Will democracy survive at crucial elections?

The PA is not prepared for a free and fair election at any level. Its recent history has been certainly disgraceful, and replete with corruption and violence. 

The history of the PA's main contender, the UNP, too is disgraceful. It was the UNP, which introduced institutionalized violence and corruption to the country. However the party was flexible enough to at least make an attempt to get rid of it. But the PA which came to power promising a democratic administration failed to show that it had even the flexibility that the UNP had. 

The PA's victory at the Wayamba election was plunder committed in the open. Although the Elections Commissioner himself had to admit publicly that it was the most corrupt election ever in this country, those who came to power through a plunder committed in public were not deprived of that power. The Elections Commissioner remained silent thereafter leaving the question to be settled by the courts. The courts themselves did not offer a satisfactory answer. Now the plunderers of Wayamba have become a legal ruling party with no challenge to it. 

If this vicious system is allowed to continue even what remains of democracy in the country will certainly disappear before long. The main challenge before the country today is whether the people have the ability to prevent such an eventuality. 

It is true that there has arisen a stronger demand than there has ever been in the history of Sri Lanka for a free and fair election. Trade unions, professional organisations, public organisations the Buddhist clergy and the Catholic clergy have become co-partners in that struggle as never before. 

The Commissioner of Elections too is going to follow a forceful policy to prevent electoral malpractices. The EU observers too appear to be going about their duty in a far more systematic manner than any other time. All these are positive features but it remains to see whether these attempts alone would overcome the challenge. 

Earlier there was at least the judiciary to which one could turn to for justice when there was a serious shortcoming or malpractice in the electoral process. However the experience of Wayamba shows that if the party in power can ruin an election even through villainy, even the judiciary is unable to grant any relief. 

It is widely believed that the President appointed as the head of the judiciary a person who was about to be expelled from the legal profession to keep the judiciary in such a position that it would not challenge her autocratic decisions. Although it was a step towards abolishing the independence of the judiciary the official parliamentary opposition did not rise against it. Now they are paying for their folly.

Among the principal personalities involved in the process of drafting a new Constitution for the PA was Sarath Silva. It was Mr. Silva who functioned as the head of the panel of judges who inquired into the legality of the Constitution. The fundamental rights case instituted by the UNP Chairman Karu Jayasuriya, making the heads of the ITN and the Lake House respondents was to be inquired into by a panel of judges presided over by Dr. Amarasinghe. Mr. Silva not only brought this case which could have a decisive effect on electoral activities before a panel of judges headed by himself but also referred the charges against the Lake House to the Press Council and those against the Rupavahini to the Human Rights Commission, ruling that the matter was not worthy of an inquiry by an institution like the Supreme Court. 

It was Wijedasa Rajapakse who appeared for respondents in that case. He is not only the legal advisor to Ministers Mangala Samaraweera and S.B. Dissanayake but also the person appointed by Mr. Samaraweera as the President of the Press Council which is under him. A majority of the members of the human rights commission are political appointees in institutions under Mr. Samaraweera. Finally the case against two institutions under Mr. Samaraweera was referred to the Press Council and the Human Rights Commission. This is equivalent to handing over a case filed against Minister Samaraweera to two semi-judicial institutions of a special kind, which function under Mr. Samaraweera himself. 

If the PA succeeds in winning this election by any means there will be a way to correct it through the judiciary? If not, will it mean the country will be on the verge of anarchy? 

Inside the glass house

Editorial/ Opinion Contents