Editorial

9th July 2000

The Warsaw Declaration

Refore the ink was dry on Foreign Minister's Lakshman Kadirgamar's signature on the Warsaw Declaration on democracy and with his message on behalf of Sri Lanka still ringing in the ears of Madeline Albright and the Foreign Ministers assembled in Warsaw, the Sri Lankan government decided to re - impose press censorship.

We agree with the validity of Minister Kadirgamar's strident call to the democracies of the world to come to the aid of Sri Lanka, a "democracy in peril'' in the face of a vicious terrorist assault aimed at the state. But, can we agree with Minister Kadirgamar in his characterization of Sri Lanka as a democracy in the first place? Can we also agree that Minister Kadirgamar represents the kind of democracy that he touted Sri Lanka to be, in his stirring Warsaw address?

After a now celebrated courtroom snub that declared the press censorship imposed by the government illegal, the government did not show it is in a mood to relent on its campaign against the media. The greatest threat the freedom of the press now poses, is probably to the election prospects of the government. Where also is the "strong Bar'' and the "independence of the judiciary'' that Minister Kadirgamar talked of to the assembled potentates in Warsaw that morning?

Minister Kadirgamar was also right in saying that "a democracy even at a time of war has to remember the rule of law, the freedom of the press and all the requisites of the freedom of a practicing democracy that we talk of in the Warsaw Declaration.'' (The Warsaw Declaration in sum, is a re-affirmation of all the principles of democracy, the right to freedom of expression etc., that have long been recognized by the international community of nations.)

A fair assessment of that statement by the Minister would be that any restrictions that are placed on the freedom of the press and other democratic freedoms during times of strife have to be bona fide — and for the limited purposes of prosecuting a war, or dealing with a specific situation of crisis.

But, recent court judgements such as the one on censorship, should display even to the most removed of observers of events that the government's clamp down on the press is suspect, and that its bona fides are severely in question in this regard. The suspicions regarding the state's bona fides may have been confirmed with the courtroom snub, but the modus operandi of the clamp down seemed to indicate from the very beginning the ulterior motives of the censorship.

Newspaper articles that had nothing to do with the ongoing strife but had everything to do with issues such as corruption, malpractice and party politics, were kept away from public scrutiny. Articles in the business pages were censored — and newspaper sub-editor's were left wondering whether the obituaries were going to be next.

What vestiges of democracy are left, seem now to be dependent on the courts, which on occasion seem to deliver some sound judgments. But, it's no secret that the integrity and independence of the courts too have been under assault. This should be obvious at a time when all Supreme Court judges have asked the President to make a statement on a bribery allegation that has been made against one unnamed judge of the highest court in the land - only to be met with a deafening silence from the Presidential Secretariat.

The President of the country has maintained a nonchalant silence despite this request. Is that standard practice, we wonder, in a democracy that speaks of a long tradition of judicial independence? Or, are we in the process of giving new meaning to terms such as freedom, independence and the availability of democratic rights?

Minister Kadirgamar's call in Warsaw would have been clearer- if only his Government practised what he preached, from Colombo.

The Political Column