.

L E G A L W A T C H
Final instalment of the PC elections

by Nayana
The Southern Province goes to the polls next Thursday with none of the problems that dogged this year’s earlier PC elections having been seriously addressed by the powers that be - probably because it was the powers that be who largely benefited from such problems. For unknown reasons the opposition has gone along with this passive approach and has to some extent compounded the situation.

Last January, in the case challenging the postponement of the polls in five Provinces, the Supreme Court went to considerable lengths to emphasize the constitutional independence and public duty of the Commissioner of Elections. The judgment included these words: "The Commissioner has been entrusted by Article 104 with powers, duties and functions pertaining to elections, and has been given guarantees of independence by Article 103, in order that he may ensure that elections are conducted according to law, and not to allow elections to be wrongfully or improperly cancelled or suspended, or disrupted by violence or otherwise."

Opposition

However, instead of making the Commissioner and his staff the focal point of efforts to strengthen the electoral process, the opposition parties then agreed to be part of an ad hoc Elections Monitoring Committee set up by the Government which has no statutory powers and in which the opposition parties seem to play a distinctly secondary role. This was illustrated by a report in last Sunday’s newspapers of the Leader of the Opposition requesting the President to implement the Committee’s decisions.

Commissioner

The essence of a free and fair election is that there should be one set of rules which are applied equally to all contesting parties as a matter of right. The authority charged by the Constitution with the task of doing so is the Commissioner of Elections. However, the unofficial Elections Monitoring Committee, being composed of politicians, made better news copy and hence got the lion’s share of publicity. When the Committee failed to deliver anything very significant, the impression may have been created in the public mind and in the minds of police and elections officers, that a free and fair election could only be had by grace and favour of the Government of the day.

The fact that the reported incidents in the South thus far have been less serious than those that took place in the other Provinces is to be welcomed, but is not a guarantee that there will not be a major assault from any quarter on polling day. Chief among the problems that attended elections in the recent past was the apparent inability of the Police to maintain law and order in the face of a determined onslaught on any polling station.

Last months incident at the Ratnapura Magistrate’s Court, where the Police reportedly failed to protect even the Magistrate from a political mob, strengthens the image of pusillanimity that now attaches to the men in khaki in the face of politically inspired violence. If they would not protect a judge, are they likely to protect voters and polling agents?

Unfortunately we can do no more than cite the law. It is for the proper authorities to enforce it. The Police Ordinance makes it clear that "every police officer’’ (which terms includes every rank from constable upwards) "shall be considered to be always on duty and shall have the powers of a police officer in every part of Sri Lanka".

Violence

As set out in Section 56 of the Ordinance, this duty includes prevention of crimes, preservation of the peace and the apprehension of disorderly and suspicious characters. Under that same section, a police officer is also required to obey and execute all orders and warrants issued and directed to him by any competent authority.

In terms of the Provincial Council Elections Act No. 2 of 1988, any Returning Officer or Presiding Officer is entitled to request police assistance to remove any unruly elements from a polling station. However this does not mean that the police cannot act on their own initiative to nip any election-related violence in the bud, either inside or outside a polling station. The advice the Police were given by a senior officer of the Attorney-General’s Department before the last round of elections has been quoted before in this column but bears repetition:

"[A police officer] retains all the statutory powers conferred on him as a police officer in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979 and other statutes. More specifically he has every right and is duty bound to arrest without warrant any person who commits any breach of the peace in his presence in terms of Section 32 (1) (a) of the Code.....

"The mere absence of a direction from the presiding officer is no excuse for an officer on duty to remain passive in the face of any flagrant breach of the peace committed in his presence in or outside the polling station. Indeed to remain silent in such a situation would be a gross dereliction of his duties in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act."

There have been reports of groups of persons from outside the Southern Province being brought into the area for no known purpose. Should they turn out to have mala fide intent, the Penal Code provisions relating to unlawful assembly permit such persons to be arrested the moment their intention becomes apparent. Judging by photographs that emerged from the now-notorious poll at Wayamba, the intentions of such a mob are apparent long before they reach any polling station.

