The winter of our discontent
These times
are, in truth, the 'winter of our discontent.' Never has reality
contrasted in a more surreal manner with theory - and never have
we felt so helpless about the contrast. The down surge has no political
colourings, indeed, posturings by senior figures of both the major
parties have that same air of desperate unreality and begs the same
question; can these things be actually happening when the fate of
this country and its people is so obviously in issue? If the continuing
fracas over the Development Lotteries Board was not sufficient to
demonstrate this point, more outstanding examples of this disparity
are manifest in this week's happenings.
In the first
instance, we have had an upsurge of governing party politicians
involved in public brawls, the most recent of which was the unsavoury
incident this week when a parliamentarian from the South, on a personal
high with something more than natural good spirits, fired in the
air during a wedding reception at one of the city's premier hotels.
Rightly, this
act should have been condemned in the roundest terms by his party
seniors. Instead, what we had were weak disclaimers from none other
than the Government's Interior Affairs Minister John Amaratunga
who preferred to say that this act had only been in self defence
and, in any case no one had been hurt. Though this outrageous reaction
was mitigated somewhat by the tougher stand taken by General Secretary
of the United National Party, Senerath Kapukotuwa, the damage control
was insufficient. After all, these antics had not been the first
of their kind but had been preceded by equally serious incidents
including the storming of a police station by another member of
parliament.
To add the
required measure of further incredulity to the process, we had a
political killing of an opposition provincial councillor in the
heart of Colombo, in these supposedly non-war times, accompanied
by an equally ridiculous debate on whether or not he had been killed
in a high security zone.
As contrasted
to this reality, we had this week's announcement by the government
that a Code of Conduct is being legislated for parliamentarians.
The Code, which has had significant civil society involvement through
the Organisation of Professional Associations, has exhortatory phrases
relating to public duties and Selflessness in Personal Conduct for
parliamentarians that appear to belong to a vastly better world
than that in which we presently find ourselves in.
Pathetically,
it reminds parliamentarians of the obligations imposed on them by
existing law and prescribes penalties ranging from reprimand to
one year suspension/ revocation of privileges. At its severest,
the findings of an Ethics Committee appointed under the law are
reported to the relevant authorities for legal action.
While this
is all well and salutary, are we really supposed to believe that
existing parties in this country do not have existing fair procedures
and processes (as opposed to summary dismissals which could be clearly
challenged in court) laid down for the discipline of its MPs for
aberrant behaviour?
History has
demonstrated that both the major parties have acted against their
own members only for breaches of political faith rather than pure
and simple violation of the law. This is very true for the People's
Alliance as well, notwithstanding the typical and sanctimoniously
opportunistic statements of their spokesman Sarath Amunugama this
week that the government has failed miserably in its upholding of
law and order. Before a lapse of memory becomes more acute, the
People's Alliance should be reminded in this context of the unchecked
breaches of discipline by its party men and women when in power,
a list of which would not suffice the paper on which this column
is written.
What this country needs to see is actual deterrent party action
against errant elected representatives and not more and more laws,
more and more Codes and more and more committees.
Towards that
end, it would also help immeasurably if the Minister in charge of
law and order is more circumspect about the statements that he makes
regarding parliamentarians who violate basic standards of good conduct
and behaviour. In the alternative, the portfolios that he bears,
including that of Minister of Christian Affairs, could be switched
for something less onerous such as Coast Conservation.
On a more esoteric
plane than drunken parliamentarians, we also had an unpleasant reminder
of how flawed our rule of law processes are, in ongoing protests
by the Trade Federation of Customs, Excise and Inland Revenue Department
regarding the Inland Revenue (Special Provisions) law giving amnesty
for tax defaulters. Seventeen member unions, all part of the Federation,
were protesting on the basis that they had not been consulted on
the law by the Finance Ministry, prior to it being passed.
In a parallel
development on the same matter, arguments on behalf of a citizen
in the Supreme Court during the week contended that the amnesty
law had not been validly passed by Parliament due to fundamental
departures from constitutional safeguards and procedures stipulated
in the enacting of laws. Particularly, it was pointed out that though
the Bill in that regard was presented by the Finance Minister to
Parliament on the 1st of January, 2003, copies of the same were
available at the Government Publications Bureau only more than a
month later and that too, in limited numbers.
This had effectively prevented the citizens in this country from
apprising themselves of the exact contents of the law which has
far reaching impact on separation of powers between President and
Parliament and not only with regard to tax amnesties and of challenging
the Bill within the one week period of it being put on the Order
Paper of Parliament as constitutionally mandated.
The exact question
as to whether the Court has jurisdiction to consider the challenge
to the law given that it has the certification of the Speaker placed
upon it in the context of the constitutional prohibition prescribing
that such a certification will transform a Bill into law, the validity
of which cannot be inquired into, pronounced upon or called into
question by any court, is now pending for determination.
In issue are
some ingenious arguments that base themselves on the contention
that an Act can only be valid when it has been passed according
to the existing rules of law as to manner and form and procedure,
in regard to which this column does not comment since the matter
is before court.
However, it
is self evident that recourse to such constitutional gymnastics
would not have been necessary if basic rules of governance had been
observed. These rules still remain to be prescribed despite past
equally unpleasant experiences where citizens had been unable to
lay their hands on proposed bills before they were passed by Parliament.
For instance, the government can stipulate that all bills, before
being put on the Order Paper of Parliament (bringing into law the
one week rule with regard to challenge) should be available at the
Publications Bureau at least two weeks before, in order that the
public may reasonably apprise themselves of the proposed laws by
which they would be governed. This simple safeguard is however,
still not observed.
Democracy in
this country has rapidly come to be not government by the people
and for the people but rather a process of a deft sleight of hand
for the fools and by the fools. It is time and more that we rid
ourselves of this obsession with laws and doctrines and stick to
a few simple ground rules based on decency and good sense in our
governance processes, whether it is with regard to law and order,
the passing of bills or the management of a lotteries board.
What was needed
meanwhile to complete this framework of surreality was the rejecting
by the LTTE of the interim authority proposed by the Government,
predictable though it was. At week-end, we had this factor realised
as well. Perhaps the gods have, in actual fact, truly cursed this
isle. |