Lords of our Republic

The controversies around the appointments of senior counsel and senior attorney are symptomatic of a young island state wrestling with the shackles of colonisation. One can only be bewildered by the over-importance the legal profession and the judiciary subscribe to titles and entitlements instead of the core issues affecting the legal profession and the judiciary. This is opposite to the trend in the modern world, and other republics where the leaders in their fields do not need a title. They lead the world without a title, and make status obsolete.

Historically, the British Monarchs distributed titles under a feudal system, when lands were allocated. Titles reflected the hierarchical structure of land ownership. Lord is a term to denote members of the peerage. Over time titles also became a political tool whereby the monarchs would reward allegiance of its subjects. The monarchs distributed titles by letters of patent.

Originally the Law Lords were from the nobility. After the creation of the Supreme Court in England, new justices who were not already peers were granted the courtesy of the title lord. Similar approach followed suit in British colonies such as Singapore, India, Australia and Canada. Their judges were customarily called Lord. But those countries have evolved. The Advocates Act was amended by the Republic of India so that the then traditional form of addressing judges as “My Lord” is discouraged by the bar council. In October 2009, Justice K Chandru of the Madras High Court, banned lawyers from addressing him as “My Lord”.

Even in countries where the King of England is still the head of state, such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the judges are addressed as “Your Honour”. It is therefore difficult to understand why in Mauritius, a republic, Judges are addressed as if they belong to the British peerage.

Lawyers also seem attached to titles and status. Some would insist on being called “Maître”, a French tradition. This term would feed egos but has no relevance to skills or standards. This may remind us of what was stated in Robin Sharma’s celebrated book “The Leader who had no title”, “The bigger the ego, the weaker the performance”.

As introduced by Robin Sharma: “Bottom line: The old model of leadership’s dead. Gone. Obsolete. The old model said you need a title or a position to make a difference. It suggested we had to come from a special background or sit in a giant office or have a lot of money to have an impact. But in our new world, you can Lead Without a Title. This is leadership 2.0”.

NOT RELEVANT ANYMORE

Many are caught in the old world of titles and status. The appellation senior counsel or senior attorney was meant to replace king or queen counsel when Mauritius became a Republic. But those appellations are not relevant anymore, or at least should not be if we are evolving in the modern world.

In Republics such as France and USA, there are no distinctions. A professional is judged in accordance with skills and achievements. The term “elevated” should itself be defined. The “elevated” one sits closer to the Judge, giving perception of a special treatment by the Judiciary. It should then be assessed whether the “elevated” lawyer is listened with more attention than the other, thereby raising the question of fair trial, and the constitutionality of the “elevation”.

Furthermore, those discretionary “gifts” as recently described by one counsel, has only opened the door to lobbies, and rumours of deals to materialise those “elevations”. In our Republic, the judiciary and the lawyers are now entrenched in what the public and the world perceives as backward, obsolete and also unfair. Instead of fearless lawyers, we have fearsome judges.

The proposed draft legislation suggests a committee chaired by the Chief Justice, and selection criteria. This may be a short term solution, but avoids the fundamental question as to whether the irrelevant system should even be maintained. The views of young professionals who have their lifetime careers ahead of them, should be listened more than those who have their careers behind them.

But there are no debates. Other professions who have embraced efficiency and sophistication are at a higher level. Their leaders recognise that clinging to outdated hierarchies undermines excellence and stifles growth.

It is a fact that movers and shakers, such as Mahatma Gandhi, had no titles. Impactful leaders such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Oprah Winfrey have no titles attached to their names. The concept was created by the first US President Georges Washington. When proposed the title of “Your Highness”, Georges Washington rejected, and preferred to be called Mr. President, being a job description title. He also created the precedent of term limit, and voluntarily retired after two terms. That is why King George III referred to George Washington as “the greatest man in the world” and “the greatest character of the age”. He unlocked the potential of talents attracted to this new country no longer rewarding titles and privileges.

Opposite to Georges Washington, the then Prime Minister of Mauritius who led the way to our Republic State, retained British titles such as “Sir” and “QC”. This is a contradiction that paved the way for spitting mediocrity seeking status instead of achievements.

As “Turbulent times build great leaders”, now is the time for our leaders in office to address the real questions affecting the judiciary and legal profession. A comprehensive debate and substantial reforms would strengthen our Republic.

If our current leaders decide to bring about the much needed reform, it must be expected that even the obsolete will fight for survival whilst trying to uphold status and privileges. Rewarding skills based on merit can help to slow the trendy exodus of the elite overseas, whilst we must adapt to new and complex challenges. Our Republic needs leaders at all levels, and not title holders. We can then become winners instead.