Members

The Penal Code definition of unlawful assembly is particularly apt for the type of incidents that tend to occur on polling day. It makes an assembly of five or more persons unlawful if the common purpose of its members is to use force or a show of force to overawe any public servant in the execution of his duties (e.g. elections staff, police), or take possession of any property (polling cards, ballot boxes); or commit mischief (destruction of polling cards); or criminal trespass (illegal entry into a polling station); or compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do or omit to do what he is legally entitled to do (such as casting his vote).

It would be instructive to know how many charges of unlawful assembly have followed any of the Provincial Council elections held earlier this year starting with the North Western Province last January.

In Indonesia — a time to choose

by Dr. Stanley Kalpage
Indonesia’s president will be selected over the next six months. The first stage occurs on June 7 when Indonesians vote for one of 48 parties listed on their ballot papers, an increase from the three officially sanctioned by Suharto for earlier elections. The results will be announced a month later, with the trends available soon after the voting.

Voting totals in 27 provinces will determine the 462 seats in the People’s Representative Council (DPR). The military will assign another 38 seats in the DPR. The entire 500-member DPR is part of the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), which will select the president in November. The MPR will have 700 members, including 135 to be selected by provincial parliaments also being elected on June 7. Additionally, there will be 65 sectoral representatives suggested by social welfare organisations and appointed by the incumbent president.

Change is really what Indonesia’s first multi-party election since independence is all about. But a rather convoluted and partly opaque constitutional procedure for selecting a president makes drastic change unlikely. Right now, it is difficult to predict who will finally emerge as president in November. The June 7 election will give the main parties the bargaining chips for the horse-trading and coalition building in the days and weeks ahead.

Main political parties

The leading contenders in the parliamentary elections are two parties established by former president Suharto. One is Golkar, which has dominated politics in Indonesia for three decades and is now mostly in the hands of the current president, B. J. Habibie. The other is the opposition Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) led by Megawati Sukarnoputri, daughter of Indonesia’s charismatic founding father, Sukarno. PDI-P is a splinter of original PDI, which ejected Megawati in 1996 at Suharto’s urging.

Islam pervades life in Indonesia, but religion has played a marginal restricted role in politics during the 32-year authoritarian rule of former President Suharto. Muslims are an overwhelming majority (88%), but they are divided into two main groups: ‘traditionalist’ and ‘modernists’. The ‘traditionalists’ have incorporated local practices into their faith and are more moderate. The ‘modernists’ interpret Islam in a stricter fundamentalist way.

Politically, the Muslims are divided into a number of parties which include: the United Development Party (PPP), Abdurrahman Wahid‘s Nahdlatul Ulama (National Awakening Party), the Moon Star Party, the Justice Party and the National Mandate Party led by Amien Rais, whose mass charitable organisation, the Islamic Muhammadiyah, provides an umbrella for several Muslim groups.

Megawati’s electoral chances were boosted when two other major opposition parties, the National Awakening Party and the National Mandate Party, agreed to work with PDI-P to oppose the ruling Golkar party, giving these three parties together the hope of winning 50 percent of the popular vote.

Chinese hedging their bets

The Chinese make up about 4% of Indonesia’s 205-million population. In the past, the Chinese voted mostly with Golkar. Now they are not so sure. They are concerned whether the next government will practise tolerance or encourage parochialism, whether business would be promoted and whether a much-needed bank recapitalisation programme will be put in place. The choices the Chinese make are critical for their community.

It would appear that Chinese business tycoons are donating campaign funds to the four main parties: Habibie’s Golkar; Megawati Sukarnoputri’s Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle; Abdurrahman Wahid’s National Awakening Party; and Amein Rais’s National Mandate Party. The Chinese realise, however, that in the future their days of receiving special treatment are gone for good.

"Ordinary Chinese have always been a diverse group," says Ariel Heryanto, an Indonesian sociologist at the National University of Singapore. "Their votes are likely to be scattered among the big four." The community is of course staying clear of the more overtly Islamic parties that feature an anti-Christian and often anti-Chinese strain in their platforms. Ethnic Chinese — specifically targeted in riots a year ago that toppled Suharto and left 1,200 people dead — and expatriates have been flying out of the country. Many Chinese won’t vote at all.

