Reflecting on the nature of the fight

By Kishali Pinto Jayawardene

(January 17, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The intimidation and the pressure that Elections Commissioner Dayananda Dissanayake has reportedly been subjected to at the hands of certain elements in the government ranks is a downright disgrace. This is probably the very first time that an Elections Commissioner has had to undergo this manner of open intimidation. In one sense, such pressure tactics are not a surprise and merely reflect the downward trend of governance that this country has seen in recent years. On the other hand, the blatant manner in which this takes place can only invoke our utter disgust and disapproval.

Election manifestoes and mild entertainment

Such pre-election practices are contrary to fundamental norms of good governance. The question currently is as to whether the newcomer to this political cesspool, Sri Lanka’s former Army Commander will follow down the path of the current government if what was once thought impossible could be achieved and the incumbent unseated? He promises us better and given what is currently taking place in Sri Lanka, the question indeed arises as to whether anything could be, in fact, worse than the present reality?

The unveiling of his manifesto last week did afford mild entertainment to the discerning among us. Indeed, one of the rather more witty insertions in this document was the promise to ensure the independence of the judiciary. This promise might have, of course, rung considerably more true if one of the individuals most responsible in recent decades for putting the independence of this institution into severe jeopardy, former Chief Justice Sarath Silva had figured a little less prominently at his campaign meetings.

Corruption allegations and the Corruption Commission

Regardless and election manifestoes aside, what is equally serious are the continuous allegations of corruption wielded with great force against the incumbent by his detractors in the opposition and ricocheting also in return to strike the opposition candidate, put forward as they are with much abusive vigour by the government and the state press.

The question is as to why these allegations are being bandied about in the public forum without the law or the body tasked to investigate these matters, namely the Bribery and Corruption Commission being moved in this regard? This question needs little answer. Indeed, we may as well disband the Bribery and Corruption Commission once and for all much in the same manner that the National Police Commission and the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka have been disbanded, for the scarce good that this body does.

If this Commission was to be disbanded, the only individuals to heave a sigh of relief would be the minions in public service who are the persons in danger of being caught by this bodys investigators for the heinous crime of taking a paltry bribe or two. For example, one recalls a tale not so long ago of this Commissions prosecution of a police sergeant who had solicited and accepted a bribe of Rs 6,000 from a bootlegger in exchange for promising not to haul him up before the law. The policeman was in fact, sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment by the Colombo High Court. This is indeed an achievement worthy of the Commission no doubt, the high expectations with which it was established by consensual agreement in Parliament in 1994 and the considerable public funds by which it is being maintained.

Lack of independent investigative powers

Discarding the heavy sarcasm however, the extreme politicisation of the Commission and its activities is to be deeply regretted. Repeated exposes in the media regarding massive corruption scandals in Sri Lanka have been disregarded by the Commission on the basis that it is not able to investigate a complaint on its own initiative.

If this argument is taken even theoretically at face value, then the Commission itself must surely call for its enabling law to be amended in order to permit investigations on its own volition or suo moto investigations? Has the Commission made such a call in such a manner as to invoke at least public sympathy for its plight in much the same manner as the Elections Commissioner (for example) keeps constantly doing to his credit, it must be said?

Committing to a rejuvenated anti-graft body

It is because of the fundamental failure of such institutions as the Bribery and Corruption Commission that accusations relating to extreme financial corruption on a grand scale are merely frivolously bandied about at election time. For example, if one takes the accusations which are currently being made by the government against the chief opposition candidate, it would be most certainly safe to assume that if the General had continue to play in the government ranks, none of these allegations would have come to light. In that sense, the theatrics engaged in by the state media and the government spokesmen only highlights the most profound nudity of the accusers themselves. They are able to engage in such farcical dramas due to the bribery and corruption law being rendered a veritable dead letter.

The public must call upon the incumbent and the challenger both to commit to a revamped Bribery and Corruption Commission drawn not only from the ranks of the retired judiciary but reflecting other professional sectors and with a credible background in fighting corruption. The body needs to have its own highly trained and dedicated investigators and powers to initiate its own investigations. Its financial independence must also be secured.

Reflections on issue-less campaigns

The problems therefore are endless, whether they concern overall governance issues such as the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, the reducing of national security laws and the resettling of thousands of traumatized internally displaced persons, the opening up of media and freedom of expression within a modernized legal framework and the effective tackling of bribery and corruption.

However, despite the gravity of these manifold problems, the election campaigns continue not to be focused on issues, (limited as they are to election manifestoes), but rather, on a personalized battle of the incumbent against the challenger with each having his army of frenzied detractors and supporters.

Regardless of whoever may win this exceedingly mighty tussle, the nature of the fight certainly does not augur very well for Sri Lanka’s sorely tested democratic systems.