Court verdict sheds light

The government- or more specifically, the green turned blue Minister Sarath Amunugama banned the screening of Purahanda purportedly because the film would have damaged the morale of the armed forces. Never mind the fact that the movie had won international acclaim and a special award for veteran actor Joe Abeywickrema- Amunugama was determined that the Lankan public should not see it. The storyline of the movie deals with an ageing father who denies his son's death in the war and subsequent exploitation of the dead soldier's family by a corrupt bureaucracy. 

So, the only reason why Mr. Amunugama would have considered banning Purahanda was because it was close to the truth. As far as demoralizing the armed forces is concerned, if the blasting of a dozen aircraft didn't do it, it is unlikely that Purahanda will. But then, Mr. Amunugama should know. His specialty is mass communications and he was the much-dreaded Competent Authority at a time when J. R. Jayewardene wielded the censorship. Apparently little has changed since then- except his party loyalties- and Mr. Amunugama still believes he is the arbiter of what you and I should see and hear. And that is what is so sweetly ironic about this verdict. It holds Mr. Amunugama personally culpable for the erroneous decision and orders him to pay a good 50,000 rupees to director Prasanna Vithanage as compensation in addition to five times that amount to be paid by the State Film Corporation. 

Fifty thousand is not much in these inflation-ridden days you'd say, but then it is the spirit of the decision that matters. Maybe one should spare a thought for the minister-they are already passing snide remarks at him and calling him 'Amana' gama. Did he after all take that decision by himself or did he consult, for instance, the President who has on more than one occasion declared her love for the movies where her late husband made a living? Well, if he did and the President made the decision, he could always ask her to pay up! And that leads to another hypothetical question. 

The President decided to call for a referendum costing half a billion rupees. Already, about two hundred million rupees have been spent on printing the ballot papers. Now, there is talk of the referendum being scrapped. 

If that happens, the President must surely be personally liable for the unnecessary expenses incurred by the state. And how on earth- pauper that she is- would she fork out two hundred million rupees? Ah, folks get ready for that hat collection, will you? 

Dictatorship won't beget democracy

By Victor Ivan

Such practices do not destabilise a country. A country becomes destabilised only if the ruling party tries to stay on in power after losing its majority.

If the President had been respecting democratic principles, she should have asked the opposition to form the government as soon as the PA lost its majority in parliament as a result of the crossover by seven SLMC MPs.

If the President had followed such a flexible policy she could have saved her presidency, a strong all-party temporary government aimed at introducing democratic reforms would have emerged and the instability in the country might have disappeared.

The opposition had announced beforehand that the government intended to form after the no-confidence motion succeeded was an all-party one with the aim of bringing in constitution reforms to strengthen democracy. Main among these reforms was to be the abolition of the executive presidency. The opposition-led government was also to bring in reforms aimed at achieving peace. However when the no-confidence motion came up the President looked at it from a party-political perspective than from a national interest perspective. 

Apparently fearing that an opposition-led government would clip her wings, she not only prorogued Parliament, but also took steps to hold a referendum.

She thought she would easily get the result she wanted at the referendum which posed the question whether the country needed a new constitution. But fears are being raised that a positive result at the referendum would be made use of to launch an autocratic course of action in disregard of the parliamentary majority.

Although the President has the constitutional right to prorogue Parliament, she has an obligation to refrain from using that right in an arbitrary manner if she truly respects democratic principles. And if she were to go for a referendum, that too she could have done in an acceptable manner.

The argument that not only she but also President Premadasa had used the right of proroguing Parliament when there was an impeachment pending, has no substance.

President Premadasa faced the impeachment at first. However, when he found without doubt that the Speaker had entertained a no-confidence motion against him without the required minimum of signatures, he summoned the government parliamentary group, got a motion of confidence passed and sent a petition signed by 116 government MPs to the Speaker. Thereby he confirmed that the Speaker had entertained the motion of no-confidence without even the minimum number of signatures required and that he - President Premadasa - had the support of 116 of the 125 MPs of the government party. It was only thereafter that President Premadasa prorogued the Parliament.

However, in regard to the present motion of no-confidence the President's conduct has been entirely different. Had she prorogued parliament after she had shown her party's strength by means of a petition to the Speaker with more than half the members signing it, then her action might not have been improper.

A parliament in which no party had a majority large enough to form a strong government also existed under the Soulbury Constitution with a first-past-the-post electoral system. The general election of March 1960 resulted in a hung parliament. Consequently another parliamentary election had to be held in July 1960. The SLFP which had won 46 seats at the March election was able to win 75 in July while the UNP's number of seats which was 50 in March dropped to 30 in July. Thus, under any Constitution, there can arise situations in which no party gets the required majority to form a stable government. 

It must also not be forgotten that under the present constitution it is possible to carry on a government even without a clear majority because of the protection afforded by the executive presidential system.

