Chief justice vs parliament
Sri Lanka’s parliament impeached its chief justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, bringing into focus the precarious balance of power between courts and legislatures, a factor that defines the institutional politics of all constitutional democracies. President Rajapaksa’s government, which had previously jailed the country’s army chief, accused Bandaranayake of corruption, based on unproven allegations of disproportionate wealth. The parliament voted, 155 against 49, for the impeachment of the chief justice, ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court, which had invalidated the parliamentary proceedings. The country’s capital is now rife with speculation about an impending showdown between the court and parliament. The developments in Sri Lanka highlight the dangers of super-majorities in parliament.
Constitutional politics usually hinges on issues of legitimacy. The court feels popular governments with standalone majorities command greater legitimacy than minority or coalition governments. As such, the more “legitimate” the government, the less likely the court is to quibble with essential government decisions. With the media focus that defines our times, each of the three institutions that share constitutional power compete for public approval, so that ultimate constitutional power is always in a state of flux. This Montesquieuan state of flux guarantees individual liberty. Because power is never concentrated, its abuse, should it occur, is also limited. Yet, as Sri Lanka’s example shows, when dictatorial tendencies replace democratic propriety, parliamentary super-majorities can threaten this constitutional balance.
First, a super-majority almost always compromises the in-built parliamentary check. In the absence of an effective
Be the first to comment.