Politics is tougher than a game of chess

By Victor Ivan

Although the United National Front has won the parliamentary election and assured control over the internal administration of the country, the executive presidential power which may be considered the steering wheel of State power is in the hands of the PA. 

The ethnic problem has become the overarching problem of all. If that can be settled, all other problems can also be settled.
Prabhakaran: One of the main deciding factors in the peace process

Politics, too, is a game as complicated as chess. But in chess there are a large number of starting points unlike in politics. Some starting points permit a systematic development while some other starting points require an aggressive course of action that moves forward, risking the player's power. Although such rare and brilliant chess masters like Larker stood for a fast and extremely aggressive game aiming at the opponent's King from the very beginning, risking not only one's pawns but also the pieces, instead of a gain in which one develops one's power systematically, it cannot be considered the normal course of action of chess masters. A majority of the world chess masters have followed a path in which one strengthens the power of the centre and moves towards the target, step by step. 

In politics the new Prime Minister is following in the footsteps of Larker. It is a course of action in which one moves speedily towards the target, disregarding the need to strengthen the power at the centre. If it is possible to move speedily towards the target aggressively, disregarding the centre, that would be excellent. However, it is considered an extremely risky course of action not only in politics, but also in chess. 

Although there are similarities between chess and politics, politics is more complicated than chess. Chess is a game between two players only. Although the nature and the power of the pawns are different, it is in accordance with the wishes of the player who leads the side that the pawns move. In that sense all the pawns of a side on the board behave like tools of its leader. 

In politics, however, all pawns are living persons. Although the leader has a certain amount of power to lead the pawns, there can be times in which the pawns act disregarding the leader's wishes and in accordance with their own wishes. 

Although this is a contest between two sides, political contest is a more complex one between a number of sides at the same time. 

It is necessary to pay attention to the people who participate in the game from outside as much as to the pieces and the pawns. Although all of them are not of equal value, the leadership must keep them all satisfied. Here the factors like the executive presidency, the Sinhala society, Prabhakaran, Tamil Alliance, the Tamil community, Rauff Hakeem, the Muslim society, Thondaman, the Tamil society of the plantations, the judiciary, the Army and the LTTE must be considered important factors and any one of them can be a decisive factor at any given time. In order to win the game, one must function as a leader respected by all, in addition to maintaining the confidence of the party and the people who voted. 

Nelson Mandela was a hero of the Blacks as well as a leader respected by the Whites. However, he did not betray the rights of the Blacks in order to win the respect of the Whites. He always stood for the need to inquire into the wrongs suffered by the Blacks during the white racist rule. When, after a Truth Commission was set up to inquire into wrongs done by the Whites, the question arose as to why the wrongs done by the Blacks were not inquired into, the terms of the Commission were widened to include wrongs supposed to have been done by the Blacks too. The inquiry into the wrongs done by the blacks was expedited and Mandela asked for the forgiveness of the entire nation. 

However, Prime Minister Wickremasinghe cannot be considered a de Clerk, nor can LTTE leader Prabhakaran be considered a Mandela. However, the space opened in Sri Lanka for peace is similar to that which had been opened in South Africa. There is great pressure at international level for both sides to arrive at a peaceful solution. 

India's attitudes too have changed favourably. Both sides in the war are in a "no win" position. The business community too has come to think that they have no future unless there is a peaceful solution . This is perhaps an unprecedented situation. 

However, the central problem is elsewhere. Although the UNF has got the power of internal administration, the executive presidential power which is at the pinnacle of state power, is with the opposition. Although the result of the parliamentary election was a verdict of the people against the president too, neither did she give up her post nor did the victorious party make her powerless. Persons like the Chief Justice and the IGP, too, followed her example and did not give up their posts. 

The war was waged between Prabhakaran's rebel force and the government forces. In the transaction for peace, the right to take decisions as well as the right to order his forces, is with Prabhakaran. However, the Prime Minister does not have the right to issue orders to the armed forces. It is unlikely that a lady, who had acted so ferociously in the last parliament would follow a policy that would help her opponent to stabilise his power. In that sense Mr. Wickremesinghe has to eat his curd with a razor, and not with his own hands but with the hands of the lady who is his opponent. Trying to eat curd with a razor is dangerous in any case. If it is going to be done with the hands of an opponent, the results can be quite disastrous. 

The writer is the Editor of Ravaya

By Kishali Pinto Jayawardene

Is the 17th Amendment adequate?

State vehicles used for election work by former ministers

Judge Learned Hand's admonition serves us well this year where a Brave New World has been promised to us in terms of peace, restoration of the rule of law and the bringing back of a society that could call itself civilized to some extent at least. December 2001 demonstrated without a doubt that liberty has yet not died in the hearts of men and women in this country who braved vast odds and voted out a regime that had outlived its moral authority.