At the parliamentary election of 1994, the PA got a majority of only one. However, the government was able to complete its term of office without facing a serious challenge with the support of the CWC.

That the UNP was responsible for setting off referendum politics by which it extended its five sixth majority in parliament in 1982 for six years without an election is not acceptable. 

What happened then was the opposition of the day did not oppose that referendum with all its might. Therefore all the political parties which were part of the opposition at the time were also responsible for that scandal. 

It must also not be forgotten that the UNP was not the only party which extended its term of office using its majority in parliament. The United Front of SLFP-LSSP-CP which came to power in 1970, too, extended its term of office by two years in 1975.

Although the President goes on repeating that she genuinely wants to change the Constitution, she has not so far proved it in practice. In 1994 she came to office promising to abolish the executive presidency. Opposition UNP leader Gamini Dissanayake said his party was prepared to extend its support to abolish the executive presidential system, but there was no commitment from the government. However, if she honestly wanted to introduce a new Constitution abolishing the executive presidency she could have done so after the presidential election in 1994, one year after the start of the term of the Parliament. She could have then dissolved Parliament and faced elections and there was a clear possibility of winning a large majority. However, she denied herself the possibility of ushering in a genuine change because she apparently chose to enjoy the fruits of executive presidency until the end of her first term of office.

A constitution is like a social contract. Whatever the shape a constitution assumes, sovereignty must rest with the people. A leader who does not respect the sovereign power of the people and democratic principles is unlikely to bring about a better constitution with more democratic features. 

How is it possible to believe that a leader who took little or no action against electoral malpractices and is not agreeable to an independent election commission usher in a better constitution?

- The writer is the editor of Ravaya

Police and political masters

By Tassie Senaviratne

Representatives from the national political parties and from the Police Department and the Attorney General's Department as well as several others were invited to the discussion. Justice Minister Batty Weerakoon represented the Government, Tyronne Fernando the UNP and Ananda Sangari the TULF. Other political parties were not represented. 

Mr. Weerakoon opening the discussion stated that he had no dispute over having a Police Commission but he had reservations about an Independent Police Commission. Yet, he emphasized that he was for independence of the Commission in regard to matters such as recruitment, promotions and disciplinary control. 

Mr Fernando admitting that the UNP administration too had made mistakes stated that things are going from bad to worse, and that the only way to salvage democracy was to make the police service independent of political control.

Ananda Sangari described some police actions and the actions of groups allegedly armed by some members of government, and pointed out how even known killers were not being arrested by the police due to political interference. 

He expressed the view that an Independent Police Commission to ensure that police work was not influenced by political considerations, was essential if there was to be peace and justice in Jaffna.

The writer, a former Superintendent of Police,pointed out that the word "Independent" should not be taken to mean absolute and total independence, but be understood in relation to the problem at hand, which is due to the politicization of the Police Service. 

It was explained that the independence that was being sought was not for its own sake, but it was that degree of independence necessary to ensure efficient and impartial implementation of the law of the land. It was also pointed out that the necessity of a Police Service Commission to ensure the independence of the members of the service and the impartial discharge of their duties has been recorded as early as in 1970 in the Basnayake Police Commission Report. To quote very briefly : 

"It would also appear that appointments and promotions are subject to political interference. Such interference affects the independence of the members of the Service and the impartial discharge of their duties.

"It would also induce the members of the Police Service to invoke the aid on their behalf of the politicians whom they oblige. The evidence discloses that instances in which the members of the Police Department have invoked the aid of politicians are known.

In the interests of the efficiency of the Police Service there should be an impartial body of persons entrusted with the power of appointing, transferring, punishing, dismissing and exercising disciplinary control.

"The appointment of a Police Service Commission should, coupled with the provision that the head of the police should not be removable except for proved misconduct _..should, in our view go a long way in securing that object."

Dr Frank de Silva head of the Foreign Intelligence said that an Independent Police Commission was not workable. One was at pains to understand his view in relation to the problem at hand or the trend of the discussion. 

There was no acceptance or denial of the huge problem that everyone else was concerned with. His statement could only have a frustrating effect on the proposals intended to salvage democracy. 

Victor Gunawardena, a private citizen, and two NGO representatives also spoke stressing the need for an independent police commission.

Mahesan Selvaratnam, former Senior DIG tabled a paper titled "A proposal for enhancing propriety and rectitude in policing". It is a compact, comprehensive and an objective study of the subject under discussion, forming a good basis for further discussion of the structural formation of a Police Commission providing the necessary degree of independence as well as checks and balances. Unfortunately contents of this paper could not be discussed due to the early power-cut which enforced an early end to the discussion.

Enough has been said about the depths to which the Police Service has degenerated due to its politicization that it needs no further elaboration here. 

Return to News/Comment Contents