The government's propaganda drive, particularly in this post active fighting stage and carried out as it were, also by other covert operators in sections of the private media owned by cronies of the political leadership jostling for favours, has all the classic characteristics of typical overkill. Indeed, such insidious (in some instances) or sledgehammer (in other instances) attempts at stifling criticism have the opposite effect of uniting sometimes disparate groups and individuals who are compelled to say that 'enough is enough.'

As history has taught us, this is how a critical mass of opinion may form which, in time to come, does tend to have a direct impact on electoral politics. The government and its cronies would indeed be better advised to rein in their belligerent propagandists ceaselessly indulging in what has become execrably tired rhetoric as to how the entire West and its cousin aided by their sinister handmen and handmaidens in veritable fifth columns in this country are against little old Sri Lanka. Such rhetoric may have served its own purpose during phrases of active fighting. Now, this talk becomes quite meaningless and tends to dull rather than invigorate all except these meaningless propagandists who once set dancing, seem (nauseatingly) quite unable to stop.

Why this Janus-faced policy?

This is not to deny the truth of skillful propaganda on its own part by the pro-LTTE diaspora which wields considerable influence in electoral pockets in parts of Western Europe and the United States. Neither is this to deny that some within this country do have hidden agendas in the guise of a fight for good governance. However, the best manner in which the government can engage and ultimately defeat such attempts is by constructive engagement on issues and by showing its determination to correct some of the more glaring problems in governance today rather than by brute force accompanied by a current Janus-faced policy of private palavering offset by unconvincing public roars that it does not care two hoots for the West.

Recovering our bona fides

There must be demonstrated commitment that Sri Lanka's governance structures are being worked in line with our own Constitution, not to mention international treaties that we have signed onto. What we stress is the minimum, including immediate implementation of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution bringing back consequently some measure of discipline to the police force and further, correcting more of the egregious flaws in our legal framework relating to the protection of rights. These flaws are there in the form of facts for all the world to see. For example, can we rebut the fact that up to date, despite the enactment of the Anti-Torture Act in 1994 allegedly to give effect to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, there has been only three convictions under this Act with a vast number of cases pending and more than twenty acquittals of accused police officers in the main? Many of these cases relate not to torture of persons of Tamil ethnicity committed during the war in the North and East but rather, the most mundane resort to torture as a part of the routine of law enforcement in respect of ordinary villagers, Sinhalese in the main.

These cases have fallen by the way due to bad investigations, lack of witness protection, lacklustre prosecutions and a legal process delayed to the point where its very ethos becomes negated. It is the same pattern with cases of other grave human rights violations including cases of enforced disappearances from the South in the eighties as well as the more recent cases from the North and East of persons of predominantly Tamil ethnicity. It is quite amusing that the lame old excuse that a Commission of Inquiry had been appointed in respect of the North and East cases still continues to be trotted out by the government.

There would be far more credence to this explanation if, at least, the Report of the Udalagama Commission of Inquiry was made public in all its considerable (we hope) glory rather than doctored and alleged extracts being published in favourite newspapers and government websites (see the Defence Ministry website of 27/07/2009 reproducing a purported extract from the Lakbima newspaper). And what, by the way, has happened to the draft Witness Protection Law still languishing on the Order Paper of Parliament, now for well over a year?

Rights of suspects

Among the other host of problems that plague our governance systems, can we deny that our ordinary criminal procedure, (let us forget for a while about the horrendous abuses committed under emergency law), lacks basic safeguards such as the right of a suspect to obtain confidential legal representation while being held in custody? This right has also been dismissed by the National Human Rights Commission who has declared in the meantime that Sri Lanka does not need to comply with all standards of international human rights law re liberty rights, in blatant contradiction of the dictates of the Act under which this body is established.

Ancillary rights are also not secured such as the right to an independent medical examination as opposed to being taken before medical officers of the police officers' choice who, (as the Supreme Court itself has found on several occasions), do not even examine the suspect but cursorily record what is required by the accompanying police officer. Yes, there are countries worse off than ours and yes, the hypocrisy on the part of some Western leaders is hard to stomach. However, the luxury of engaging in these comparisons cannot be indulged in beyond a point if we continue to ask for handouts (privileges, concessions as the case may be) from the West.

The effects of overkill

The indictment and harsh sentencing of senior journalist J.S. Tissainayagam under vaguely defined emergency laws has invited criticism even among people of no particular political opinion. This may not have been the case if preventive measures had been taken under ordinary laws if it was indeed believed that this little known North Eastern Monthly or its head was a distinct threat to national security, as opposed to (for example) the LTTE's own spokesmen who have been released on bail, mind you.
And the question is simple. Are lawyers to refrain from appearing in 'unpopular' cases and are analysts now supposed to stop studying what is wrong with our systems of governance and suggesting soberly thought out remedial measures due to fear of government reaction? This is truly a ridiculous state of affairs. On whom exactly is the burden to remedy the faults in our systems?

While reining in its ineffectual and distinctly counter productive political propagandists, this is a question that this government and its policy leaders should well direct towards themselves, at least at this late point of time.