FB   
 
Powered bysps
        Society for Policy Studies
 
 

 
Judicial enforcement of socioeconomic rights: Why it must be resisted
Updated:Apr 4, 2017
 
Print
Share
  
increase Font size decrease Font size
 
When Sri Lanka embarked on a process of constitutional reform under the auspices of the Yahapalanaya government, the three broad areas for discussion were clearly identified: The executive system; Devolution; and electoral reform.
 
Nevertheless, as the promise of a new constitution beckons, a raft of other issues, such as the reform of personal laws, and reconfiguring the superior courts have entered the debate.
 
Of these, none is more controversial than the idea that Sri Lanka follows South Africa and other African and Latin American States in allowing justiciable (That is, judicially enforceable) socio-economic rights.
 
According to this radical idea, any person could allege a deprivation of a social or economic right such as health, food water and move the courts to order the Government to make adequate provision.
 
The Public Representations Committee (PRC)commissioned to undertake consultations on the new constitution—comprising many proponents of the idea of enforceable socio-economic rights—unsurprisingly recommended the inclusion of a radical new bill of rights which would include among others the right to sustainable development, ‘wellbeing’, social security, food and health. It also recommended that animal rights be enshrined as a Fundamental Human Right. A number of civil society advocates have also followed suit.
 
However, opposition to justiciable socio-economic rights has also grown, particularly among classical liberals, proponents of devolution and the business sector.
 
The Traditional Left has also been lukewarm in its reception of the idea. I would like to highlight a few of the arguments that militate against the radical new approach outlined in the PRC Report.
 
"Justiciable welfare rights have the benefit of appearing to be a move towards progress. It most certainly is not"
 
These concerns are not motivated by an opposition to socio-economic advancement of the people; on the contrary, they are based on the belief that justiciable socio-economic rights would exacerbate inequalities, weaken pluralism and social accommodation, and severely retard progress towards the kind of free society required to deliver people out of poverty and social exclusion.
 
First, justiciable socio-economic rights simply do not work. Instead, they are often counterproductive. Whatever ideological persuasion one may have, the record of countries that have experimented with socio-economic rights demonstrates that they had not improved the socio-economic welfare of the people. Instead, they have in fact made things worse.
 
Despite leading the pack in terms of justiciable socio-economic rights, South Africa today, measured according to its Gini Coefficient indices, is more unequal than it was during the latter stages of apartheid.
 
The records of other countries that have gone down the same route—Kenya, Zimbabwe, Haiti, South Sudan, East Timor, Somalia, Bolivia, South Africa, Nepal, Niger, and Venezuela—speak for themselves.
 
Empirical studies from Brazil and South Africa have shown that judicially enforceable welfare rights have disproportionally benefited the rich and middle classes—as they are better placed to pursue expensive litigation—at the cost of the poor.
 
As Professor Suri Ratnapala notes in his recent article in the 2017 Summer Issue of the ‘Policy’:  “The less privileged sections of society who form the majority of people in developing countries have greater bargaining power at the ballot box than in the court room. This is the virtue of representative democracy.”
 
Second, justiciable welfare rights would embroil the courts in everyday distributional politics and thus undermine their independence.
This is particularly concerning because even proponents of socio-economic rights argue—in an attempt to counter the argument that judges would take over political decision making—that in interpreting socio-economic rights, judges should be deferential to the executive.  This deference is in fact inevitable—judges are unlikely to take it upon themselves bear the brunt of responsibility for social and economic policies. Yet, this attitude of deference is precisely what should be guarded against.
 
The role of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy is to act as a tenacious guardian of citizens’ rights against the State; to balance the imbalance of power between the state and the citizen.
 
The most celebrated judges in this country and elsewhere have brought to their work a deep suspicion of State power. And yet, we are now being told to accommodate socio-economic rights, and with it, judicial deference to the executive.
 
This course, particularly in Sri Lanka where the struggle for the independence of the judiciary has been and continues to be hard fought, is utterly dangerous.
 
Third, justiciable welfare rights would severely threaten the delicate balance between centre and provincial powers that would characterise the envisaged devolution scheme.  It is essential that each province—given the finite resources at its disposal—is allowed the space to expend those resources according to law but also in accordance with the democratic expressed choices of its voters. Thus, the North may opt invest heavily in education, whilst the North-Centre leads with health.
 
