Buddhism on governance

H.S.S. Nissanka

In 1967, at the Hague Academy of International Law, late Prof. K.N. Jayatilleke delivered five lectures entitled ?The Principles of International Law in Buddhist Doctrine?. The article explores what Prof. Jayatilleke precisely meant by International Law and Buddhist Doctrine. The first part appeared yesterday.

Although Prof. Jayathilleke did not, in detail, differentiate between home policy and foreign policy of a state, he did not fail to show that both home and foreign policies of a state should be based on the Dharma. We cannot expect a state to follow foreign policy based on Dharma while following a home policy devoid of it. In International politics a state is the most important unit. Therefore, according to the Buddhist political philosophy, a state should posses the following features:

i. A government elected by the people - the ruler should be the servant of the people (Gana dasa). The people have a right to overthrow a corrupt regime by non-violent means.

ii. A legal system which is capable of meting out justice and equity which upholds the equality of man (Prof. Jayathilleke has referred to the seven arguments advanced by the Buddha to establish the truth of the equality of man).

iii. A constitution based on righteousness where fundamental human rights are protected.

iv. A plan (program) to implement the following (a) An insurance system which will protect persons and property (b) Elimination of crimes. (c) Just distribution of the wealth of the country and full employment (d) A mechanism to formulate the right policies.

v. A foreign policy based on the following principles: (a) Promotion of friendship. (b) Non-aggression and co-operation. (c) Promotion of the welfare of the entire human community.

vi. Administrators who possess the following qualities: (a) Selflessness (parichhaga) (b) Rectitude (Ajjava) (c) Mercy (Akkhoda) (d) Political wisdom (Pragnabala).

A Buddhist theory of international polities will be meaningful only if there are states implementing the ideas given above. There are three ways of implementing the Buddhist theory of international politics. They are as follows:

1. Existence of states which have the six features mentioned above.

2. Emergency of a world ruler (Chakkavatthi raja) who, having established a just state and following a foreign policy of Dhamma - vijaya brings the whole world under his rule and rules according to the Ten Rules of Righteousness (Dasaraja - Dhamma)

3. The establishment of a kingless world government (arajaka-cakka) which functions according to a constitution based on the Dhamma.

The writer feels that it would have been very useful if Prof. Jayathilleke compared the concept of ?arajaka-cakka? with the system of the United Nations Organization. The UNO is, in a sense, a world government without a raja or a ruler. Like the third form of Universal state (Chakkavatthiraja) the UNO is based on its charter (constitution). It is this document which is the life force of the UN. The Charter of the UN has two primary objectives (see the Preamble to the UN Charter).

1. Maintenance of world peace.

2. Welfare of the entire human community.

By comparing and contracting the concept of the Chakkavatthi raja and the UN Charter, one could see that the concept of the UN Charter is very close to the Buddhist theory of International Politics. In short, it is a systematic view of a method with which the material and spiritual progress of mankind can be achieved.

The Buddhist state system - Cakkavatthi rajjaya - aims at the prosperity and happiness of the entire world. For this, well-promulgated home and foreign policies of a state should realize, according to the Buddha, the following four objectives.

1. Attha Sukha (Economic Security)
2. Bhoga Sukha (Abundance of food and other essentials)
3. Anana Sukha (Freedom from debt)
4. Anavajja Sukha (Blameless moral life)

For the Buddhist theory of international politics, the importance of economic stability is stressed by the Buddha.

The Buddha, in a number of discourses, revealed the importance of just distribution of wealth as a necessary step for the welfare and the happiness of humanity.

To support this view Prof. Jayathilleke gives the following quotation from the Digha Nikaya.?.... Thus from goods not accuring to those devoid of goods, poverty becomes rampant. From poverty being rampant stealing becomes rampant.... violence..... killing..... lying.... sexual misconduct.... false view of life...... lack of regard for authority.... becomes rampant.?

Under a system of world government or in a set of states following the Buddhist principles, International law has a significant role to play.

The modern international law has proved itself unequal to the task of solving the problems of the world. Further Prof. Jayatilleke observes that the newly emerging nations have ?found it difficult to agree wholly with the international law of the Western nations as it neither stands for nor rejects the need for international law as a binding force for the good and the happiness of all nations. Prof. Jayathilleke agrees with J.H.G. Syatauw who, in 1961, remarked at the Hague Academy that the nations have begun to claim the right to select rules to suit their interest only. International law should not be placed on a selfish and petty nationalist basis. It should be improved and geared to the realization of the welfare of mankind as a whole.

In formulation and implementation of international law, the jurists should turn to the Buddhist texts on the Discipline (Vinaya Pitaka) for inspiration and guidance. The Buddhist system of jurisprudence is international in character and is based on fundamental human rights and the theory of democracy.

Professor Jayathilleke does not specifically discuss the two accepted theories of the basis of International law. But in his references to ?Vinaya Pitaka? it has been made clear that the Buddha, in promulgating the rules for the community of the international Sangha (Buddhist priesthood), has given due consideration to these two theories, i.e. Theory of Fundamental Rights and the ?Theory of Consent?.

The laws Promulgated by the Buddha were utilitarian and pragmatical. Prof. Jayatilleke had listed the following ten purposes for enacting laws; (1) For the well-being of the community (2) For the convince of the community (3) In order to curb miscreants (4) for the ease of the well-behaved (5) In order to restrain misbehaviour in the present (6) In order to check misbehaviour in the future (7) In order that those who have no faith (in the Dhamma) may acquire faith (8) In order those who have faith may further strengthen their faith (9) In order that the Good Doctrine (Saddhamma) may last long (10) for the promotion of discipline.

Unless one gives one?s express (not tacit) consent, one is not allowed to be a member of the community of the Sangha. When once he enters the community, he is bound by the rules of the disciplines (Vinaya). In the case of infringement, the wrongdoer is dealt with by a democratically-established court of elders where every effort will be made to convince the wrongdoer (if he proved by evidence to be the culprit) that he has committed an act against the vinaya rules. The Buddha has recommended psychologically very effective forms of punishment. The punishment of Brahmadana (severing all communications) and banishment from the community have been recommended for grave violations of Vinaya rules. This principle of law has been clearly written into the United Nations Charter.

According to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the principles of law recognized by the civilized nations can be applied to decide international cases (Article 38 of the Statute).

It could have been fruitful if Prof. Jayathilleke?s attention has been drawn to the principles of law accepted by the international jurists and publicists. It is true that there are no principles of law accepted by the jurists and publicists without dissents.

However several of Western International jurists have accepted the following principles: (1) Principle of Justice (2) Principle of equity (3) Principle of convenience (4) Principle of reason and (5) Principle of rights.

According to the Communist ideological thinking, the Russian International law experts have accepted the following principles: (1) principle of sovereignty (2) non- intervention (3) territorial inviolability (4) equality of states (5) non-aggression (6) self- determination (7) peaceful co-existence.

The International Law Commission appointed by the General Assembly of the United Nations has accepted the following (1) Independence (2) equality in law (3) jurisdiction over their territories (4) self-defence (5) peaceful settlement of disputes and (6) human rights as basis of International Law.

At this point, the writer wishes to observe that fundamentally there is a contradiction between the principles listed above and the political Philosophy of Buddhism. It is accepted that there was no codified law of nations that were in use among the Buddhist States of Asia.

To be Continued