A mix of comic theatre and deadly intent

It is a baffling question. Is the blundering of this government in almost every aspect of its domestic and foreign policy, deliberate or sweetly unintentional?

Manifestation of unholy chaos

Is this part of the unholy chaos that we see with obscene numbers of ministers speaking on every topic under the sun resulting in one Cabinet Minster's pronouncements to the media being almost immediately refuted by another of his great many colleagues? And what about press statements that contradict each other with the English versions containing inaccurate translations of the original Sinhala statements leading to virtual international incidents on occasion?

This week's 'directive' issued to nongovernmental organizations by the National Secretariat for NonGovernmental Organisations under the Ministry of Defence is another excellent case in point. Taken verbatim, this 'directive' declares with all the solemnity of a proclamation handed down by the historically infamous Inquisitor prior to torturing heretics in ancient times, that 'it has been revealed' that certain non-governmental organizations 'conduct press conferences, workshops, trainings for journalists and dissemination of press releases.'

But the esteemed gentleman from this Secretariat who put his signature on this document may do well to acquaint himself with the fact that grandiose 'revelations' are not, in fact, occasioned by such boring activities. Press conferences and the like are routinely engaged in by organizations when the same applies to the work that they do. These activities, by their very nature, are conducted in the open. And in what universe could the training of journalists possibly be seen as a sinister activity? Offending the maxim of legality

Regardless, the 'directive' announces with ludicrous force that these activities are 'beyond' the mandate and that such organizations should therefore (sic) 'prevent from' such 'unauthorised' activities with immediate effect. But who determines what is authorized and what is not? And who defines what is within a particular mandate and what is not? Is it the Ministry of Defence, god forbid? The applicable law under which the Secretariat functions certainly does not authorize this.

At this rate, the people of Sri Lanka may soon be told that gathering at a wayside tea boutique to gossip over politics may also be 'unauthorised.' The first maxim of legality is that restrictions on freedoms if they are to be valid, must be clearly defined, they must be authorized by law and must, importantly, be proportionate to a legitimate objective sought to be achieved. This directive offends on each of these counts. Its wildly ungrammatical phraseology is incidental even though this makes it a target for immediate mockery.

But this mixture of comic theatre and deadly intent seem to be a toxic combination governing the policies (if they can be referred to as such) of the Rajapaksa administration. Colloquially put, one does not know whether to laugh or to cry. Access to legitimate information

There are precedents for this type of nonsense even though the excuse then was that restraint ought to be observed as a war was raging. For example, censorship regulations imposed under emergency order by the Kumaranatunga Presidency prohibited any statement pertaining to the official conduct, "moral" or the performance of the Head or of any member of the armed forces or the police forces etc .

he question was whether T this meant that one cannot comment on the 'moral conduct' of the Head of the armed forces and so on? Or was it that "moral" should, in fact, be read as morale? And why should not public conduct be the subject of scrutiny if it is not linked to matters of national security?

These over-broad directives were challenged before the Supreme Court and declared to be unconstitutional. Information that must legitimately be placed in the public domain has to be so placed. This is a fundamental principle of the Sri Lankan Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which we are a signatory. These principles are still applicable. Restrictions on basic rights may be imposed only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. In the alternative, we may as well publicly toss our Constitution to the gutter. Some may well argue that it is already in the gutter, of course.

Moreover this 7th July 2014 directive was issued at the precise point that Sri Lanka is besieged by legitimate allegations of creeping authoritarianism engineered by a family dominated regime. Does the Rajapaksa Presidency need more battles on its front? Charlatans exist in the non-governmental sector as they do in academia, the professional sector and the governmental sector. But this does not justify badly drafted directives lacking legal intent. Was public life ever more odious than this?

Indeed charlatans predominate in political life more than in any other sphere. This week, an innocuous newspaper vendor selling his papers at a small kiosk in the Kurunegala town was (allegedly) hammered by supporters of the Chief Minister of the NorthWestern province. This was after he sold newspapers featuring the recent ugly brawl over a television chat show between this Chief Minister and a United National Party parliamentarian from the Badulla District. Opposing chants of 'he bit me' and 'I did not bite him' by the two brawling politicians were carried prominently across the front pages of the newspapers. The aggrieved newspaper vendor has, with difficulty, lodged a police complaint though the end result of the inquiry is a foregone conclusion.

Was public life this odious even when the State was combating insurgencies in the North and in the South? The answer to this question is unequivocally in the negative.

It is time that we rid ourselves of starry eyed fantasies that the end of conflict in 2009 meant the dawning of a new era. It is time that we insisted on basic decency and the strict observing of legality on the part of politicians as well as powerful public servants who behave worse than politicians in the conduct of our affairs.