Year on the Web

30th March 1997

May 1st is May Day, a worldwide celebration which salutes the working class.

But ''May Day, May Day'' is also an internationally recognised distress signal. On both counts, Prime Minister John Major's choice of May 1st as the day for the great battle with the Conservative party's traditional foe, Labour, does strike one as decidedly odd. A death wish, perhaps.

Coincidence or not, ''hours after his long-awaited announcement of a May 1st election, his campaign suffered a severe blow,'' wrote reporter John Kampfner, when the Sun newspaper ended its support for the Tories and endorsed Labour leader Tony Blair .'' The Sun which has a large circulation spoke of Mr. Blair as a ''man of vision, purpose and courage''. What's more, it described the Tories as ''tired, divided and rudderless''.

The attack by the Sun is taken quite seriously because its onslaught on Labour in the 1992 election was seen as crucial to the Tory victory, observed the same journalist.

Such prophets of doom notwithstanding, Mr. Major remains quite confident. In his own words, this election is ''winnable''. He relies on the not-so distant past. He reminds the voters — and the media — that the same prophets predicted defeat in 1992 on the doorstep of No. 10 Downing Street. "I am still here in 1997 and I expect to be here after the election.''

The economy, and the likely prospects in the event of a Tory defeat, dominate the public debate as D-Day (or E-Day) approaches. Another crucial issue is Europe. Historically, Britain has given the highest priority to its very special relationship with the United States, the Transatlantic cousin, though geography would recommend a greater concern for its European identity.

To borrow an idea from John Bunyan, British foreign policy seems to have been planned by ''Mr. Facing-both-ways''. As a result, the two main parties are already confronted by a foreign policy problem that has to be solved, one way or another, as the winner leads Britain to the 21st century.

How well are the two parties equipped to cope with this challenge?

Eurosceptics

The next general election will be held in the 21st century. Which party is better equipped to respond to the challenge from Europe? That question is a vital foreign policy issue for the British political establishment. An opinion poll conducted in early March by E.C.B., a reputed advertising agency, covered the suburbs of London, the Midlands and the North-east of England (The question of European integration was not included in the questionnaire).

The findings, said James Blitz, a political affairs analyst, must have made ''depressing reading for Mr. Major. In January, the Tories fared poorly on this issue, a poor 20% support. And yet in mid-March, the Conservative party was regarded as the better negotiator on the question of Europe. The forthright comments of two cabinet ministers, Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind and Health Secretary Stephen Dorrell, may have been the reason for the pro-Tory swing from 20% to 50% support.

It was in February that the central office of the ruling party, made the happy discovery that its publicity campaign, smartly titled 'New Labour, Euro Danger,' had made quite an impact. Its most widely distributed poster showed a Lion (the British Lion, I should add) with a large tear drop! (There, there noble beast, a Sri Lankan in Britain, may have whispered, identifying himself with the Tory party view). More pertinent was the conclusion of an independent media opinion poll. The anti-EU campaign has not won new converts, though it may have reinforced the hostility of an already large constituency, popularly introduced as a ''Eurosceptic'' community. The controversial European question is already contributing new words to the English language, England's matchless contribution to the human heritage.

At the end of the day nevertheless, this survey found that a large majority (78%) had to be classified as ''floating voters''. Equally interesting however was the fact that the rest (22%) were absolutely certain they would vote Labour. And why? Well, for many reasons. "Time for change" was the commonest answer. (The Conservatives had held office for 18 years, one more than the record-breaking innings of our own Tories!)

Other reasons ranged from "Time for change" and "Not happy with Prime Minister Major, his cabinet, and party," to "Give another party a chance" to govern Britain.

Fight-back

Reading the British press, the Sunday Times, the F.T., the Guardian and the Economist, it does look as if the polls battle is over, bar the shouting.

Tony Blair is Britain's Bill Clinton. The young voters in particular are sick of John Major and the Tories as the new generation in the US was tired of the GOP and found a saviour in the young, articulate Bill Clinton, a man who could prepare the United States for the 21st century.

The parallel could hold but not too firmly. It would be dangerous to push it too far. The US has won the 'big race', the post-war ideological battle, capitalism/socialism. It is the sole superpower. In a world where economic performance is the ultimate test, the US has aggressive rivals in the Asia-Pacific region, and competitors in western Europe.

Mr. Blair's 'new' Labour does not feel marginalised in the context of post-Cold War arena. Not at all. He has avoided "isms", and he is quick on his feet. Besides he has invented three new R's — Reminding the voters of the government's RECORD; RE-ASSURING them his party has changed for good, and emphasising the REWARDS of change. Not the smartest of banners or slogans but they'll do, he believes.

Britain's next government will face a sterling crisis soon after it comes to office, predicts Anatole Kaletsky, economics editor of the Times.

Currencies often rally after elections, says Kaletsky. Besides he has a strong backer, the IMF. Britain will be the strongest economy in Europe, claim the IMF gurus, and second to Canada in the G-7.

The Bar Association of this country has clearly, manifestly and unambiguously reaffirmed its commitment that the Bar be independent and non-political. The Bar has rejected all attempts at its politicisation. It has rejected all divisions and particularly at this election division based on religion. I am proud to be the Leader of such a Bar. I promise with all the sincerity at my command that under my stewardship the Bar will be totally non-political, will be independent, fearless and be committed to the cause of its members and to the inalienable fundamental rights of all peoples of this country, rights acquired by virtue of birth and by virtue of being human.

