Points To Ponder

Do people have the guts to tell the truth to those who hold power?

A First Point: Do people have the guts to tell the truth to those who hold power? In other words, to simplify what I want to say, do those who talk to the politicians governing the country, here I mean those politicians who form the government, dare tell them the truth about the feelings of the people and what they want? Or, do they, for fear of getting sidelined or of losing their jobs or any favours obtained from the politicians, tell them instead what they would prefer to hear, always agreeing with the politicians?

The important question is whether the politicians are prepared to listen to views contrary to their own and consider those contrary views in their proper context, give due consideration to them and to act thereon? There are two categories of persons who can speak to politicians about what they really think of their politics: those who work for the politicians and those who just voice their opinion on politics.

Of course the politicians in the opposition cannot dictate to the politicians in the government -- this is not done because of what the opposition stands for and their ‘ôte-toi-de-là-que-je-m’y-mette’ policy. Neither can those who are with the opposition, either overtly or covertly, especially those journalists who declare themselves as being supposedly independent, but everyone knows that they are doing everything to get the opposition to govern the country. Government has a hard duty to finally know whom to trust.

People like to be told that they are doing extremely well, even when they are not; they never like to be told that they are not doing what is good for the majority of the people or for the country. It is human nature to welcome and appreciate praise, and this is specially so as far as politicians are concerned as this characteristic seems to be embedded in their psyche.

This brings to my mind the great Greek poet and tragedian Sophocles (496-406 BC) who has given us the play ‘Antigone’ wherein the author explores what it takes to speak the truth to those in power. It was written about 2500 years ago, and those interested in politics and speaking the truth to politicians must adapt the context to our times to get the best lesson.

I would advise politicians to read and understand the message in the play, that is those politicians who have the intellectual capacity to understand the political message therein. They must study the book.

The story is simple. One of the guards of King Creon has to tell him that his niece and future daughter-in-law Antigone, has defied his latest edict and the people are rallying behind her. The guards draw straws as to must do the duty. The losing guard says that “nobody likes the bringer of bad news.”

On being given the news, the king questions the loyalty of the guard, but then a display of the arrogance of power, he proclaims that because “he is the king, the Gods are on his side”.

The king refuses to listen to Antigone -- after all she is a woman, and listening to her would be a blow to his male ego, and he refuses to hear what the people have to say, as doing so would be showing weakness, which would erode his power.

King Creon’s son, Haemon eventually gathers courage to talk to his father. He tells his father: “Your presence frightens any common man from saying things you would rather not hear.”

King Creon does not want to listen to anybody with the result that, in the end, he brings death to his family, ruin to himself and destruction to his kingdom. One character says: “To reject good advice is a crime”. Another character, a blind seer, says: “Stubbornness and stupidity are twins.” Those who feel shy of reading the tragedy by Sophocles can well read the play ‘Antigone’ written by Jean Anouilh in 1942 which is based on the tragedy by Sophocles himself.

It is said that resisting the truth is not restricted to just politicians, it is also very rampant among the professional classes, in the corporate world and in the various churches, in short wherever leaders occupy positions of power.

Speaking the truth to power has its opposite in telling power what it wants to hear. Where you have resistant leaders, you have a few brave subordinates but many ignoble subordinates, that is people who want to be seen as loyal and as good team players. And in such cases, these people just swallow all moral objections that they may have had.

What I want to say is that people who have no ulterior motives should speak their minds to the political leaders and they in their turn must find the time and the patience to listen to such persons and more importantly, to consider their opinion.

* * *

Opposition fatigue

Follow the example set by Nando Bodha

A Second Point: Debates on the 2008-09 Budget Speech are over. We were expecting to listen to some new ideas from the opposition on to cope with the deteriorating world economic situation. Unfortunately, the performance of the opposition, be it the MMM’s leader or even its members’ have been a disappointment. The same applies to the MSM, I cannot say anything of the leader of this party because he is not a member of Parliament.

But here we have witnessed one major exception. Nando Bodha has made a political speech that is very much in line with the speech of a good political leader. He criticized the government, as is his right and also because he is in the opposition, but at the same time he made suggestions that can reasonably be considered by the government, failing which Nando Bodha can very well use those very ideas in the political manifesto of his party at the next general election. I have to congratulate him for his speech. He is the sure guide that other politicians in the opposition, be they from the MSM or the MMM or from the other smaller parties, must follow if they understand what is expected of them.

We have to forget about the smaller parties like the Union Nationale or the MMSM or those from Rodrigues, because they did not tell us anything worthwhile.

However, I have to say that I was really disappointed when I listened to the speeches of Paul Bérenger and Jayen Cuttaree. We are used to listening to better political speeches from them, but it seems that this time they have lost their usual touch. I wonder why this has happened. Let me attempt a few guesses. The first and obvious reason seems to be political fatigue. Both these political leaders have done their best to gain power for a long time indeed, but they have rarely succeeded in their venture. They must be tired by now, the more so that the next general election does not seem to be in their favour. Or it could be that they have been knocked down by the performance of the government for the past year and the last straw that has broken the camel’s back has been the budget presented by the minister of Finance? Besides, these two leaders know what is the level of performance of some of their backbenchers.

