the State is being treated as of no import. So that young people will suddenly have no avenues for redress and will have to resort to violence.

What utter crap! What utter madness!

To date the rights of the CJ has not been infringed in any way, and if perchance this occurs he certainly has options for redress open to him.

Why then seek to create frenzy in the country? The young folk will disregard these old dinosaurs. These matters of constitutional bickering and twiddling that seek to clarify or distil the boundaries and frills of the various separate powers that be are of little consequence to the man-in-the-street.

There is no delusion here. They know the fundamentals and know who in this society the governor is and who won the right to be governor to command all and sundry by winning the elections. That is why the elections are so heated.

Until the fundamentals change to make way for politically active communities, where people live and work, there will be no pretense, no hypocrisy at roots level.

Only the middle-class megalomaniacs will delude themselves about the people resorting to violence if they, these dinosaurs, are not given a share in the taste of power.

The people know that such leaders will be the first to hop the planes for Miami and New York if violence erupts. No one is fooled by their Brahminic logic.