The issues

While the election is about change, questions naturally arise as to whom change would benefit most the pribumis (native Indonesians), or the insecure religious and ethnic minorities. Another issue is the devolution of power to rural and outlying areas instead of being confined to Jakarta and heavily populated Java. The role of the army in domestic politics is also being questioned. Action against bankrupt bankers is being raised on election platforms. A very live issue is the prosecution of Suharto for corruption and nepotism.

Authoritarian former President Suharto still provokes violent demonstrations and calls for his jailing. Whilst a bitter controversy swirls around him on alleged corruption charges against him and his family, Suharto tries to appear unconcerned. "I would not leave Indonesia. I was born in Indonesia and will die in Indonesia," he said from his heavily guarded home, adding that he is spending his retirement fishing, praying and playing golf. On the first anniversary of his resignation, Indonesian students marched on Parliament, threw rocks and demanded that Suharto be tried for corruption.

Despite these national issues, the average voters are focused on matters like jobs, adequate food at reasonable prices, and safety on the streets. The Chinese are particularly vulnerable after the violent riots of last year and business firms have invested large sums to upgrade security systems.

Many people are not too anxious to see one faction or the other being dominant but they do want society to be stable so they can get about their business. There are those who think that only the army can provide such assurances. Others believe Golkar or even PDI-P would offer security . "The most important thing is for prices to be stable," says an ethnic-Chinese shop owner in Jakarta.

Since the Army (ABRI for short) nominates 38 military persons to the parliament, chief of staff General Wrionto will exert a powerful influence on who the next president will be. Moreover, the military plays an important role in preventing (and fomenting) unrest in the far flung parts of the Indonesian archipelago, comprising more than, 13,000 islands and stretched over 5000 km. This was recently evident, for example, in strife torn Christian East Timor and in the restive western Muslim province of Aceh.

Most Indonesians like Wironto personally. He allowed the students to occupy the premises of parliament during the ouster of Suharto. He stands against nepotism and corruption and has been protective of the soldiers under him. He has defended them form the accusation that they have not been able to control social unrest.

Wironto — kingmaker rather than king

The conventional wisdom in Indonesia was that, after Suharto, the president should be from Java, be a Muslim and a general. Java, because that is the largest and most prosperous island, Muslim because the country’s majority is Muslim, and a general because of the influence of the military in maintaining order and stability.

Of course, this pattern was broken with Habibie succeeding Suharto. Habibie is Muslim but neither Javanese nor a general. Wironto satisfies the three criteria. But Golkar has already chosen Habibie as its presidential candidate and Wironto’s role will be as kingmaker rather than as king. This role will be evident in the period of wheeling and dealing that will take place after June 7.

Habibie and Megawati

Habibie has won praise for dismantling the old authoritarian regime of his mentor, former President Suharto. He has pushed through democratic reforms, but remains controversial because he built his career as a loyalist and friend of Suharto, who handed power to Habibie a year ago after riots and protests forced Suharto to step down.

Under President Habibie’s guidance, Golkar has endorsed democratic reforms, apologised for corruption and other wrongdoing during the old regime, claiming to be a "new Golkar" in flashed television campaign ads.

Megawati Sukarnoputri, the most popular of the candidates, is something of an enigma. Modest, self-effacing and sincere, she has a simplicity at appeals to rural folk. She is a symbol marking a clean break with the corruption of the Suharto era.

But her political abilities are untested. Her speeches are short and uninspiring. Despite a mass following and the reverence in which her supporters hold her, it is not certain what she would do if elected. Megawati strongly opposes federalism and favours a strong central government with enough funds being provided for the provinces from their own resources.

The result and beyond

Megawati is the front-runner in the parliamentary election. A recent poll, with a margin of error of 5 percent, put Megawati’s Indonesia Democratic Party for Struggle first with 24.9 percent, followed by the National Mandate Party of Amein Rais with 19.5 percent. The Golkar Partyis also optimistic and claims more support in the rural areas where its grassroots organisation is still strong.

