Our country is full of constitutional ex perts and technocrats. A friend of mine was here from Hong Kong last week. In Hong Kong, one doesn't find many constitutional experts. Nor in Malaysia or Indonesia or other prosperous parts of that sub-continent. The ethnic Chinese in Hong Kong work hard—when they talk they talk little, and are curt.
Constitutional engineering is a typically Sri Lankan pastime. There is an earnest and sincere belief in this country that the course of the nation can be changed by constitutional engineering. Professor G.L. Peiris believes so — bless his soul, and others before him believed so.
Its not as if a country does not need constitutional visionaries.
But did the Asian dragons become economic powerhouses by a process of constitutional engineering? Hardly likely. William Rees-Mogg a correspondent for the Financial Times, writing in a recent issue, says that " Yew must be given his due." He explores the secret of the success of the ASEAN economies, and concludes that good leadership has almost everything to do with it. ( Hence the title "Give Yew his due.")
But, Yew like Mahatir was no great respector of constitutions. Yew and Mahatir (it's an old story now) cranked up the economic powerhouses of Singapore and Malaysia by encouraging investment, not always by the most fair means. Protectionism was part of the credo of the Malaysian development ethic. In Singapore, labour laws went by the board.
But, now Rees-Mogg describes Singapore as a society that is "more British than the British."
Even given that we are no great fans of the British , that statement is quite interesting. Time was when Singapore was derided by the British and the Western elite as a bully state that was run by a somewhat crude quasi-despot . Not anymore!
One wonders whether Rees-Mogg is trying to cosy up ( or as we say in these parts "curry favour") with the ethnic Chinese before the changeover. Whatever it may be, Mogg marvels that Hong Kong and Singapore are both corruption free, and are now model states that swear by the British system of justice.
This means that Singapore is no longer known for primitive evils such as censorship etc., which were the supposed downside of these economies in the eyes of the Westerners.
So, in these times, when even the envious West is cheering Singapore, may be we should ask what's so wrong with the ASEAN economies. All this while, the puritanical sociologists of the Sri Lankan persuasion have tried to pooh-pooh the economic success of Singapore by saying that Singapore developed fast, because the country held "democratic '' values in suspension.
We have liked to imagine that we are more "cultured" and of course "democratic'' than the ethnic Chinese, and hence that we cannot suffer gladly the kind of strategies that made the dragon economies prosper.
Now, all of a sudden, the British (even the British!) who like to think that democracy sprang from their very own veins, think that Hong Kong and Singapore are more organized and democratic. They think these are the exemplars of socio-economic success.
That means that even the constitutional theorists, even Professor G. L Peiris should admire the Singapore example. This is for the simple reason that the Professor believes that the rule of law is paramount, that if a country has a good constitution, it will somehow be an exemplar state.
The difference, at least the way I see it, is that countries like Singapore and Hong Kong gave the constitution second place, and accorded first place to economic development. In the process, they might have held some of the sacrosanct constitutional freedoms etc., that we hanker after in a state of abeyance.
The route that our social engineers envision is somewhat different. They figure that the constitution comes first, and that everything else will fall into place. Some will say that this is like putting the cart before the horse.
Even if that's a bad analogy, there is some merit in considering whether the constitutional approach is going to solve our problems.
This is not to say that constitutional engineering cannot co-exist with the economic approach. The values of Jefferson blended quite well with the entrepreneurial credo of the Ford's.
Problem is that we seem to breed only the Peiris's here. We being products of a hybrid lotus -eating culture grafted to the conservative British system, have not spawned (raw word that ) any leaders in the mould of Mahatir or Yew.
Naturally, the argument from the ranks of the constitutional school of thought will be that we are better off without such quasi-despots. If we come to that position, then, maybe, we should stop going on this envy trip.
Either we decide that we want to be the country that has rule of law on an empty pocket, or we concentrate on growth rates, and hope that the constitutional thing will follow.
But, with the kind of thinking that we prefer, we are guaranteed that the constitutional approach will take precedence. We have constituencies to cater to. Chandrika for instance is a Sorbornne liberal, even though she likes privatisation and the good life at the same time.
With G. L Peiris, she thinks that growth rates and the rule of law and liberal democratic values can all co-exist in a kind of experimental utopian amalgam.
If that's possible so be it, but for the moment, there seems to be something missing in the whole equation. We don't have a leader with an entrepreneurial spirit anywhere in sight.
But we have the Professor, and many who I'm sure would like to outdo him in the theory department. Need I say more under the circumstances?
Return to the Editorial/Opinion contents page