30th January 2000

Individual power disastrous to democracy

Even if the PA Government at the coming parliamentary election, is able to get the same number of seats as it got at the presidential election which is alleged to have been extremely corrupt, all the parties in the PA and the other parties associated with it (like the EPDP and the CWC) will be able to get 115 seats at the maximum. It is less than what the PA and its allies have in the present parliament.The PA and all the parties associated with it including the UNP's alternative group have 131 seats. It is improbable that a Government which has 131 seats will opt to have that number brought down to 115. So the PA will have to adopt a new system of elections which will be advantageous to it or, in the alternative, go in for a referendum.

The contempt that the parties of the PA had for J.R. Jayewardene's anti-democratic action in extending the term of Parliament through a referendum appears now to have gained respect. A parliamentary election could ofcourse could be the answer. There are those who think they can win and those who think it will be difficult to win. There is also the risk of humiliation.

Above all, there is also the factor of election expenses. If there is a possibility of extending the life of parliament by six years, which will eliminate all those risks, a majority of the MPs, irrespective of their party, differences, will like it.Political theorists of the PA who made profound analyses of the distortion caused in the politics of Sri Lanka by J.R. Jayewardene's referendum and the blood letting which followed have now forgotten what they themselves had said.

J.R. Jayewardene won the presidential election of '82 easily. He also had the possibility of winning a majority of the parliamentary seats too if he were to hold a parliamentary election. But such an election could have led to the emergence of a strong parliamentary opposition too. But he did not want to give up the five fifth majority he had in parliament and to permit the emergence of a powerful parliamentary opposition. The referendum may have served his narrow political ends but created a great distortion in the democratic political system. It pushed the JVP, which had entered the democratic political system, to take up arms. When there was no proportionate representations in Parliament for those who opposed the Government, they turned to acting against it in hatred. The final outcome was an endless flow of blood.

Now Chandrika too is trying to take the country to the same old position. A referendum will have the worst effect on the JVP which has now turned away from politics of violence and taken the path of democratic politics. In spite of the criticism levelled against it about its past violence, the JVP was proving it was able to join the democratic political process. It faced the Government's violent attacks in a democratic manner and contested three elections. With the results of those elections it ensured some representation for itself. If, at a time when the JVP is thinking of parliamentary elections, the Government is going to substitute a referendum for an election, that will certainly earn the JVP's hatred.

For 10744 votes it polled in the Jaffna district the EPDP has got nine parliamentary seats. Thus a party which polled 10744 has 4% of the entire membership of parliament. But the TULF which polled 132401 votes has only 2% of the parliamentary seats. This is a serious distortion of minority representation. A future parliamentary election would severely change this picture. However, a referendum will present such a change.

Although the abolition of the executive presidency was the main slogan of the PA, the Government position now appears to be to continue with the executive presidential system in a modified form, although the UNP has declared it would support the Government's draft constitution. Earlier the President had said although she wanted to abolish the executive presidential system, she had to continue with the ludicrous system because the UNP was not ready to help her to abolish it. But when the UNP is ready to help her to abolish the executive presidential system she comes out with a different story. The Government always says the devolution of power is essential to solve the ethnic problem. But there cannot be any effective devolution when unlimited power is concentrated on an individual. Unfortunately even the parties representing the minorities do not appear to have properly grasped that contradiction. The ethnic crisis is also a major part of the crisis of democracy in the country. It would be a mistake to think there can be a reasonable solution to the ethnic problem in a system where a great percent of power is concentrated in the hands of a single individual, rather than in a political system where democratic freedom is enhanced.

The following is an editorial comment appeared in the Frontier Post, a national newpaper published from Peshawar, Pakistan.

Some judges, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, have declined to take oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO). In practical terms, the oath means allegiance to the military government. This note of dissent is significant, even though it indicates a split in the higher judiciary.

Last time around when the judges took such oath, there were one or two exceptions. But the fact that the chief justice and five other judges have decided not to cave in before the military authorities shows that the society as a whole still has individuals who can sacrifice their jobs for the sake of constitutionalism and rule of law.

It is a matter of great satisfaction that the sentiment of autonomy, ignited by former chief justice Sajjad Ali Shah, is not a thing of the past. We believe that the military government has committed its first faux pas; it should have sought another path for obtaining whatever objectives it set for itself to achieve. Forcing the chief justice and some of his colleagues against their will have consequences.

The foreign media have described the sacking of non-conforming judges as a first challenge for the military government, a set-up that is still seeking legitimacy across the world. It is sad that the generals have resorted to a maligned method. Most of us know how the judiciary was emasculated by Ziaul Haq. The PCO was used by him to force judiciary's allegiance. Times have changed. The imposition of the military government has presented specific problems. Pakistan could have explained to the world the background against which the Nawaz Sharif government had to be booted out.

Most people believe that the previous government was corrupt to the core. That is why they chose not to object to the military takeover. But the PCO sounds like despicable old times.

General Musharraf would have gained in stature had he not given his go-ahead for sidelining of the country's independent judges. Already, his government is coming under increasing pressure both from home and abroad. He has failed to provide a clear sense of direction to the nation; and now his dependence on the usual martial law methods reeks of primitiveness. We fear that the military government has lost its raison d'etre. The move to stifle the independent working of the judiciary will therefore be looked upon with disdain and disgust by the enlightened people.

We also think that the needless squeeze against the judges would weaken the government's case against the former prime minister. The question is: why couldn't the generals show some badly needed tolerance for dissent and debate? Judges are judges, not robots or unthinking leaders. The Americans have been pressuring the government for giving a firm time-table for the return of democracy. The latest development will set off tremendously disapproving echoes across the world. Some of us are bound to view the military's assurance that the freedom of press would be ensured with scepticism. What next, might we ask.

Editorial/ Opinion Contents