Thoughts from London

Lessons in political and judicial integrity
For those who believe in righteousness in political behaviour and judicial integrity and impartiality it was a great week here in England. A high profile minister and a close confidant of prime minister Tony Blair threw himself on the sword and resigned after his political conduct in misusing his influence was called into question after the media made it public.

His kamikaze act was sandwiched between two crucial judicial decisions that showed the helpless and the voiceless could still expect justice. These two decisions come at a time when elsewhere in the world there is growing scepticism that judicial impartiality and fair trials are compromised by corrupt, morally contaminated, self-seeking and politically-motivated judges.

No doubt there would be many who would sympathise with David Blunkett who rose in political life despite his great physical handicap- being blind at birth. He overcame all that to become Home Secretary at an important and critical time in the country's history when the post-9/11 war on Iraq brought Britain into the conflict and the threat of terrorist attacks here heightened concerns over national security.

Still, in public life one needs to present an acceptable and morally and politically untainted persona. That David Blunkett failed to do. Yet what he was accused of was not a heinous crime. If it were so and such standards applied to our own public life and public personalities how many of Sri Lanka's politicians, past and present, and others holding office in various capacities, would be left without a mark of them?

What did Blunkett do to cause his resignation? It appears that when a visa application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK made by the Filipino nanny of his one-time clandestine lover was turned down, he as minister had helped fast-track the granting of the visa.

If that is political impropriety and is unacceptable conduct that led to the fall of a minister, one wonders how many in Sri Lanka holding public office could actually say, hand on heart, that they have never ever committed an act of impropriety?

The fact that David Blunkett's secret affair ended and that he is claiming custody of a son and a putative child, are not the issues of serious concern. It is whatever influence he used as minister to fast-track that particular application that put his political life on the line.

That is not all. A one-time public official Sir Alan Budd was appointed to inquire into the allegation. Though Sir Alan's report was not out at the time David Blunkett resigned, it appears it had been intimated to the then Home Secretary that the report would not give him a clean bill of health.

Two issues are important here. One is that an impartial report that would compromise a major political figure, however tangential the charges maybe, could be expected from a senior public official. The other is that the Home Secretary was ready to throw in the towel, with a certain amount of grace perhaps, before the report became public and even to confess that love brought him down.

Would it not be fair to wonder whether such behaviour could be expected from those who hold high office in our country? It might be argued, of course, that our ministers, politicians and judges could not commit any acts of impropriety and that is why none has seen any reason to abandon his lucrative vocation.

But supposing, just supposing, that some of them did engage in conduct unbecoming of their public position. Just supposing that dalliance with a woman in a ministerial office or a parked car, or even a secret love affair as the one that Blunkett was involved in, was reported by the media and became the subject of public speculation.

Would we have then heard confessions of mea culpa and the guilty individual fading into the silence of the night? Would we even have had an inquiry, never mind an unbiased report. Yes, of course, we would have. But not in Sri Lanka. In our blessed land even if people were to be dragged through the thickest mud, they would still be clinging to political or public office when they emerge at the other end.

In the process of being dragged through grime and slime, they would collect dirt to throw at their accusers rather than throw in the towel in those moments of greatest disgrace.

Stories of corruption, bribery, misuse and abuse of power abound in our blessed land. Brief-cases full of money need to change hands before what would normally be a legitimate deal is done, people say.

Are such stories true? Of course not. This country is full of honest, caring, sharing people who would not sully their reputations with any wrong doing, who would never commit moral turpitude because that would be contrary to their saintly character.

How many in public office over there must be laughing at David Blunkett for having resigned for what would be a daily and minor infraction under our code of conduct. How many of them must be laughing at countries that set such high standards of public conduct.

When political hides are thicker than that of a rhinoceros who in their right minds would sacrifice mammon for morality? If conduct worthy of the highest standards was observed by Blunkett's resignation the judiciary here was equal to the task.

Two landmark judgments by the High Court and the Law Lords have strengthened democracy and human rights and delivered the government a hammer blow.

On Tuesday the High Court ruled that British troops serving abroad are bound by the Human Rights Act and such troops could be put on trial for human rights abuses against persons in their detention anywhere in the world.

On Thursday the Law Lords, the country's highest court ruled, 8-1 that foreigners held here on suspicion of terrorism cannot be detained indefinitely without trial as this violated their human rights.

At least 11 persons are still in detention, held in such high security prisons as Belmarsh that has often been referred to as Britain's Guantanamo. Ironically it was David Blunkett who introduced the more draconian of the anti-terrorism laws.

Not only has Blunkett gone, the laws that he employed to hold foreigners without charge have been declared perverse. Justice triumphed over political necessity and draconian laws because honest, impartial judges were ready to stand by the three centuries old tradition of a right to a fair trial and the recent rights of individuals over claims of national security.

These are vital lessons for all of us. But how many will want to learn them? Is it not wiser to adopt the attitude of the three monkeys? After all politics is business, both politicians as well as their cronies in the arms trade and other ventures.

Justice, it has been claimed, is not only dispensed but sometimes dispensed with. To see it happening in Mugabe's Zimbabwe or one of the former Soviet republics would come as no surprise. But when it happens in so-called democracies that supposedly value the rule of law, how is the public expected to comprehend justice?

It is even worse when justice is upended. It brings to mind Pascal's words in Pensees, "Even the most equitable of men is not permitted to be a judge in his own cause."

Back to Columns