Although leading in the parliamentary polls, Megawati may not be able to garner enough support to win a majority in the 500-seat Parliament that has been dominated by Golkar since the early 1970s. Her elections as president in the 700-member People’s Consultative Assembly will be even more problematical and that could possibly bring the people on to the streets once again.

A comment on political reforms proposed by the Sinhala Commission
Democracy — upholding human rights and enforcing the rule of law

by R. M. B. Senanayake
The Sinhala Commission’s views on democracy and constitution making were described by a special correspondent.

The Sinhala Commission accepts democracy as a form of government and draws parallels from the Buddhist heritage. But was there democracy under King Asoka who more or less made Buddhism the state religion for the first time? Did India even in the past have a human society? Does it have a human society today?

A western correspondent referred to in the economist magazine, reports how in a railway platform in Mysore a small dark skinned man was shooed off by a bunch by a corpulent lighter hued woman as though he were a stray dog. The man belonged to a low caste.

The low castes in Uttara Pradesh and elsewhere in India are attacked, their houses plundered and their women raped by high caste Hindus. India has the same type of bad governance as we have here. In fact the pattern is very similar. There is the same nexus between the police, the politician and the criminal. The both capturing election violence prevalent in India is what was copied by our worthies in Wayamba. In India it is like here, not possible to get a telephone, a street light or even a hospital bed without a recommendation from the local MP.

Burning of widows still exists although it was abolished by the British. Today, the BJP in India is trying to do away with the secular state and introduce Hindutva, the Hindu way of life just as Pakistan established a Muslim state and plans to introduce the Sharia, subjecting fundamental rights to Islamic values.

Democracy provides for fundamental human rights and the rule of law, a law binding on the ruler as much as his subjects. They are not explicit in any eastern civilisation. As Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence "we hold these truths to be self-evident: That all man are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it...."

Religious liberty is the foundation of all other personal liberties and it was first secured by the early Christians who refused to worship the Roman Emperor and paid for it with their lives. Man’s right to decide for himself was claimed as a right not derived from the state or society but from his creator. Today fundamental rights have been accepted by many states by signing the U.N. Covenants on Civil and Political rights. Non Christian societies can derive human rights from nature — "natural liberties" of man.

Majority rule

Democracy as popularty defined is government of the people by the people for the people. What is important to stress is that it is for the whole people not only for the majority as we have wrongly practised since 1956. Everyone should have a right to participate in decision-making and everyone should count equally. A Sinhala Buddhist cannot count for more than others.

Decision-making by the majority is simply a procedural device for resolving disagreement when other methods like discussion, compromise and amendment have been exhausted. It doesn’t include passing laws when the opposition is absent from parliament.

Majority rule decision-making is justified only if there are no permanent minorities. A majority in power today should be capable of becoming a minority at the next election. Minority consent to the majority view rests upon this principle of reciprocity — that is if their turn to be a majority will come and then today’s majority will have to respect it in the same manner then. "But this principle of reciprocity breaks down if the decision of the majority impairs a minority’s capacity to canvass its views in the future or if the minority is a permanent one or if the issue being decided is so vital to the minority that it cannot be compensated by winning on different issues in the future". (Introducing Democracy by David Beetham and Kevin Boyle).

Where the decision of a government acting in majority support infringes the basic democratic rights of an individual or group it must by definition be undemocratic. These basic democratic rights are given a special protection in a constitution where they remain from majority infringement.

Section 29 of the Soulbury Constitution was one such device. The Tamils who foresaw the dangers of majoritarian democracy, sought to obtain such protection through their demand for 50:50 or balanced representation of the majority on the one hand and a composite of the minorities on the other. This protective constitutional device is deliberately distorted and made out as a demand for 50% of the resources, by the Sinhala chauvinists. It was a device to prevent a condition of a permanent minority being suppressed by the majority.