We are back again therefore to constitutions, laws and the courts and it remains to be seen as to whether, this time around also, the cynics among us would be proved right when they expect the politics of expediency to make short shrift of promises made by new governments.

For the moment however, we welcome the process of reform, agonisingly slow as it may be and perhaps, as it should be, given all that preceded it in recent years. The announced intention of the government is to set up the Constitutional Council and the four independent commissions on the elections, the police, the judiciary and the public service, thereby activating the 17th Amendment before the forthcoming Local Government polls. 

While all this is well and good, it is perhaps somewhat disquieting that there has been no acknowledgment, by the United National Front government, of the serious defects that exist in the 17th Amendment itself and the need to remedy these defects if the 17th Amendment is to function properly and not be reduced to a miserable caricature of a law.

The 2001 Parliamentary elections exposed very well what was wrong with the 17th Amendment. This, in short, was not only the non-functioning of an Elections Commission with the powers being exercised by an individual Commissioner. Perhaps the most serious defect of all relating to the inadequacy of powers of the Elections Commissioner (and the future Elections Commission) in the 17th Amendment, has been highlighted in its Final Report issued recently by the Institute of Human Rights (IHR) under their Programme for the Protection of Public Property (PPP).

The Report outlines an astounding catalogue of violations by former Ministers, politicians of the previous government and their henchmen in utilising state resources for their electioneering campaigns during December 2001. Use of public buildings, state vehicles and employing of the services of a large numbers of public servants and corporation employees for the election campaign of the Peoples Alliance has been highlighted in the Report. 

Some of the main institutions identified in this manner are the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC), the Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation. In addition, the Report details the conducting of political rallies in the guise of state functions and the specific use of the PSD and the army for the electioneering purposes of one particular political party. The impact of such a massive use of state resources for the benefit of the then government on the election, on the economy and on public administration is, of course, incalculable.

The Report concludes, quite unsurprisingly, that the existing legal framework had proved to be unsatisfactory to hold law enforcement officers (including the Inspector General of Police) accountable at crucial moments and finds that the existing legal provisions in relation to the misuse of public properties, were not respected by politicians and Heads of Departments during the elections. 

It points out that Article 104B of the Constitution does not give adequate powers to the Commissioner of Election (or the Election Commission) to prevent abuses of state resources. For example, the Commissioner has no powers to arrest the vehicles or to deal with any person who abuses a prohibitive order made by the Commissioner even though prohibitive orders were made by the Commissioner under the 17th Amendment in the run up to the December polls. Accordingly, the PPP/IHR Report proposes the amendment of Article 104B of the Constitution or introduction of a Special Provisions Act whereby the Election Commission (or any person authorized by the Commission) is empowered to take into custody, any public property if abused for election purposes by candidates or political parties. It is also recommended that the Election Commission be permitted to speedily deal with any candidate or any officer in any public institution to prevent abuses and that all Heads of Public Institutions be required to maintain specific records of use of public resources, which records would be audited by the Auditor General as a matter of priority.

Interestingly, the PPP/IHR recommendations also propose the introduction of a new election offence titled "Abuse of public resources" with severe penalties. While private prosecutions should be permitted in respect of this offence, if such abuses are committed by a candidate, such person should be unseated if elected at any election. It is meanwhile recommended that Ministers and Deputy Ministers should be made liable for the losses caused to the State as a result of abuses of state resources and that the losses should be recovered from such Ministers and Deputy Ministers even after they ceased to be Ministers or Deputy Ministers. 

The Report goes on to suggest that Standing Orders of Parliament should be amended to ensure that those who had serious allegations of abuses of public properties are not appointed as members of the Public Accounts Committee and Committee on Public Enterprises.

This column has, in previous instances, pointed out one of the last drafts of the 17th Amendment, had, in fact, provision that vested the Elections Commission or Commissioner with specific teeth in the matter of misuse of state resources. This provision had, however, mysteriously disappeared from the final version of the 17th Amendment when it was placed before the previous House. 

The deleted provision made any person who contravened or failed or neglected to comply with any direction or order issued by the Commissioner or indeed, any provision of the law relating to elections, guilty of an offence. 

The Commissioner was thus entitled to institute criminal proceedings in the appropriate court under his own hand. Where any particular offence was not punishable by any particular law, the Commission or the Attorney General was empowered to move the High Court in the matter and rigorous penalties could be imposed on a person found guilty of such offence, up to a fine not exceeding hundred thousand rupees or a sentence of seven years imprisonment or both. While the PPP/IHR Report has gone much further in its recommendations regarding such deterrent provisions, it is obvious that some kind of substantive constitutional or statutory change is imperative if the present government is sincere about its need to bring about a new political culture. Merely activating the 17th Amendment may prove to be woefully inadequate.