Tasks before the new government

By Shanie
Courtesy: The Island


"I could not dig; I dared not rob;
Therefore I led to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?"

(April 10, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The General Election is now behind us and we have new government in place. As this column is being written, the results are trickling in. But the disappointing aspect in this election is the low turn-out of voters – the lowest in the history of parliamentary elections since independence.Even when an election was held in the midst of an insurgency, the turn-out was higher. Is it a sense of apathy or a resignation to the futility of the democratic process that has led to this. Whatever the reason, it is a sad that almost half the electorate has chosen not to exercise their franchise.

It is only when the preferential votes are counted, will the country know which candidates have been elected. Undoubtedly, there will be some new faces but also many old faces, some honourable persons and many discredited ones as well, some with a vision for the country but many with a record of sordid politicking. The above-quoted epitaph to a Dead Statesman written by Kipling soon after the death of his son in the First World War, will be apt for the many discredited faces who have, through violence and abuse of money and political power, found themselves elected to the legislature. But there will also be some honourable persons who get elected because the electorate recognises them as decent persons who can make a change to our nation’s political culture and future. These are the persons who will fit Oliver Goldsmith’s assessment of Edmund Burke:

"Though equal to all things, for all things unfit;
Too nice for a statesman, too proud for a wit;
For a patriot, too cool; for drudge, disobedient;
And too fond of the right to pursue the expedient."

Even though our Constitution has provided an all-powerful Executive President, there are many areas where the Parliament and the Cabinet of Ministers can play a constructive role. The Constitution also provides for a separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers. If each of these three arms of the government were to play a role assertive of their independence and concern for good governance, then we would have a government that respects the rule of law and pursues what is right instead of what is expedient. Our experience in this regard in the recent past has not been a very happy one, but with a change of faces at least in two arms of the government, we must urge the legislature, the executive and the judiciary to play a more independent and effective role in taking the country forward in good governance and in safeguarding the rights of the people.

The politicians of the UPFA have been urging the voters to give them a two-third majority in parliament. It is too early to say if the electorate will deny them that. But the government must not once again make the mistake of bribing opposition parliamentarians to defect with the lure of ministerial portfolios and other perks. The electorate most likely would have rebuffed such opportunists, although it is only when the preferential votes are counted would we know for certain as to who, if any, of these defectors have secured election. But politics in Sri Lanka is such that there will still be politicians who are prepared to sacrifice their conscience and their principles for short-term positions of power and perks. But the government will do the country well if they desist from this sordid bribing of potential defectors.

Why a two-thirds?

One of the ostensible reasons given for obtaining a two-third majority was that it would facilitate the enactment of a new Constitution. But it is precisely for this reason that the government should be denied a two-third majority. Both the 1972 and 1978 Constitutions were partisan documents intended to promote the ideology of the party in power because the framers of both constitutions had secured a two-third majority. They did not care to accommodate the views of the opposition and there was no attempt to obtain consensus. Such a consensual approach would have led to greater national unity and less confrontational politics, something that has plagued the country for the last thirty years. But politicians never seem to learn the lessons of history. They seem intent re-living history by repeating the same mistakes.

Constitution making should be lifted out of party politics. In neighbouring India, a Constituent Assembly which included elected representatives of the different regions and the different minority groups was set in 1946 to draft a new constitution for independent India. It took three years and dealt with thousands of proposals. There was no attempt to force the views of any party or group into the constitutional process. The result was a consensus document that was acceptable to the diverse ethnic, religious, social and regional groups that form the Indian nation.

Sri Lanka also needs an enlightened leadership that is willing to think outside linguistic, religious and party political boxes and enact a constitution that will ensure to all citizens fundamental rights, equality and justice. Chandrika Kumaratunga was one President who was willing to look at the larger picture when she presented a draft Constitution in 2000. The basic provisions of that draft had been arrived at in a select committee by consensus. It may be that she was compelled to adopt a consensual approach because she did not have a two-third majority; but she did have a vision to adopt a constitution that ensured the fundamental rights of the people and devolved power to the regions ensuring equality and justice to all citizens. But it failed in Parliament due to the shameless irresponsibility of the UNP in pandering to the communal passions of both the Sinhala and Tamil extremists. They saw that as an opportunity to bring down the government despite their agreement in the elect committee to the basic provisions. The excuse of opposition to the interim provisions of the draft regarding the term of office of the President was only a red herring – Kumaratunga had already let it be known, in writing, that she was willing to drop that clause. The disgraceful conduct of the UNP parliamentarians in the House on the day the draft was presented was only intended to arouse communal passions against the government. We trust that the leadership of both major national parties will now be more enlightened to move ahead towards a consensus constitution heeding the concerns of the minorities.

The need for national reconciliation

The early results of this General Election also indicate that the time is now right to forge national reconciliation and national unity. The President has recognised that the minorities have grievances which need to be addressed. These must be done without delay, with transparency and justice to all communities. It is possible to obtain the co-operation and participatory support of all the major parties to bring about national reconciliation. We can only hope that the new government will have the wisdom to promote inclusivity and genuine democratic participation in the process of governance

There is a need for transparency and a respect for the rights of citizens, irrespective of ethnicity or religious persuasions. In the East, for instance, there was a deep concern that some Ministers of the last government had a hidden agenda to take over lands that had been cultivated for decades by Tamils and Muslims. These were mostly lands to which the cultivators had title in the form of land permits or outright ownership. There is evidence that to prevent access to their lands, a fence has been constructed around those lands with the ostensible purpose of preventing environmental damage by elephants. These impoverished farmers need empowerment and justice from the machinations of deviously scheming politicians with a sinister agenda.

Change of Attitudes Required

All this requires a fundamental change in the mindset of those in authority. The Presidential and Parliamentary elections are behind us. Hopefully, we will not have another election for at least another five to six years. The President and the parliamentarians must now think of building and leading a united nation. They must reach out to all, especially the poor and the marginalised. They must reach out to the minorities who feel threatened and assure them of justice and equality. They must also treat their political opponents with dignity and fairness. All this must not be confined to mere soothing words, or a denial of the reality.

The emergency regulations and the Prevention of Terrorism Act have been misused over the years to harass political opposition. A change of mindset involves re-thinking the need for these regulations and allowing for dissent to flourish. The normal laws of the country are more than adequate to deal with anyone who steps outside legitimate dissent. Democratic governance is the richer when there is free exchange of views. Even abuse has to be tolerated; as the international community tolerates the undiplomatic abuse levelled at them by our politicians and other apologists for the violation of human rights in Sri Lanka. In the post-war scenario, a review of the emergency regulations and the need for the PTA is called for.

Coupled with this review, is the need to respect the rule of law. The Police, the Public Services and all other organs of government need to be depoliticised. The public must have confidence that they can seek justice and obtain justice. The 17th amendment was intended to do that. If there are loopholes in the law, they can be put right by bringing in amending legislation. They cannot be put right by flouting the law. The government and its leaders have to set an example to the rest of the country that the country’s laws need to be observed.