There are other systems whereby minorities are accorded positions in the government and the public service proportionate to their numbers — a power sharing arrangements as in Lebanon. Another device is the right of a minority to veto legislation which thereatens their vital interests or a right to autonomy in the running of their own affairs in areas inhabited by them. We have accepted the International Convenants on Civil and Political Rights and the recent U.N. declaration (1992) on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic Religious and Linguistic Minorities.

Democracy is only sustainable if the minorities agree to live together. That requires that majorities and their governments should exercise a measure of self-restraint and do not use their steam roller majority to bulldoze their way in issues affecting the minorities.

The Sinhala Commission seems to misunderstand western democracy when it says "the western system counts heads: the Buddhist system works by consensus, through explanation and understanding".

Its a pity that the Buddhist system was not practised by the majority Sinhalese since 1956. There was nothing in the then constitution nor is there any barrier in the present constitution to practise consensus through explanation and understanding. But consensus is not always possible particularly where a minority feels its vital interests are threatened.

Religion and Democracy

A sore point with Sinhalese Buddhists in the alleged unethical conversions to Christianity. There have been no mass conversion to Christianity similar to the conversion of 300,000 of Dr. Ambedkar’s Hindu followers to Buddhism. The right to convert is derived from the right to free speech and the right to hear the "truth".

Man is always concerned to know what lies behind the physical material universe. He is beset with problems, suffering, failures. He suffers bereavements and eventually meets death himself. All religions offer illumination, guidance and aid to human beings in such orders. Lord Buddha thought he discovered "the truth" and asked his disciples to go forth and preach the dhamma to every one. He was moved by compassion for the people.

Similarly other religious founders have proclaimed their versions of the "truth" and being similarly moved by love for others, asked their doctrine to be spread. So the right of human beings to learn about all the diverse concepts of truth and prescriptions for salvation is recognised as a fundamental right.

"This human right to hear and learn presupposes the reciprocal right to preach and teach". The wish to convert arises from a concern for others welfare and the person to whom the missionary addresses himself ought to bear in mind that the missionary’s intention are benevolent even if his attentions are annoying.

As regards "unethical conversions Arnold Toynbee in "Change and Habit" — The challenge of our time says "The forcible conversion of an adult human being is, in fact, impossible. The most that can be extorted from him is an insincere outward conformity"... The same applies to any inducement.

Arnold Toynbere, the famous historian also says that historical evidence does not suggest that religious uniformity is a politically unifying factor when it is imposed by force. In any society individuals like to conform to the majority moves and religion. So if there are unethical conversions, they are unlikely to last.

Democracy flourishes best when the state is neutral between religions as in the secular state in U.S.A. The established church in U.K. is involved more in ceremony than in determining policy regarding law and morality for all as in the past.

The Buddhists want state protection for the religion. Toleration may continue even if the state involves itself in one religion provided it does not seek to impose the precepts of the majority religion on non-believers or curtail the rights of minority religions to preach and convert others. Even if everyone was Buddhist and Sinhalese there could be conflicts owing to divisions of race and caste as we see in the conflicts between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

(To be continued)

Book Review
Politicians pampered, People penalised

THE POLITICS OF SRI LANKA (Volume III)
by T. D. S. A Dissanayaka

EPILOGUE

The principal purpose of this book is to focus attention on our politicians, a contemptible breed at the best of times, who have ruined our nation since Independence.

We obtained our Independence in 1948, one month after Burma obtained hers and six months after India and Pakistan obtained theirs in 1947. Of other British colonies in our part of the world, Malaya was scheduled to obtain hers in 1951 but that was delayed by six years because of her terrorist problems.

In 1948 we were visibly more prosperous, more stable and better governed than Burma, India, Malaya and Pakistan. The credit for that goes to the British not to us. After fifty years of Independence we are certainly better off than Burma, one of the most chaotic nations in Asia. However who in their senses would claim that we are now more stable and better governed than India, Malayasia and Pakistan. The nett decline is what our politicians, irrespective of their predilections, have done to Sri Lanka.

