News
20A rolled back democratic space 19A had created
Javid Yousuf ‘s response to Minister Weerasekera
Public Security Minister Dr. Sarath Weerasekera in the Sunday Times of September 26, 2021 commented on the contents of the column in the National Interest captioned “All’s not well in the Public Service after the 20 A” published on September 19,2021.
The Minister’s comments are welcome and in the spirit of democratic engagement which is one of the hallmarks of a vibrant democracy. However, in view of the constraints of space this column will keep its response brief and limit itself to the core issues raised in the original article.
The thrust of the article under discussion was that the 20th Amendment had deprived the Public Servants and the Police of the space to function independently which had been created as a result of the 19th Amendment. This had resulted in several Public Officials including Police Officers being removed, transferred or resigning in large numbers when they were pressurised or their conscience pricked.
It is not the opinion of this column that immediately such mechanisms are put in place, everything will fall in to place and, hey presto, everyone will start functioning independently. On the contrary it will only empower those who are capable of exercising their professional independence to do so while those of a servile or submissive nature may not take advantage of the space created by these independent mechanisms.
But the net effect of the exercise of professional independence will ensure the common good and will add quality to Governance.
After years of dominance of the all-powerful Executive Presidency, the 19th Amendment gave the Public Servants and indeed the public at large a taste of democratic freedoms which slowly began to take root in the country over the four years that the 19th Amendment was in force.
The 19th Amendment did not bring about a transformation overnight and it took time for the impact to seep in. By the time the 20th Amendment was enacted the people had begun to enjoy the democratic freedoms and the political culture of holding Government to account had taken root.
The reverse is also true. After the 20th Amendment rolled back the democratic space by abolishing the independent Commissions and making the Executive President all powerful again, any attempt to restrict democratic freedoms will take time because the expression of dissent has become ingrained in the psyche of the people.
That is why one still sees people spontaneously expressing their opinions without fear or favour and this is based on the momentum created by the 19th Amendment.
Some acts of omission and commission of the Police in relation to the Easter Sunday attacks highlighted by the Minister can all be directly attributed to the deterioration of the Police due to the weakening of the Police service as a result of the Executive Presidency and politicization over the years.
The fact that the suicide bomber Zahran was freely moving about despite his violent behaviour for a long period of time without being arrested despite the existence of several open warrants being issued against him was a manifestation of the breakdown of the Rule of Law in the country.
The reference by the Minister of the failure of the Independent Police Commission doing “nothing to prevent the Easter attack” is a misunderstanding of the functions of the Commission. A similar misunderstanding is his accusation that the Judicial Services Commission had not objected to UNHRC Resolution 30/1 calling for the setting up of hybrid Courts.
With regard to the Minister’s criticism of the Constitutional Council, one can agree that provisions should be made to give it the power to overlook the affairs of the independent Commissions while at the same time maintaining the thin line between “overlooking” and “interfering” in the affairs of the Independent Commissions.
With regard to the claim that the 19th Amendment stripped the President of his powers to make important appointments, the Minister’s criticism is misplaced. Under the 19th Amendment the President still retained the power to make such appointments but was only subject to a process of vetting by the Constitutional Council.
It is also inaccurate to state that the majority of the votes were in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader. In fact one of the pleasant experiences of serving on the Constitutional Council was that all the Members were able to look at matters objectively and not from a political standpoint. In fact the Constitutional Council took all its decisions unanimously.
In conclusion one cannot quarrel with the Minister’s point of view that we can have all the constitutional safeguards in the world, but at the end of the day professionalism is governed by the individual’s commitment.
(javidyusuf@gmail.com)