Legislative process must conform to principles of good governance

The exercise of the franchise at regular intervals is one of the characteristics of a vibrant democratic system. If citizens are not allowed to exercise their franchise at the prescribed times laid down by the law it will immeasurably weaken democracy. The issue of how much leeway the political party in power should have, to vary the dates of elections to suit its political agenda is a matter which has long been discussed among all sections of society for a long time.

It is in response to such concerns that the 19th Amendment enacted by this Government laid down time limits before which Parliament cannot be prematurely dissolved.

However it must also be stated that the mere holding of elections is not the only measure of a democracy. The election must be free and fair, with all sections of society being allowed to participate as candidates as well as voters. Democracy is more than the mere holding of elections but must encompass an environment where people are able to influence governance through the exercise of free speech and other democratic freedoms even during the period between elections.

Thus reducing a discussion of democracy to only the holding of periodic elections might distort the debate in a manner that does not correctly reflect the characteristics of what in modern times is understood by a democracy. Yet the issue of holding periodic elections as laid down in the law of the land is one of the core values of a democracy and one is compelled to focus on the issue at this point of time as it has taken an immediate relevance owing to the Yahapalana Government’s actions and the manner in which it has approached the reform of laws relating to Local Government and Provincial Councils.

What is disturbing is the manner in which the Government is taking decisions and implementing laws relating to the franchise in a manner similar to the previous Government. The 18th Amendment enabling Mahinda Rajapaksa to contest a third time was rushed through Parliament without adequate discussion and now this Government too seems to be following in its footsteps by pushing through reforms to the Election Law relating to Local Government and Provincial Councils with the same indecent haste.

It is unfortunate that the present Government which has done much to free the country from the authoritarian shackles that were imposed by the previous dispensation is emulating the bad practices of the former Government by rushing through various reforms without giving the Legislature as well as the public time to weigh the pros and cons of such legislation.

As the JVP has pointed out, although the contents of the amendments (with some exceptions) are acceptable in principle, the manner in which they are being rushed through is extremely problematic. In the ensuing chaos there are political parties such as the SLMC and the ACMC which fish in trouble waters to demand and receive, as they did this week, concessions designed to boost their political fortunes at the expense of the communities they represent, the country and even the Government they are members of.

The present Government has after much persuasion by these same parties agreed to change the previously laid down Mixed Electoral System of 70 percent (constituency/ward based) and 30 percent (proportionate representation) ratio to a 60:40 ratio and agreed that this ratio would apply to all elections --- Local Government, Provincial and Parliament. However taking advantage of the Government’s predicament in not having the necessary two third Parliamentarians present in Parliament at the time of the vote on the Provisional Council Election Amendment Act last week the SLMC and ACMC compelled the Government to change the ratio to 50:50.

These parties have not yet presented any justification for claiming their ‘pound of flesh’ which further dilutes the mixed nature of the new electoral system. In fact a closer examination of this proposal will show that it was designed to advance the political interests of the SLMC and ACMC at the cost of adequate representation for the Muslims as well as being detrimental to the larger interests of the country.

When elections are delayed there are often unintended consequences and the country has to often pay a heavy price for such rash and unwise decisions. The failure to hold Local Government Elections on time has had an adverse impact on the day to day lives of the people. Minister Champika Ranawake has publicly stated that the lack of a political leadership at the Local Government level during the last two years had affected the entire system of garbage collection and disposal which in turn had contributed to the dengue epidemic which has claimed many innocent lives.

In 1982 the holding of a referendum as a substitute for Parliamentary Elections contributed in no small measure to aggravation of the ethnic conflict and the emergence of the southern insurgency which again claimed thousands of lives. If Parliamentary Elections had been held in 1982 as scheduled Prabhakaran and Rohana Wijeweera may have come into Parliament and pursued their political objectives through the democratic process rather than through violent means.

As a rule of governance it is always wise to ensure that systems are in place to channel grievances and aspirations of people to the Government. Such systems also have a salutary effect of making the people feel they are stakeholders and therefore owners of the system. The breakdown or manipulation of systems to exclude the sovereign people only pushes them to look for other ways of having their grievances addressed as our recent history has shown us.

Whatever Government spokesmen may say the reason to postpone the Local Government elections for so long was its own lack of confidence in its ability to win the Local Government Elections. It is rather baffling why the Government did not use the goodwill available in the fresh flush of victory to hold the Local Government elections and this can only be put down to a grave mis- judgment on the part of the Government of its own support base.

While Mahinda Rajapaksa may have enjoyed support of the local government politicians the Government could have effectively countered it with a campaign that exposed the misdeeds of such local government members who were running riot and committing crimes ranging from raping and murdering foreign tourists to child abuse and corruption.

Even the claim that the delimitation of wards by the previous Government was not carried out properly and therefore had to be redone would have been accepted if it was speedily done. All the evidence points to a deliberate dragging of feet by Local Government and Provincial Councils Minister Faiszer Musthapha. The Chairman of the Delimitation Committee appointed by the present Government, Asoka Pieris himself had publicly stated that he had been asked by the Minister to delay the process of delimitation.

The Minister had on several occasions announced dates (at least 12, according to Rohana Hettiarachi, the head of the Election Monitoring group PAFFREL) for completing the process but not kept his word. On one occasion when Mr. Pieris had turned up at the Ministry to hand over his report pursuant to an appointment given by the Minister he found to his dismay that the Minister had gone abroad.

Even to date the Minister has not prepared the pitch to play the Local Government Elections match (to use the language of the Election Commission Chairman Mahinda Deshapriya) and continues to produce amendments to the Law which should have been forseen much earlier.

To use cricket parlance again, it seems the minister is discreetly watering the pitch whenever he wants the match to be delayed further.

However the Joint Opposition has raised another fundamental matter that is particularly worrying. This is the practice adopted by the Government both with regard to the Local Government Election Amendments Act and the Provincial Council Amendment Act of moving large number of amendments at the Committee Stage that are in variance and sometimes in conflict with the original intent of the amending legislation.

Apart from depriving the citizens the opportunity given to them by the Constitution to canvas proposed legislation in the Supreme Court it precludes pre legislative discussion among the public that can inform the legislative process in a manner beneficial to the country.

After his record of repeated broken promises with regard to the dates for completing the process leading to the conduct of Local Government Elections, Minister Musthapha’s pledge that Provincial Council Elections will be held within a year will be taken with more than a pinch of salt.

During the debate last week Joint Opposition Leader Dinesh Gunawardene accused the Minister of misleading the House and called for his resignation. This of course may be asking for too much. As Dr. Colvin R. de Silva once famously said that in Sri Lanka, ministers never (or more recently rarely resign. They only resign themselves to the situation.

Those who were members of the previous Government who identified mistakes the then Government was making but refrained from pointing them out due to various reasons did a disservice both to their own Government as well as to the country resulting in a huge political cost to themselves. It behoves all those who worked for and support the Yahapalana Government and are committed to the Yahapalana goals to keep the Government on track and ensure that it conforms to the principles of Good Governance by pointing out any wrong steps they may take.

Silence in the face of such errors of judgement or acts of political expediency will take the country down a slippery slope detrimental to the National Interest. (javidyusuf@gmail.com)