I must place on record my deep appreciation of the members of the Bar of different political and personal ideologies who worked tirelessly and selflessly to ensure the independence and integrity of the Bar. May I be permitted on a personal basis to express my sincere and profound gratitude to my parents, my Alma Mater St. Joseph's College and to my senior Mr. B.J. Fernando, P.C. To them I owe debts which I cannot repay.

Politicisation

It is gratifying that the Bar rejected its politicisation because the growing politicisation of all institutions is a malaise in this country and it is time that right-thinking citizens stood together to resist it. The public sector has been increasingly politicised. A necessary qualification for appointment to senior posts seems to be political affiliation.

Successive governments have thought it fit that directors of corporations must necessarily belong to their political party. The cancer of growing politicisation in the state sector must be exercised before it engulfs and destroys the system.

Appointments must be totally and solely on merit. There must be no other consideration and it is time that the public and more particularly the professionals, take note of that. It is only they who can and should bring sufficient pressure to see that right prevails for might is not right.

Sri Lanka is a democracy. It is the duty of all its citizens and more particularly the professionals to ensure the continuance of the democratic way of life for as Weeramantri says:

"It is insufficiently realised how frail are the safeguards that protect democracy from dictatorships. The ease with which forms of democracy can be used to rear up a dictatorship must come as a shock to those who consider that clauses and constitutions by themselves protect democracy with walls of steel. In reality there are no more parchment barriers unless the community maintains over them that constant vigil which alone can ensure their effectiveness."

It is vital that all of us maintain that constant vigil.

One of the last bastions of the safeguard of democratic society is the Judiciary. The Judiciary has to be independent. The responsibility of maintaining its independence is primarily on the Judiciary itself. To use a turn of phrase the Judiciary must not only be independent but also must be seen to be independent. The Bar will do all in its power to preserve the independence of the Judiciary.

May I summarise in the words of Sir Winston Churchill:

"The complete independence of the Judiciary is the foundation of many things in our island life. It is perhaps one of the deepest gulfs between us and all forms of totalitarian rule."

To preserve its independence and the perception of independence, it is essential that appointments to both the Minor and Higher Judiciary should be correct and be seen to be correct. Appointments to the Higher Judiciary must be on merit and be made with due and proper consultation. Appointments to the Minor Judiciary must also be duly and properly made. Ability and conscientiousness must be taken note of in promotions.

Appointments as President's Counsel should be solely on merit and must not be considered as a political or personal favour returned.

There shall not be any interference with the Judiciary. It is not emphasised sufficiently that there is one, and ONLY one, sovereign in the country, namely the People. There is no other sovereign in the country. In this context one would do well to recall the words of Lord Denning when he said:

"To every subject (citizen) in this land, however powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller's words over 300 years ago, "Be you never so high, the law is above you."

This applies to every citizen, President and peasant alike.

The sovereign (the people) have laid down that their sovereignty shall be exercised and enjoyed by:

(i) The legislative power being exercised by Parliament;

(ii) Executive power being exercised by the President;

(iii) The Judicial power by Parliament through the Courts.

Thus, the sovereign in this country has clearly determined that Judicial power be exercised through the Courts. No one can in terms of law interfere with the functions of Court.

I can do no better than repeat to you the words of former Chief Justice Basnayake:

"The prestige which the Judiciary enjoys today is the cumulative effect of high traditions built up and sacredly preserved by a succession of Judges for over a century and a quarter. The State should do nothing that will impair it in the slightest degree. It should not regard decisions against the State as unfriendly acts and resort to retaliatory measures, whether they be legislative or administrative. It should, like any other litigant, learn to abide by the judgement of the final Court.

A Judiciary is not independent unless the Courts of Justice are enabled to administer law by absence of pressure from authority, whether exerted through the blandishments of reward or the menace of disfavour. It is the duty of the Executive to preserve its independence. It should therefore be assiduous not to leave room even for the merest impression that such pressure is being exerted.

Judges too should remember that the prestige now enjoyed by the Judiciary imposes on them a very heavy obligation to preserve and foster its fair name and honour. They should so regulate their conduct both in and out of Court as to further increase the public confidence in them.

To the people the Judiciary is the sole protection against tyranny, autocracy and the intemperate acts of the bureaucracy. To them, it is the forum in which the liberty of the subject can be asserted.

To them it is the place where their wrongs can be remedied, be they committed by a fellow citizen or by the State.

To them, it is the only forum in which they can challenge the State on even ground. Every step the Government takes to preserve the independence of the Courts, every measure introduced to safeguard them, will inevitably redound to its credit. No State is safe with a subservient Judiciary. It is the bane of a country, and it enfeebles a nation and makes cowards of its citizens."

Thus let the message go forth from here and now to friend and foe alike; let the message go forth from here and now to those who wish me ill and to those who wish me well, that I shall oppose any foe however powerful and however important, support any friend however small and however insignificant in the quest for justice; and more importantly I will oppose any friend however dear, support any foe however bitter, to uphold the principles for which we all strive. For that, I need the guidance and inspiration of my Lord above, and the support and the encouragement of you my colleagues and I am confident that I will have both in good measure.