By Victor Ivan
The rule of law is essential for the survival of a democratic political system. If the rule of law is broken, the democratic political system is also harmed.
Bringing LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran under the rule of law is supposed to be the main challenge before the country in enforcing the rule of the law.
However, before thinking of bringing Prabhakaran — who is fighting a war from the jungles —under the law, it would be desirable to compel the President, the cabinet and heads of the judiciary and other administrative arms to respect the rule of the law.
If the very people who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution and who have an obligation to enforce and interpret the constitution are instead flouting it, then it is more serious a matter than Prabhakaran — who does not recognise the Constitution — flouting it.
The intent of the recently passed 17th Amendment to the Constitution was to minimise the effects of political interference on the judiciary, the public service, the police and the Elections Department.
Although it has not been possible to set up an Election Commission, the Amendment gives the Election Chief all the powers of an Election Commission until such a commission is set up.
In a democracy, sovereignty lies in the people. The people exercise their sovereignty through elections where their representatives are elected.
The aim of enacting an independent Election Commission was to do away with the possibility of the government in power using or misusing state power and state resources.
However, even before the ink on the 17th Amendment could dry, the President and her Cabinet, are allegedly using state power and resources to the maximum for election activities.
*The government increased the salaries of the government servants.
*The government made non-permanent public servants permanent.
*The government has distributed Rs. 1000 million at the Pradeshiya Secretariat level without parliamentary approval.
*The government is using resources such as funds, vehicles and employees for electoral activities.
In disregard of the election laws, the government is using the state media for its propaganda work.
Although the 17th Amendment has vested in the Election Commissioner enormous powers, it appears he is not using these powers to put an end to the abuse of state resources.
The judiciary which is the only institution that can enforce the law in such instances of state abuse also appears to be ineffective.
When a politician came before the Supreme Court stating that Wayamba Provincial election malpractices might be repeated at the subsequent Provincial elections too and asked court to order relevant authorities to take necessary action to ensure a free and fair election, the Supreme Court of the day saw the merits of the petition.
It ordered the election commissioner and the IGP to take all necessary steps to ensure a free and fair election and to inform the Supreme Court of the steps taken. However, things are not as progressive today as they used to be. During the election 2000, when two petitions were filed in the Supreme Court against the state media, the two petitions were dismissed even without an inquiry.
Thereafter, subsequent to the passage of the 17th Amendment, when there were petitions seeking the enforcement of that law at this election, the Supreme Court followed a similar trend.
General elections are held for the people to elect a government of their choice.
After the announcement of an election, the ruling party becomes a caretaker government and that caretaker government has an obligation to act in such a way so as not to cause any obstacle to the democratic process of electing a government.
If a caretaker government disregards this principle and uses the power of the state to secure victory by violent and corrupt means, then the social approval for a democratic political system also collapses.
Its final outcome will be that the struggle for power that should occur within a peaceful and democratic way will be transformed into a struggle conducted by violent means.
The Sunday Times economic analysis
By the Economist
The country waits in the expectation that the government to be formed soon after the election would be one that would place economic issues at the forefront of its agenda. For far too long we have seen the economy drift in inhospitable international economic waters without a captain to steer it to some stability. Just at the time when the country needed a political leadership that would have placed the long run economic interests of the country at the forefront of its activities, we experienced a period of total neglect of these issues.
The uncertainty of remaining in office hindered the government from taking strong and meaningful steps to mitigate the adverse impacts of the global recession. The alliance with a political party that had a diametrically opposite economic programme spelled economic disaster. The JVP, a party that had a very small following in the country was dictating economic policies. The majority parties economic policies were reversed, albeit in some significant areas.
In as far as the economy is concerned it is the likelihood of the JVP dictating economic policies that pose a serious threat to the economy. This possibility is nothing less than a dangerous economic scenario as the dictates of the JVP will ensure that the country would be unable to pursue a pragmatic course of economic policies. It would reverse the course of liberal economic policies pursued since 1977; it would lead to a withholding of substantial needed economic assistance from multilateral international agencies such as the IMF, World Bank and the Asian Development Bank; it would spell the end of foreign investment; it would result in an end to a number of economic and social reforms vitally needed for the country to build its capacities to meet the challenges of international competition. Ironically at the very time that the communist regimes of China and Russia are attempting to attract foreign investment and attract joint ventures, in Sri Lanka, despite its small economy that necessitates such policies much more, might revert to proven unproductive inward looking economic policies.
The tragedy is that these issues are being submerged in a host of other emotive political issues that may once again be the deciding factors. The voters must choose a government that will give priority to economic issues. And that vote has to be massive enough for one of the two main parties to ensure that we avoid economic chaos.
Unless the danger of unworkable coalitions is recognised widely and the public vote is emphatic for a regime that would take the country forward, Sri Lanka is likely to be a basket case within this decade. The likely economic fall would be of such proportions that all the presidents and governments to follow may not be able to put the economy together once again.
|