There is no doubt that the atmosphere in the opposition is morose. The members, or rather the leaders, must not let the situation get at them. They must change course, and they must, as we used to read in certain advertisements in England, “take courage”. We need to have an opposition, and a credible one at that. Do Mauritians deserve to have the MMM as the opposition party? Or should it be the MSM? Maybe both, provided they follow the example set by Nando Bodha.

* * *

Householders and the Use of Force Against Intruders

Do we have to wait to be attacked?

A Third Point: When a friend of mine came over recently we discoursed generally about the rising crime rate. Most Mauritians, including even police officers and politicians in addition to the common man, know that the crime rate has gone up substantially in recent rears. Maybe some politicians and some police officers find it necessary from time to time to say that the crime situation is under control, though we know that, in their heart of hearts, they know that such is not the truth, but they feel they have to say it for reasons best known to themselves.

This friend of mine raised a very interesting point. He said seeing that there are so many cases of theft and burglary and chain snatching, what would happen to him if he were to come face to face with a burglar in his house, whose intentions in the circumstances could in no way be considered honourable, his only intention being to steal his valuables and possibly assault him in the process and, in that situation, he pushes the burglar who falls down, knocking his head against the corner of a table and dies of the injury so sustained?

My friend has a filling station as well. He wondered what would happen if two persons were to carry out a hold-up at his filling station, arriving there on a stolen motor cycle wearing full-face helmets, and threatening the employees with machetes and daggers and he were then to kill one of the criminals in the process of defending his property and his employees and of course himself as well.

In both cases, would he be arrested by the police, face an enquiry and eventually stand trial either at the Intermediate Court or maybe at the Supreme Court? This is a very difficult question to answer. What are the rights of this friend of mine if in fact a person gets killed in the circumstances described above? A barrister at law in practice would be the best person to advise him, but I started wondering whether any barrister can advise when no incident that may be interpreted as a crime has been committed? But then even if the barrister is prepared to give the advice, that advice may turn out to be not correct. In such a case would the barrister be liable in damages to the client in spite of the fact that a barrister is generally not liable to be sued for advice tendered to the best of his ability?

Let us see what the authorities in the United Kingdom advise. Their position is set out in a booklet issued jointly by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Association of Chief Constables. The booklet, entitled ‘Householders and the Use of Force Against Intruders’, answers most of the questions on the subject. This is what the booklet has to say on the subject we have raised:

“It is a rare and frightening prospect to be confronted by an intruder in your own home. The Crown Prosecutions and the Chief Constables are responding to public concern over the support offered by the law and confusion about householders defending themselves.

“We want a criminal justice system that reaches fair decisions, has the confidence of law-abiding citizens and encourages them actively to support the police and prosecutors in the fight against crime. Wherever possible you should call the police.

“What is reasonable force?

“Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgments over the level of force in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.

“As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence.

“Do I have to wait to be attacked?

“No, and not if you are in your own home and in fear for yourself or others. In those circumstances the law does not require you to wait to be attacked before using defensive force yourself.

“What if the intruder dies?

“If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted.

“However, if for example, having knocked someone unconscious you then decide to further hurt or kill him to punish him, or you knew of an intended intruder and set a trap to hurt or kill him rather than involve the police, you would be acting with very excessive and gratuitous force and could be prosecuted.

“What if I chase them as they run off?

“This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen’s arrest.

“You should consider your own safety and, for example whether the police have been called. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not.

“In considering these cases, Chief Constables and the Director of Public Prosecutions are determined that they must be investigated and reviewed as swiftly and as sympathetically as possible. In some cases, for instance, where the facts are very clear, or where less serious injuries are involved, the investigation will be concluded very quickly, without any need for arrest.

“In more complicated cases, such as where a death or serious injury occurs, more detailed inquiries will be necessary. The police may need to conduct a forensic examination and/or obtain your account of events.

“To ensure such cases are dealt with as swiftly and sympathetically as possible, the police and the CPS will take special measures, namely:

“An experienced investigator will oversee the case; and if it goes as far as CPS considering the evidence, the case will be prioritized to ensure a senior lawyer makes a quick decision.

“It is a fact that very few householders have ever been prosecuted for actions resulting from the use of force against intruders.”

Maybe the office of our Director of Public Prosecutions and the police force can prepare booklets giving information about how far victims of crimes can go in tackling crimes and criminals. There are too many criminals roaming around and so many crimes committed everyday in every corner of Mauritius. Do these two authorities accept that it is part of their duty to instruct citizens about their rights?

The purpose of my writing on this point is to tell the authorities that they should inform people what they can do if they have to face criminals and especially what are their rights. This will demonstrate that the authorities are prepared to show some sympathy towards the victims of criminals.

I must warn persons concerned that they may not act upon what I have written, they should seek proper legal advice.