In the past fifty years India has produced statesmen of the calibre of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and President Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan. Pakistan has produced Governor-General Mohamed Ali Jinnah and Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan. Malaysia has produced Tengku Abdul Rahaman who in 1951 refused Independence from Britain, till Britain exterminated the terrorism they initiated in 1942 to evict occupation forces from Japan. Somehow those terrorists continued to grow in stature after the cessation of hostilities in World War II. It is a tragedy that Sri Lanka has produced no statesmen since Independence. Unquestionably able leaders like Prime Minister D. S. Senanayake, Prime Minister S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike and President J. R. Jayewardene were anything but statesmen. They were merely able politicians, who systematically placed their own interests above the interests of our nation. What they sowed, our people unfortunately had to reap.

A tragic feature in our political evolution since Independence was the disastrous roles of Prime Minister D. S. Senanayake, at the height of his power Prime Minister S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, as Leader of the Opposition, and President J. R. Jayewardene, at the height of his power.

Prime Minister D. S. Senanayake was at the pinnacle of his glory on February 4th 1948 when he obtained our Independence without shedding a drop of blood. He was then 64 years old and not in the best of health because of complications due to diabetes and high blood pressure. Had he died an year after Independence, as did Governor - General Mohamed Ali Jinnah of Pakistan the architect of their Independence, in the eyes of our nation he would have gone down to history as our greatest leader in the twentieth century. Alternatively, in 1949 had he retired from active politics and become Governor- General in succession to Sir Henry Monk Mason Moore KCMG, perhaps the same overall result would have been achieved. Instead the Prime Minister continued in office and groomed his son Dudley to succeed him, by - passing the logical successor S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, the Leader of the House. S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike was born in 1899 and reached Cabinet rank in 1936, whereas Dudley Senanayake was born in 1911 and reached Cabinet rank in 1947. Both had proven ability, thus the natural successor was obvious.

Why did D. S. Senanayake act in this reprehensible manner well knowing the dire consequences of his actions?

S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike had a deep understanding of our politics from the grassroots level upwards. In 1926 he visited Jaffna for the first time, the year after he returned home from Oxford. After that visit he wrote a superb article for public consumption in one of our newspapers. There he advocated Federalism as the only viable solution to our ethnic problem, nearly twenty five years before S. J. V. Chelvanayakam did so ! Such was his stature as an intellectual. Not surprisingly he is the most frequently quoted intellectual in the political firmament of Sri Lanka, in the context of the twentieth century.

On the other hand, commencing 1953, when India opted to make Hindi its Official Language in twenty five years, he advocated that Sinhala be made the Official Language in twenty four hours! He thus rejected his own thinking ever since his return from Oxford, namely that English be supplanted with both Sinhala and Tamil. Swept into power on a tidal wave of Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism in 1956, the Official Language Act of 1956 was promulgated whereby Sinhala replaced English. Racial riots broke out immediately. Such riots were a periodic feature in Sri Lanka thereafter and in 1983 it turned into a Civil war.

Why did S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike behave in this reprehensible manner well knowing the dire consequences of his action?

In 1977 when Prime Minister J. R. Jayewardene was swept into power with an unbelievable majority, he had everything needed for good Government. He was the most experienced Prime Minister Sri Lanka had produced since Independence. He had an experienced Cabinet and a huge majority in Parliament.

Besides, he was the scion of one of the most distinguished of our legal families. His father E. W. Jayewardene Q.C. and one the younger brothers of his father, A. St. V. Jayewardene Q.C. were Supreme Court Judges during the British Administration. In the decade of the seventies his younger brother H. W. Jayewardene Q.C was the much respected President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. Therefore even the detractors of President J. R. Jayewardene were confident that he would be the personification of rectitude in upholding the Rule of Law. Commencing 1982 he was the anti-thesis of that. So many verdicts of the Supreme Court were reversed by Presidential directives!

Why did J. R. Jayewardene act in this reprehensible manner, well knowing the dire consequences of his actions?

Considering the pathetic performance of our leaders ranging from Presidents and Prime Ministers to Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament, their powers must be reduced substantially. Basically they do not serve the nation, instead they want the nation to serve them.

