There are moments in the life of a democracy when disagreement should not be viewed as a crisis but as evidence that constitutional institutions are performing the roles assigned to them.
The current debate over extending the retirement age of judges is one such moment.
The Government has advanced a proposal which it believes will strengthen the administration of justice by retaining experience within the superior courts. The legal profession has questioned whether the proposal raises constitutional concerns regarding judicial independence. The country’s Chief Mahanayake Theras have expressed their reservations directly to the President. Parliament will, in due course, debate the measure, while the Supreme Court may ultimately be asked to determine its constitutional validity.
That is not institutional failure.
It is constitutional democracy in motion.
A mature democracy does not require every institution to reach the same conclusion. Indeed, differing perspectives often strengthen the final outcome by ensuring that important legislation is subjected to rigorous examination before it becomes law.
What matters is the manner in which those differences are expressed.
Respectful dialogue must always take precedence over public confrontation. Constitutional reasoning should outweigh political rhetoric. Institutions should seek to persuade rather than diminish one another.
The present controversy also offers an opportunity.
If the Government believes concerns have arisen because of misunderstanding, it should welcome further engagement. If critics believe the proposal carries constitutional risks, those arguments deserve careful consideration. Neither position weakens democracy. Both recognise that constitutional change requires public confidence as much as parliamentary numbers.
Ultimately, constitutions derive their legitimacy not merely from the words written within them, but from the confidence citizens place in the institutions entrusted to interpret, defend and uphold them.
Sri Lanka has experienced many constitutional disagreements throughout its history. Some have divided the nation. Others have strengthened it by encouraging greater transparency, wider public participation and more thoughtful law-making.
One hopes the present debate belongs in the latter category.
The outcome will matter.
But equally important will be how the country arrives at that outcome.
Be that as it may.
