Next to free and fair elections, one the most important defining characteristics of democracy is the rule of law. While the citizens of a democracy choose their leaders and representatives through elections, the rule of law defines the relationship between representatives and citizens in between elections. A Government that is elected to govern must uphold the rule of law at all times. Irrespective of how high an office a person holds or how influential or powerful a person or group is, the same law applies to all. It is when those elected to govern allow the rule of law to erode because of their own acts of omission and commission that chaos ensues. In the Cheristerfield Thangkhiew alleged “encounter killing” it would appear that the rule of law was not implicitly followed. Granted that Thangkhiew might have been the master strategist behind the IED blasts at different locations but the manner in which he was eliminated raises serious questions as to why one arm of the law failed to observe the constitutional moralities that are prescribed for all other citizens. This single act of subversion of the rule of law has emboldened interest groups of all kinds to taunt the government and make demands that are yet again constitutionally untenable – the suspension of two IPS officers whose role in the entire August 13 episode is still shrouded in mystery. As citizens we are yet to be informed who actually pulled the trigger on Thangkhiew and why only these two officers have been targeted.
The Cherister killing inflamed passions which a few disparate elements have successfully converted into political capital. Now while the Government has set up a judicial inquiry into the incident and asked interested persons to depose before it, none of the leaders of these interest groups have done so. However, they are constantly raising the banner of protest to force the government to subvert its constitutional obligations.
Considering that the Constitution is what guides governments and citizens alike on their code of conduct it would imply that every citizen be informed about its basic tenets. Constitutional literacy is what is missing in this country. Of those that know to read and write, very few have actually read the Constitution to understand what civil behaviour is about. While Article 19(1)(b) grants citizens the right to assemble peaceably, Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions on the right to assemble peaceably and without arms and to freedom of speech and expression as none of these rights are absolute in nature. Essentially these restrictions are imposed in the interests of public order, decency and morality. The rule of law is sacrosanct.