Provinces with a heavy Leftist political imprint may decide to privilege State spending, while others may choose a more Liberal economic dispensation.
 
These are matters of policy for which Governments in the Province would be answerable to their voters.
 
This is the promise of devolution: that ground-based decision making would replace one-size fits all prescriptions from Colombo.
 
Justiciable welfare rights would threaten the gains of further devolution, allowing judges and lawyers the power to dictate provincial policy. They would also result inevitably in creeping centralisation where the province finds itself unable to finance the policy prescriptions ordered by the courts.
 
Justiciable welfare rights have the benefit of appearing to be a move towards progress. It most certainly is not. In a country wracked by an ethnic conflict defined by a contestation over the adequacy of autonomy arrangements, and having just come out of an almost terminal threat to judicial independence, the priorities of contemporary constitution making ought to be to address those areas in which our governance structures have let us down. Despite all these governance failures however, our delivery of welfare has remained admirable, driven entirely by representational politics, not judicial enforcement. In this context, some American wisdom would not be out of place: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
 
The Daily Mirror, April 05, 2017
 
 
 
 
Print
Share
  
increase Font size decrease Font size
 

Disclaimer: South Asia Monitor does not accept responsibility for the views or ideology expressed in any article, signed or unsigned, which appears on its site. What it does accept is responsibility for giving it a chance to appear and enter the public discourse.
Comments (Total Comments 0) Post Comments Post Comment
Review
 
 
 
 
spotlight image Since Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina assumed office again in Bangladesh in 2009, bilateral relations between New Delhi and Dhaka have been on a steady upward trajectory.
 
read-more
Senior representatives from the US, China, Pakistan and Afghanistan met in Muscat, Oman, on Monday to revive stalled peace talks with the Taliban, but the insurgent group failed to participate in the meeting being held after a year.
 
read-more
Ruskin Bond’s first novel ‘Room on the Roof’ describes in vivid detail how life in the hills around Dehradun used to be. Bond, who is based in Landour, Mussoorie, since 1963, captured the imagination of countless readers as he painted a picture of an era gone by.
 
read-more
India’s foreign policy under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has attained a level of maturity which allows it to assert itself in an effective manner. This is aimed at protecting the country’s national interests in a sustained way.
 
read-more
Braid-chopping incidents have added to the already piled up anxieties of Kashmiris. Once again they are out on the streets, to give vent to their anger. A few persons, believed to be braid-choppers were caught hold by irate mobs at various places. They were beaten to pulp.
 
read-more
Communist parties everywhere gather the ranks every five years to review the past, set future direction, renew political leadership and rejig organisational structure.
 
read-more
In a move lauded worldwide, King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud recently issued a royal decree allowing women to obtain driving licences.
 
read-more
The death toll from Saturday’s twin truck bombs in Somalia’s capital Mogadishu has crossed 300.
 
read-more
It is a privilege to be invited to this most prestigious of law schools in the country, more so for someone not formally lettered in the discipline of law. I thank the Director and the faculty for this honour.
 
read-more
Column-image

Title: The People Next Door -The Curious History of India-Pakistan Relations; Author: T.C.A. Raghavan; Publisher: HarperCollins ; Pages: 361; Price: Rs 699

 
Column-image

Could the North Korean nuclear issue which is giving the world an anxious time due to presence of hotheads on each side, the invasion of Iraq and its toxic fallout, and above all, the arms race in the teeming but impoverished South Asian subcon...

 
Column-image

Title: A Bonsai Tree; Author: Narendra Luther; Publisher: Niyogi Books; Pages: 227 Many books have been written on India's partition but here is a firsthand account of the horror by a migrant from what is now Pakistan, who ...

 
Column-image

As talk of war and violence -- all that Mahatma Gandhi stood against -- gains prominence across the world, a Gandhian scholar has urged that the teachings of the apostle of non-violence be taken to the classroom.

 
Column-image

Interview with Hudson Institute’s Aparna Pande, whose book From Chanakya to Modi: Evolution of India’s Foreign Policy, was released on June 17.

 
Subscribe to our newsletter
Archive