Focus on Rights

Mourning the passing of a gentler era
Just two months before he passed away, Earle Abeyesekera sent me an article that he wished to have published in a monthly publication on law and rights that I edit. It was on his pet topic - 'The government take-over of the Lake House Newspapers" Despite his failing health and extraordinary years, his remarks were customarily succinct. They were also painfully condemnatory of all political parties for their allowance if not encouragement of the deterioration of an institution that he had served so loyally at a point and which still remained very dear to his heart.

My recalling of his thoughts now is not merely to castigate ourselves anew regarding the historical fiasco of the 'broadbasing' of Lake House or to score a point about the private media vis a vis the state media. Objectively speaking, the current capacity of sections of the private media to finger point, given the political agendas that appallingly and openly underlie their own publications, is undoubtedly limited.

Instead, my objective is primarily to mourn the passing of a gentle man, not merely as someone responsible in my formative years for encouraging a deep albeit somewhat naïve belief in the positive power of the media. The mourning comes also in a wider context for a rare individual who - with a constant interest that transcended the passivity dear to the majority of his countrymen - attempted to light a candle, in the proverbially Chinese way, against the darkness of a collapsing system.

He did so quietly, not for personal benefit or vaingloriously as again is so often evident today but with a passion for the issue itself which grievously offended his sense of what was right. The concerns raised by him are valid not only in regard to what had once been a premier newspaper institution but indeed, in relation to almost every aspect of our societal functioning.
Essentially, he questioned the ethos of a society that allows the blatant misuse of the law as referable to the particular example of Lake House. For those who need reminding, the Associated Newspapers of Ceylon (Special Provisions) Law in 1973 subjected the takeover to a specific legal undertaking that the newspaper company be broadbased and that the majority of the shares acquired by the Public Trustee be gradually divested by sale of the shares to the public.

The mandated broadbasing was not carried out by that government nor in the many decades thereafter. The findings of an expert committee in 1995 that Lake House shares be re-distributed in a manner that would ensure the creation of a broadbased democratic newspaper company with the widest possible citizens' participation were also ignored. This committee was among four committees appointed by the PA Government (in the first flush of its election victory) to look into various aspects of the functioning of the media.

In 2002, the United National Front administration indulged in the same old weary routine of political appointments to Lake House as did the PA again when it replaced the UNF administration relatively shortly thereafter. In the future, the one difference will be that even the promise of broadbasing Lake House will not feature in election manifestoes.

Observing this sequence of events, Earle Abeysekera's observations were pungent; 'A whole Pandora's box was opened, of serious weaknesses and shortcomings in the working of the democratic system we have been proud of, going back seventy five years to the advent of universal suffrage in 1931. Even more serious was the degeneration in the moral quality of the politicians and political leadership who desire to be in power, without scrupling to use immoral means, including deliberate deceit, breaking of solemn pledges and specific promises backed by hypocritical stances and pronouncements while in opposition yet wholly ignored when they come into government.'

The critique however, went beyond the misdeeds of politicians. He wondered at the vitality and indeed, the sanity of a society that looks upon such infringements without protest, including the inability of concerned civil society to take the matter to court and obtain a ruling that reinforced the law some years back when the wave of public interest litigation was at its height.

Moreover, his criticisms were not only directed at the state media. Instead, after he wrote the article on Lake House, he was extremely keen as to discover as to what private media institutions or bodies that he could write to in regard to calling upon the private media to observe fundamental rules of integrity, objectivity and commitment in its work. I believe that the letter written by him in this regard was published thereafter in a daily newspaper.

Such reflective thoughts remain very pertinent to us now. From one perspective, it stands to reason that the broadbasing of Lake House, though claiming a separate rationale of its own, should also be accompanied by more rigorous standards in the practice of journalism in the private media as well. Notwithstanding schemes of self regulation, training institutes and codes of ethics, such professionalism stills remains to be evidenced.

From another perspective, the blatant bypassing of the law by government ministers who insist that the Lake House is all that belongs to the government while the private media is run by opposition political forces is very symbolic to what has happened in general to our governance processes. This rabid politicization is why, for example, we do not still have a Constitutional Council in place let alone the Elections Commission.

Rectification of these paradoxes both in the law and its functioning requires not only the political will but also a singular impetus from the people that demands more than the ritual use of the vote. The man whose passing away, this columnist remembers now did, indeed, endeavour to do this in his own way and with regard to one issue particularly dear to his heart. If we have more like him, the likelihood of the forthcoming elections bringing about an actual change in the proper functioning of the three tiered governance structure (viz; the legislature, the executive and the judiciary), rather than the substitution of one set of charlatans for another, will be better than the near zero possibility that it is now.

Back to Columns