Editorial
The issue of massive corruption in government has never before been raised
as it has been during and after the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime. Very early in the
first Rajapaksa presidency, a very powerful government minister became known as
'Mr. Ten Per Cent' for his predilection for commissions on the side for various
projects approved by him, or, even initiated by him.
A whole new class of capitalist cronies grew around the regime making the
country's big business community worried that it would be shut out of the
economic development programs by these cronies. How the cronies got around the
regime is, surely, a story waiting to be written in safer times. How the business
elite got around the barriers of the cronies is also a story waiting to be
written one day. Equally interesting might be the role those cronies played in
encouraging and supporting that snap presidential poll in January which went
awry for the incumbent.
Right now, it is the many cases of corruption by the politicians and
bureaucrats and sundry hangers-on that are being written and are making
headlines. The sheer volume of corruption is so great that there is a doubt
whether everything will ever get fully revealed and accounted for. Certainly,
the corruption probes, being done strictly according to proper procedure,
should continue far into the next government after August 17 - unless political
expediency and opportunism gets in the way.
The sheer scale of the corruption and mis-governance surrounding it became
so obvious in recent months. Especially since the news media dynamism enabled
by the freer conditions post January 8 has begun revealing the vast scale of
the plunder, the former President himself, could not ignore it.
Ultimately, even as the hue and cry grew louder and louder, former
President Rajapaksa himself actually dared to acknowledge that corruption. The
acknowledgment has come in public speeches made by the former President in
which he admits to have refrained from prosecuting those whom he describes as
'wrong-doers' and 'corrupt persons'. The tenor of his pronouncements in this
regard leave no room for any interpretation other than that the wrong-doing was
committed by people he knew although he now seems to regret that he did not act
against them.
When a former head of state makes any pronouncement about such a serious
matter as corruption in government, it has to be taken very seriously by the
country as a whole. Indeed, there is a general expectation that the government
of the day will take up the former President's contentions for investigation.
To date, the current government has not moved to ask the former President
to provide details about these cases of wrong doing that he has public talked
about. Even if the government has failed to take the inititiative, the citizens
would expect the former President who made the initial pronouncements to help
out by volunteering this information to the authorities.
As someone who has always claimed to be 'tough' on issues, it would be
expected of Mr. Rajapaksa that he would be most active in pursuing those
wrong-doers he has talked about.
The forthcoming parliamentary elections will
certainly provide former President Rajapaksa with the best platform to not only
disclose these wrongs and wrong-doers but also to lead the way in bringing them
to book and thereby prove his own credentials as a one-time un-corrupt
President. Over to you, Mr. Rajapaksa.Inner party democracy
When Maithripala Sirisena stood for the Presidency, his principal
electioneering slogan was to bring about good governance in the country. Hence,
yaha paalanaya (good governance) became synonymous with Maithree paalanaya
(Maithree rule).
But, in the aftermath of the huge crisis inside the Sri Lanka Freedom
Party and the role perceived to have been played in this crisis by the
President himself, many may ask whether Mr. Sirisena has been as successful in
his governance of his own political party.
Running a country according to a specific political mandate received from
voters is not necessarily the same as running a political party, especially in
politically under-developed Sri Lanka. Running the country is a matter of
direct public interest and public accountability. The internal matters of a
political party - or any other citizens' voluntary association - are not
directly a matter of public interest or public accountability.
The membership of a political party has the right to decide the nature of
governance and administration of their organisation. Thus, whether or not their
organisation's internal governance conforms to liberal democratic norms or
fascist or authoritarian or cultic styles is entirely the choice of that
organisation's membership.
Certainly, any political party that vies for the vote of the citizenry and
does so on the basis of ensuring national governance in accordance with the
national democratic norm, will probably find it easier to win the popular vote
if it is seen to practise what it preaches inside its own organisation. More
importantly, the political performance of that party, in gaining representation
of various interest groups and communities of the citizenry becomes all the
more effective if internal democracy enables such representation in a
transparent and fair manner. Leadership building inside the party is also
likely to be more successful if leaders are popularly elected via a transparent
process inside the organisation.
Today, the liberal-style 'democracy' that frames the Sri Lankan polity
certainly does not apply to the organisational structure of most, if not all,
Sri Lankan political parties. In most politically and economically developed
countries, it is not only the State structure that is democratic in nature. The
political parties in those countries are also governed by certain minimum
standards of democracy. It is time that Sri Lankan parties learnt from the more
mature democracies and move towards similar structures. It is likely that the
cabals, conspiracies and factionalism that dominate our parties will disappear
as they reform and modernise internally.
No comments:
Post a Comment