Focus on Rights

Public funds and elections
An ongoing civil society initiative, (the Programme for Protection of Public Resources), shows us this week, the malodorous extent to which both members of the United National Front and the recently formed brave new Alliance consisting the People’s Alliance and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, misuse state resources.

The PPPR, (as this effort is somewhat amusingly termed), commences with recording the abuse of the state electronic media as well as the resources of Lake House, by the Alliance. On the other hand, as far as individual UNF ministries are concerned, the Ministry of Rural Economy and the Ministry of Plantation Industry have been named primarily for the use of vehicles belonging to the ministries. To this category falls also official vehicles of the Ports Authority, the Bandaragama Pradeshiya Sabha, the Mahaweli Authority, the Western Provincial Council. On its own part, the Alliance has been implicated in respect of the misuse of official vehicles of the Southern Provincial Council.

Use of official vehicles for party propaganda purposes is, of course, only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Individual ministers and members of the UNF as well as the Alliance have been identified as part of this 'naming and shaming' exercise. But where does this effort of documenting abuse of state property lead us? While this is necessary at least for the record, what effect could this have in a society where the concept of shame has become so conspicuously absent from our public life? Though the Commissioner of Elections has announced his intention of confiscating any public property used for party purposes, no such action has yet been taken by him in this regard. Provisions of the 17th Amendment, which might have been stronger in the enforcement powers conferred on the Commissioner in respect of misuse of state property, have not been particularly helpful either.

This farce is compounded by the sudden and passionate interest displayed by both the UNF and the Alliance in respect of Sri Lanka signing the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. In a context where general corruption continues unchecked, (aggravated moreover by the blatant misuse of state resources during elections), and the domestic body mandated with the task of fighting corruption remains inactive, such monumental hypocrisy is unbelievable.

This column has had occasion in the past to examine the rationale wherein political abuse of the state media, print and electronic, cannot be tolerated. The extension of this logic to propaganda use of state property, including vehicles, does not require much cerebral straining.

Equally, one recollects the manner in which the prohibition on use of public servants for party political work was illustrated in a fairly interesting manner some years back in Matugama. The refusal of a Samurdhi Niyamaka to obey a party command, (in this instance, the People’s Alliance), to campaign and canvass support for the Alliance in respect of an upcoming Pradeshiya Sabha election, resulted in his suspension with no reasons given.

He went against this suspension to court, contending that he had been singled out and victimised. Responding, the Supreme Court in a judgement spanning a mere six pages, affirmed basic norms of conduct to be obeyed by all political parties, particularly during elections. The question was simple. Can persons paid out of public funds, collected directly or indirectly from citizens of all shades of political opinion , be used to advance the interests of those of one political persuasion alone?

In this case, Samurdhi Niyamakas were persons performing what was described as "the major poverty alleviation programme of the government" However, it was expressly required that they should perform in a manner devoid of politics. They were officers engaged in rendering services to the public, for which they were paid out of public funds. As such, a Bench comprising Justices Fernando, Wadugodapitiya and Gunesekera ruled that they could not be commandeered to work for one political party.

"…the use of resources of the State, including human resources, for the benefit of one political party or group, constitutes unequal treatment and political discrimination because thereby an advantage is conferred on one political party or group which is denied to its rivals" the Court stated.

This prohibition would definitely apply to public funds being paid directly to one political party and not to others. It would also make no difference whether such payments are made directly to individuals or indirectly by diverting equipment, facilities of the State to the benefit of one political party.

In recent times, we have seen abuse of public property in this country manifested to an unprecedented extent. Both the major political parties have exhibited no compunction in this regard, despite equally pious pronouncements from the office of the Presidency as well as from the Treasury. We have no reason to believe, given the past record of the JVP on other issues, that it will be particularly scrupulous in this respect either. It is high time and more that tax payers, irrespective of their personal political beliefs, direct their profound anger at this unscrupulous practice and those individuals directly and vicariously responsible.

Back to Columns