The role of clergy and the supremacy of Parliament

JHU and the creation of a dharma rajya

This writer belongs to the Catholic community and holds no brief for any political party. The intent of this article is to provide a balanced view of the question.

The media reports that UNP Parliamentarian Wijedasa Rajapakse, PC, intends to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to prevent clergy being elected to the Parliament. This in effect is a direct assault on the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), which is a constituent party of the ruling UPFA. Rajapakse is an experienced, competent and a respected lawyer with no records of any impropriety.

The JHU first entered Parliament in 2004 and has since been subjected to various humiliations in the well of Parliament. The priests were physically assaulted inside Parliament, which brought disrepute to the clergy themselves and it also demonstrated the depths to which lay politicians would stoop.

Politics by nature is very diabolical and belligerent when divergent interests and opinions clash. There is temptation when a priest is adorned with worldly attractions, yet the very tenet of Buddhism is to renounce desire.

The central theme of the JHU’s agenda was to bring about a dharma rajya (a righteous society) or a society rich with Buddhist and moral values. It is a pity that what we now see is a total abnegation of Buddhist and moral values in our society where Buddhist priests are murdered and Buddhist treasures are looted by treasure hunters.

One might pose a question as to whether JHU failed in its obligation to stand up to the vices in our society and especially against the misdeeds or the miscreants within the confines of the Government.

Buddhism the state religion

The ambit of the question is whether clergy should be barred from entering the Parliament. It would be pertinent to keep in mind that a non-Buddhist cannot hold the office of the President as has been the tradition of this country for more than 2,600 years. Sri Lanka has a unique place in the world where Buddhism is the State religion and its rightful place has been in existence from the time Buddhism was introduced to Sri Lanka.

In UK, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England is a title held by the British monarch that signifies apparent leadership over the Church of England. Although the Queen’s power over the Church of England is not strong, the position is still very relevant to the church and is mostly observed in a symbolic capacity. The Supreme Governor formally appoints high-ranking members of the church on the advice of the Prime Minister, who is in turn advised by church leaders. There is no written constitution in UK but State functions in accord with tradition and the precedents. House of Lords has allocated 26 seats for the clergy. The monarch is still popular in UK. In Philippines majority of people are Catholics and Catholic Church has a strong influence vis-à-vis public policy issues are concerned compared to the influence of Buddhist hierarchy in Sri Lanka.

Absence of a strong Buddhist voice against the prevailing vices

The Archbishop of Colombo had the nerve to say publicly that he would boycott State functions over an incident involving the law enforcement. The level of violence in our society is on the increase. The rule of law and the morals of our society seem to have got buried. A strong voice from the Buddhist hierarchy against the trend has not yet hit the media headlines.

There are thousands of clergy in other countries representing Parliament and in some cases holding political office. It is irrelevant and nonsensical to single out a person or a party to determine whether clergy should be barred or not from entering parliament but what is important is the role the clergy can play in the Parliament.  It would not be possible to foresee an ideal Parliament under all circumstances. Coming events and the electoral performance would determine the composition of the next parliament. Removing clergy from Parliament per se would not provide answers to the economic or social problems.

Absence of clergy would further drift parliament from an august assembly to rat hole. It would be preferable to elect as much clergy as possible at a time when the elected lay MPs betray the public confidence for perks and privileges. The priests would then be able to undertake audits on ethics and morals and could espouse religious tenets.

The extreme view in this regard would be the implementation of a political reform package through a Constitutional amendment for the ethnic issue. This writer believes that a Lebanese type pact with Tamil and Muslim parties with the blessings of Buddhist hierarchy would enable the issue to be laid to rest once and for all.

Other issues emanating from this exercise

The Buddhist values and traditions in Sri Lanka too are still strong and majority view it as a binding force derived from the history. Given the strong historic background it would be unjust, undemocratic and unwarranted to introduce a prohibition on Buddhist clergy being elected to the parliament.

On the contrary, given the current level of violence and law of the jungle being demonstrated on the TV, it would be preferable to make room for even more battalions of Buddhist priests to the parliament so that the incidence of thugs being elected could be curbed to a certain degree.  There are also other issues that spring from this exercise. Can a Buddhist priest become a member of a provincial legislature, Presidential Commission of Inquiry, a political action committee or any association, foundation or a society where humanitarian work is being undertaken? Rt. Rev Desmond Tutu was the Archbishop of Cape Town and he was appointed as Chairman of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission where he played a key role in changing the South African society from violence to reconciliation. Why should there be prohibition on Buddhist priests on matters that concern the humanity where Lord Buddha had given them a much bigger role? In order to balance this issue it would perhaps be an ideal proposition to establish an upper house where learned members of the society could be appointed and a certain number of seats for clergy representing the Buddhists, Christians and Muslims must be allocated according to the population.

The upper house would then be a place free from partisan politics and demonstrate intellectual brilliance not the rancour and acrimony displayed in the lower house where political ambitions are driven by power, money and fame.

(The writer is a freelance journalist and a political lobbying and government relations consultant.)