On the other hand the powers of the bureaucracy, so systematically usurped by politicians must be increased to their levels at the advent of our Independence, because our bureaucracy has served the nation so well. For example, since 1948 the Ceylon Civil Service produced so many Permanent Secretaries and since 1972 the Sri Lanka Administrative Service produced so many Secretaries of Ministers, as that high rank is currently known. Not one of them was accused, in a meaningful sense, of corruption or dishonourable conduct. Indeed that is the common thread that runs through our Public Service at its highest level. For example our Ambassadors and High Commissioners range from the sublime to the ludicrous. Yet of the professional diplomats to reach that high rank, fifty-eight of them from the Sri Lanka Foreign Service and six from the UN, only one was found guilty of professional misconduct. He was reduced in rank and therefore he opted to retire prematurely.

Most politicians, be they Presidents, Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers or Members of Parliament, have willfully undermined the Rule of Law. Such vermin must be disciplined before they destroy the very fabric of our society. That can be done through institutional checks and balances. Therefore the Police must be placed under a Police Commission totally independent of the Government of the day and answerable only to Parliament. Thus the proposed Police Commission, not our politicians, would henceforth be responsible for transfers, appointments, promotions and dismissals of all Police personnel. Paradoxically both the PA and the UNP have agreed to this recommendation. That must be implemented in 1999 itself so that a new era, where no citizen is above the law and no citizen below the law, may dawn with the new millennium.

Politics is the art of the possible in the realm of the unknown. If the abolition of the Executive Presidency must be postponed temporarily, then it must be reviewed as early as practicable. In Sri Lanka where all Executive Presidents have disgraced themselves by placing their party interests above national interests, the Presidential system just cannot work. However after fifty years of Independence, democracy has become a way of life in Sri Lanka. Therefore our traditions in democracy have not only to be strengthened but also made indigenous to our nation. Party loyalties in Sri Lanka have the same destructive capability that tribalism has in Africa. Therefore such loyalties must be contained. That can be done with the Cabinet of Ministers being selected not from the Government Parliamentary Group but from Parliament itself. Ironically that was a technique successfully used by the British in Ceylon from 1931 to 1947 under the Donoughmore Constitution.

The life blood of democracy is the periodic free and fair elections. Therefore that process must be refined. That can be achieved by modernising the archaic Election Ordinance of 1957. All Commissioners of Elections have served the nation with distinction. Therefore their powers must be enhanced by allowing the Commissioner of Elections or better still an Election Commission consisting of the Commissioner and two Deputy Commissioners, vested with the power to declare an election null and void in the event of widespread malpractices or to order a re-poll locally in the event of localised malpractices. Here again the PA and the UNP think alike. Such thinking must be translated into action, more specifically with a new Election Ordinance of 1999.

Such an envisaged Election Ordinance must include new reforms to combat the growing menace of impersonation, because over 600,000 of our citizens or five per cent of all voters are working abroad. As of now two-thirds of our adult population possess National Identity Cards and within five years all adults will be duly covered. Therefore commencing 2004 that vital document must be produced by the voter to prove his or her identity at the Polling Station. Otherwise no ballot paper will be issued. Moreover, the Penal Code and the Election Ordinance must be amended with immediate effect, to enable our Courts to inflict deterrent punishment on those guilty of impersonation in the exercise of the franchise.

None of these proposals will have the desired effect, unless the people of Sri Lanka do their duty by the nation. Our people have nothing but contempt for our politicians and justifiably so. However, the very same people debase themselves by venerating politicians in power. To say the least, our politicians from the highest in the land downwards should be socially ostracised. Besides, in the exercise of the franchise more and more citizens must show their contempt for politicians by willfully spoiling their votes.

My fellow citizens, please do not be beholden to Presidents, Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentarians. It is they who should be beholden to you. Please remember that they are your servants not your masters.

Politicians of Sri Lanka condemn me if you must. However please remember History will absolve me, not you!

(This book will be available in all leading book stores commencing Tuesday 8th June. Price Rs. 690)

  | NEWS | PROVINCIAL | EDITORIAL | DEFENCE | FEATURES | LEISURE | BUSINESS | SPORTS | ADS |