Powered bysps
        Society for Policy Studies

Judicial enforcement of socioeconomic rights: Why it must be resisted
Updated:Apr 4, 2017
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
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
spotlight image Sergio Arispe Barrientos, Ambassador of  Bolivia to India is, at 37, the youngest head of mission in New Delhi. Only the second envoy from his country to India, Barrientos, who presented his credentials to the Indian President last month, feels he has arrived at a propitious time, when India’s focus is on so
On February 15, 2017 Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV-C37) successfully launched the 714 kg Cartosat-2 series satellite along with 103 co-passenger satellites from Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Sriharikota. 12 minutes later, writes Anil Bhat
While most Indians were observing recent domestic political developments; with surprise defeats for the ruling BJP in its pocket boroughs and a likelihood of the opposition uniting against the Party for the 2019 national elections, writes Tridivesh Singh Maini
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping on Tuesday talked over telephone and pledged to deepen bilateral ties and promote mutual trust, writes Gaurav Sharma 
Famous for its pursuit of Gross National Happiness, Bhutan has a new cause for joy: In recognition of its Gross National Income (GNI) growth and social development, the kingdom is poised to graduate from the UN category of the world's poorest known as the Least Developed Countries (LDC), writes Arul Louis
Prem Sharma sells gutka (a combination of betel nuts, tobacco and mouth freshener) and cigarettes near the Vijay Nagar square in Indore, the commercial capital of the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh. However, the most visible part of his tiny business is the dustbin that he does not dare to lose. The case is similar with pretty

While India has regained its position as the world’s fastest growing large economy – with the uptick in GDP expansion at 6.7% in Q3 of 2017-18 – sustaining it critically depend...


What is history? How does a land become a homeland? How are cultural identities formed? The Making of Early Kashmir explores these questions in relation to the birth of Kashmir and the discursive and material practices that shaped it up to the ...


A group of teenagers in a Karachi high school puts on a production of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible— and one goes missing. The incident sets off ripples through their already fraught education in lust and witches, and over the years ...


Title: Do We Not Bleed?: Reflections of a 21-st Century Pakistani; Author: Mehr Tarar; Publisher: Aleph Book Company; Pages: 240; Price: Rs 599


From antiquity, the Muslim faith has been plagued by the portrayal of Muslim men regularly misusing this perceived “right” to divorce their wives instantly by simply uttering “talaq” thrice.


'Another South Asia!' edited by Dev Nath Pathak makes a critical engagement with the questions about South Asia: What is South Asia? How can one pin down the idea of regionalism in South Asia wherein inter-state relations are often char...