News
Government must effect system change to ensure Yahapalana goals
View(s):Mid-way through the term of the Yahapalana Government, there is considerable disappointment among its supporters that many of the goals that it set for itself have not been realised.
That is not to say that the change of regime on January 8, 2015 was in vain. Today, the freedom of expression, one of the significant characteristics of democracy, is enjoyed by all. The freedom of expression extends to criticising the Government including the President and Prime Minister in the harshest of language.
This freedom even extends to spreading misinformation on the Constitution Reform process and subtle and not so subtle rabblerousing and even threats to bomb Parliament if the representatives of the people in the august assembly dare give their assent to what has been mandated by the people.
The 19th Amendment which whittled down the powers of the Executive Presidency, the Right to Information Act and the setting up of the independent commissions are examples of the positive changes that have resulted from the victory of the Yahapalana campaign. The electoral reforms in respect of local government and provincial councils elections, though not entirely satisfactory, have positive features despite the totally deplorable manner in which the legislation was enacted.
The minorities today breathe a sigh of relief that they can go about their day-to-day lives without being harassed and intimidated. Government is now paying more attention to softer issues that have wide impact on society such as the campaign to eliminate the scourge of drugs, addressing the causes of chronic kidney disease, dealing with the rash of road accidents and so on, although it is still not clear how well implemented or how effective these efforts are.
Yet despite the positive achievements of the Government, there is a great deal of disenchantment among the people who expected more to be achieved from a Government which has the two major political parties as partners in the seats of power.
Some of the reasons that have contributed to this situation of failed expectations are due to the inherent nature of coalition politics where parties with different outlooks are thrown together. Additionally, however, there are many individuals and political groupings in the National Unity Government who were late entrants and who had neither contributed to the shaping of Yahapalana policy nor supported the Government at the elections and therefore have no real loyalties to the vision of the Government.
Another factor which lowers the Government’s reputation in the eyes of the public is the contradictory views expressed in public by different ministers on government policy. One example of this is with regard to the issue of SAITM. Some ministers defend SAITM as if the very existence of the Government depends on it. Other ministers with equal vehemence oppose SAITM on public platforms and call for its abolition. As a result the public are confused and whatever solution the Government finally comes up with will be weakened by this clash of opinions which should have been aired and settled in the Cabinet itself.
Another reason for the eroding of public confidence in the Yahapalana Government is its failure to take its message to the people effectively. Examples abound in this area. The failure to market the achievements of the Government to the people and its inaction in allowing Opposition allegations to remain unanswered are mystifying.
One example is the Joint Opposition’s claim that the Government is on a campaign of taking revenge on its political opponents. The Government can easily disprove this allegation by pointing out that there have been no investigations against Joint Opposition stalwarts like Dinesh Gunawardene, Dulles Alahaperuma, Chamal Rajapaksa, Vasudeva Nanayakara . Tissa Vitharane who are all vociferous critics of the Government. Even those who are subject to investigation have not been given the Sarath Fonseka treatment but on the other hand allowed all the rights and privileges they are entitiled under the law.
Another reason for the Government not meeting with the expected degree of success is that many of the previous Government’s mistakes are being repeated. For example the practice of receiving and acting on unsolicited proposals during the previous regime was rightly frowned upon but continue to be repeated under this Government as well. The undemocratic practice indulged in by the previous Government of obtaining Court orders to prevent demonstrations by the public without allowing the Police to handle the situation using powers under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Police Ordinance continues under this Government too.
This invariably gives rise to clashes between the Police and demonstrators which in turn snowballs into further demonstrations and a general appearance of turmoil. The Government needs to create a proper mechanism for ventilation of grievances so that the people feel that their voices are being heard.
The regime change effected on January 8, 2015 was not meant to merely install President Mathripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in office but through such regime change bring about changes in the system of governance. The Government, however, seems to have failed to realise this urgent need. The truism that system change will not happen on its own but has to be effected by the Government is something decision makers seem to have not understood.
For example it is a laudable practice to not interfere in investigations of corruption but to let the system take its own course. But where the system is slow and does not meet the needs of justice it is necessary to streamline procedures with a view to bringing to book those who have broken the law. Sometime back there was talk of day-to-day hearing of corruption cases but that seems to have been forgotten.
Another matter that the Government needs to address is the failure by the media to give adequate coverage to hearings in corruption cases. While understandably proceedings of the Presidential Commission to inquire into the Bond scam have got wide coverage due to the scale of the bond transactions, the other trials have received virtually no coverage. Few knew that evidence was being led in the Sil Redi case until the case had been completed and judgment delivered.
There is another Presidential Commission (PRECIFAC) investigating corruption but the evidence led before the Commission is not covered by the media. Why this is so is somewhat of a mystery because there would naturally be public interest in such proceedings.
Unless and until the Government moves quickly to remedying the shortcomings and defects in the system of governance it will at future elections face the prospect of strong challenges from the Opposition which will be the ultimate beneficiary of the acts of such omission by the Government.
(javidyusuf@gmail.com)