Ramdeen must resign

When, in the closing weeks of 2004, Prime Minister Patrick Manning publicly expressed his preference for a local archbishop, Roman Catholic spokespersons instantly accused him of trampling the line between State and Church. There is thus some irony that, barely two months later, Archbishop Edward Gilbert has found it necessary to apologise to the Government for a statement made by the Catholic Commission for Social Justice.

CCSJ head Leela Ramdeen, apparently on her own initiative, issued a statement almost as soon as media reports broke about the brewing controversy over Chief Justice Sat Sharma. This statement essentially called on the Government to stop any action in respect to the CJ. Days later, Ms Ramdeen appeared on the TV6’s Morning Edition programme along with Maha Sabha Secretary General Sat Maharaj to defend her position. Inevitably, Ms Ramdeen was perceived in some quarters as taking a racial stance, and the fact that she did not anticipate this reaction reflects an amazingly poor grasp of public relations on the part of a spokesperson for the local Catholic Church.

In his release, Archbishop Gilbert described Ramdeen’s action as “a well-intentioned oversight based on an erroneous judgment about urgency.” But everyone knows what road is paved with good intentions, though most people do not think about the proverb’s meaning. The saw is really a warning about self-deception and, concomitantly, the danger of action without thought. In this particular case, we do not see why Ms Ramdeen believed that the need for a public statement was so urgent. The matter had been brewing for over two months before it reached the Parliament and the media. What did she expect? That our easy-going populace would suddenly rise up in an orgy of violence over the possibility that the Chief Justice would be impeached?

To be sure, this is the apparent view of Mr Maharaj, but his reputation for exaggerated ethnic effluvium is well-established. However, the Catholic Church, because of its influence and its history in our society, has a greater responsibility to be circumspect when commenting on matters of State. Catholics are still the largest and most powerful religious grouping in the country and, more pertinent to this issue, the Church has an historical opposition to the People’s National Movement. Even if Ms Ramdeen did not take cognisance of such factors, surely she should have realised the basic necessity of ascertaining the facts before venturing an opinion on such a sensitive issue.

In this matter, it is the Church which has stepped over the line dividing it and the State. And, while Archbishop Gilbert has stated categorically that he would not have approved Ms Ramdeen’s statement had it been submitted to him, he bears the ultimate responsibility in several respects. It is he who appointed Ms Ramdeen, it is he who did not institute a consultative process before now, and it is he who has encouraged a certain mindset about the role of the Church. With regard to the last, the Archbishop in his sermons habitually criticises what he calls “secularisation”. One could reasonably infer that he considers the separation of Church and State to be undesirable.

What should not be forgotten, however, is that this separation is not merely to protect the State, but also to protect the church, mandir, and mosque. The very vehemence of the reaction to Ms Ramdeen’s intervention proves the wisdom of the principle. All of which is not to say that religious bodies should not comment and take action on political matters. Indeed, because they are constituencies in their own right, religious organisations have a responsibility to do so. But they must take action only after careful consideration, and always in a non-partisan manner, and without claiming any special privilege over other groups, including secular ones. To take any other approach is to risk further cleavages in our already-divided nation. This is why Archbishop Gilbert really has no choice but to immediately accept not only Ms Ramdeen’s resignation, but the resignation of all the people who were part of this unseemly statement from the Commission.