Comedy in Sri Lankan politics
View(s):A February 2009 song by veteran singer and Sri Lanka’s number one entertainer Sunil Perera titled “Meka comedy country-yak (This is a comedy country)” is once again doing the rounds on Facebook … and for good reason. The song is a ditty on the lives of politicians and the general decay in society. Watch it on this weblink and enjoy:
http://www.sundaytimes.lk/141221/
That’s the good (fun) part in elections which many people in music-crazy Sri Lanka love. On a more serious note, some of the events this week and pronouncements on political platforms have led to a belief in the public domain that government officials can get away with anything, even if means violating their own rules.
Otherwise how does the government justify the presence of Defence and Urban Development Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, President’s Secretary Lalith Weeratunga and Central Bank Governor Ajit Nivard Cabraal on a panel discussion on Wednesday that was clearly promoting a presidential candidate – Mahinda Rajapaksa? Treasury Secretary P.B. Jayasundera was absent, though billed to speak, as he was indisposed, according to Treasury sources.
According to recent circulars issued by the Elections Commissioner (EC) and copied to ministry secretaries, heads of departments and others; employees of state or state corporations, during office hours or when on leave, are forbidden in promoting or assisting in criticising a Presidential candidate. “Those who do so will be dealt with strict disciplinary action,” the circular said with no explanation however of what this ‘action’ would be.
Another EC circular states that state officials such as secretaries to ministries cannot participate in any political promotion or in campaigning. (See – http://www.sundaytimes.lk/141221/)
The forum by a hitherto-unknown organisation called the “Professionals for a Stable Sri Lanka” was held simultaneously at four hotels, ‘drew’ a sizable number of government officials from Sri Lanka Telecom, Tourism, Treasury, ICTA, Economic Development Ministry, etc and raises serious questions as per officials on attending a ‘political event’ during office hours (read the EC’s circular). They were obviously there at the behest of senior officers who are equally culpable. Public officials have a right to refuse otherwise action can be taken against them under EC rules of conduct. They can also be cited as respondents in any future election petition that challenges a result.
The onus of responsibility to ensure there is a fair and free election lies in one individual – Elections Commissioner Mahinda Deshapriya. Furthermore he is also tasked with ensuring that the run-up to the poll is not marred with irregularities like public officials promoting a particular candidate through a speech or mere presence at an event.
Mr. Deshapriya has said that he would resign if it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that there had been rigging at the elections. Such assurances should also deal with events during the run up to the poll like misuse of public property and resources (official cars, etc) and individuals attending political campaigns. In the case of the business forum, the public has a right to know what action the EC would be taking on a clear violation by public officials while the campaign is on or the EC can rule that there has been no violation, according to his interpretation. Either way the public must be told.
There are also allegations that some senior officials are doing house to house campaigning, which in the absence of hard evidence may be difficult to prove unlike the highly-publicised business forum event.
At the forum, the concept of governance took a new meaning and definition. Defending criticism of good governance in the implementation of mega projects, President Rajapaksa and his top three officials described good governance as ‘achieving results’ (similar to the ‘end justifying the means’). This is what the President, in a view supported by other officials in the panel, said: “Projects being implemented on the ground and development completed so far was evidence of competence and good governance on the part of the Government. Achieving results is good governance. Not achieving results is corruption. Corporate governance is delivering results.”
One of the biggest problems in recent times has been the need to define the role of secretaries to ministries as non-political actors. Most secretaries have either willingly or been forced to bend the rules to please their political masters. A public servant is entrusted with serving the people who have given this authority to the executive and the cabinet acting as trustees. This can be taken away (through elections).
Development, rather than becoming a right of the people has turned into a political tool. Development has become a way of feathering one’s nest in the name of the people. There is also evidence on the gradual erosion of financial accountability, a connected issue.
At a civil society discussion this week, well-known jurist Radhika Coomaraswamy pleaded with the presidential candidates to create a society where there is no fear, saying to the winner: “Mr. President, please remove my fear.”
This is what most Sri Lankans fervently hope at the forthcoming election: To be able to vote peacefully and make the choice they want, not forced on them. The answer lies in the Elections Commissioner enforcing his own circulars and rules speedily and being pro-active. People should be able to elect the leader they believe is the best choice to run the country, whoever it may be. Only the Elections Commissioner can make that happen and so far his report card (performance) on this score has not been too encouraging.