Columns

At last. The Speaker Hon Karu Jayasuriya is reported to have told a group of civil society organizations that he would introduce a Code of Conduct for members of parliament.

Of course this is not the first time in recent times that we have heard about an impending code intended to keep our law makers treading the straight and narrow. With the new president promising good governance and clean politics it was only natural that the cleaning should begin in the place where laws are made for the good of the people – well that’s what we are told anyway.

An attempt to introduce a Code of Conduct for members of parliament intended to keep our law makers treading the straight and narrow

So laying down the law that would dictate the behavior of our lawmakers seemed appropriate enough, the public having been treated to theatrics and farce in the ostentatious chamber by the Oya not seen since the days of that cinematic duo Manappuwa and Josie Baba played by Eddie Jayamanne and Rukmani Devi (if I remember correctly).

Those who have followed the political trajectory in the last year or more would remember that there was a Right to Information (R2I) Bill which was supposedly readied even before a new administration took office in early January. It was even promised that it would cross the Diyawanna Oya and land somewhere in that massive complex in February but apparently ended up in the nearby marshes.

The public applause on hearing of R2I reverberated in every nook and cranny as a browbeaten populace waited in great expectation for the glorious day when Sri Lanka would join other South Asian nations that had already taken this decisive step.

If Ranil Wickremesinghe had had his way then we might have seen the birth of this progressive move some 12 years ago. But with his departure it no longer mattered to his successors who would rather see that information, especially relating to controversial deals and decision-making, remain buried in some cavernous tomb like Tutankhamun than be spread across the pages of newspapers.

Alas nearly nine months after that premature announcement it is gestating horribly as we anxiously wait to see it firmly embedded in the statute books so that the media could delve into what officials have hidden all these years to safeguard their political masters and themselves from public exposure and censure.

It might be said in Karu Jayasuriya’s favour that he did try to push freedom of information legislation through a private member’s motion. But he would have already known that any attempt to make it law was already dead in the water nearby. But now that the Hon. Jayasuriya has donned wig and gown, so to speak he can initiate moves to tame our boisterous and recalcitrant legislators some of whose conduct have bordered on the obnoxious.

He must hope that such a code would help restore orderly proceedings and return dignity to our supreme legislature. One reason for telecasting live parliamentary proceedings was surely the hope this will help revive dignified discussion and debate. If the nadagam enacted in some of our television programmes when politicians appear is any indication then it is a vain hope.
All the same The Speaker’s announced initiative is welcome particularly if it changes for the better our recent political culture which has sullied parliamentary proceedings and reduced it on occasion to the theatre of the absurd.

In years long gone by we as students sat in the galleries of the old parliament-by-the-sea to listen to debates where illustrious and educated parliamentarians taught us lessons we would never have found in text books. With the next budget debate only weeks away it might be recalled that debates then were conducted with decorum not like the raucous slanging matches that the public is witness to today.

This contrast in parliamentary conduct between then and now is all the more reason why it is imperative to have a code that MPs are expected to adhere to though behaviour inside is only a part of the overall conduct as determined by a code in some other countries.

But is controlling the conduct of MPs alone enough to transform today’s abhorrent political culture into what would be publicly acceptable? True, they are the representatives of the people in the supreme legislature. But do they respect the people once they have obtained the people’s ballot and got themselves elected.

There are other elected people’s representatives in different layers of administration in the provinces and districts. The thuggish behavior of some of them has been splashed in the print and electronic media. How often have we heard of a chairman or member of a pradeshiya sabha or a member of one provincial council or another, assaulting school principals or humiliating teachers by getting them to kneel before this temporary representative of a make-believe all mighty.

It is no feather in the cap of our MPs that the vast majority of disgraceful incidents that have occurred in recent years have involved politicians in the lower tiers of governing bodies. That is not to say that even after the National Unity Government (NUG) was installed in August one or two bumptious MPs have not used their new positions of power and privilege to threaten and intimidate police officers or other officials doing their duty.

The Hon Jayasuriya will no doubt draw inspiration from the “Mother of Parliaments” where a Code of Conduct emerged after the Lord Nolan Committee recommended it and it was adapted following a resolution in the Commons in July 1995. The then prime minister John Major appointed the Nolan Committee with a mandate to report on Standards of Conduct in Public Life. In doing so it recommended a code not only for MPs but also for a wide cross section of persons holding public office.

Space does not permit a detailed mention of the contents of the Nolan report. Suffice it to say that it laid down seven principles which were to apply to MPs and anyone who works as a public office holder elected or appointed to public office nationally or locally and to all those appointed to work in a whole range of bodies and institutions including the civil service and the police.
The seven principles of public life were selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

Strict adherence to the code is essential if its objectives are to be achieved. The Commons has a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards who assists the House Committee on Standards in investigating any breaches of the code. Will we have such an impartial official and what punishment will be meted out to violators?

Such a code cannot be limited just to MPs. Ways must be found to extend this to cover politicians in other elected bodies and certainly public officials, especially since the public service has been so politicized and steeped in corruption that people’s confidence in holders of public office has reached its nadir.

It is no longer possible to count on an outdated Establishment Code to cleanse the public service or restore faith in an administrative service that was once held in great respect in Asia and elsewhere. As important as it is, holding only MPs on a tight leash is not enough. It must cover other areas where abuse seems a daily occurrence.