Controlling frogs

Editorial-February 8, 2015, 9:42 pm 

It is reported that anti-crossover laws are being mulled over as part of the new government’s package of constitutional reforms. They are most welcome. Public opinion is, however, divided on this issue.

There are two schools of thought. One argues that legislators who defect should be deprived of their parliamentary seats forthwith while the other is of the view that they should have the freedom to sit as independent members and act according to their conscience without accepting ministerial portfolios etc. But, the problem with our politicians’ conscience, if any, is that it too has a price! As such, a legislator may be able to get his or her palms sufficiently greased and back a party of his or her choice on the pretext of remaining independent. Therefore, a by-election in case of a lawmaker defecting and losing his or her seat as a result seems to be a way out. The electoral system will have to be changed for this purpose.

Crossovers have become a matter of grave public concern because they are a threat to political stability. Yes, they render governments unstable and even bring about their collapse as we have seen in the past. In 2001, the UNP dislodged the SLFP-led PA government of President Chandrika Kumaratunga by engineering a spate of defections. However, there has been an instance where defections helped prop up a government to the benefit of the public. But for crossovers from the UNP the UPFA government (2004-2010) would have fallen even before the commencement of the country’s successful war on terror and the defeat of terrorism would not have been possible. Crossovers also played a significant role in ousting the Rajapaksa government last month.

An argument against anti-crossover laws is that they will enable a party leader to put an MP in the straitjacket of party discipline and ride roughshod over him or her whimsically. However, on balance, defections are mostly due to graft and corruption and, therefore, it is only natural that there has arisen a pressing need to prevent them.

For the first time in the post-Independence political history, a government has had to take its manifesto seriously and move at full tilt to implement its election promises. The Opposition has been left with no alternative but to assist it in its endeavour. People have been the beneficiaries. Therefore, serious thought should be given to introducing a constitutional provision to make election manifestos legally binding.

The proposed constitutional amendments are said to envisage limiting the number of Cabinet ministers to 30 besides 40 state ministers and deputy ministers. A small country like Sri Lanka with 45 ministers at the provincial level including nine Chief Ministers who are equal in rank to members of the Cabinet, the number of Cabinet ministers should be restricted to 15 with an equal number of deputy ministers. The practice of appointing State Ministers or Kankaanam Amathies ought to be scrapped.

People are burdened with 225 parliamentarians, most of whom are absent even during important debates. There are about 450 provincial councillors and we suggest that the national legislature be downsized. Let our government worthies emulate Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has stressed the need for minimum government and maximum governance.

Those who have undertaken to amend the Constitution should not lose sight of the need for a recall system to enable voters to have their say on a parliamentarian’s action where his or her behaviour has fallen below the standards of a lawmaker. An MP found guilty of wrongdoing should be made to resign and face a by-election.

Meanwhile, the need for a constitutional provision to prescribe a ceiling on campaign expenses cannot be overemphasized. At present the sky is the limit and billions of rupees raised by politicians for elections go unaccounted for and anti-social elements including drug barons get elected by bribing voters. This has paved the way for corruption and helped moneybags sway not only individual politicians but also governments. Good governance has become a buzzword today; it is a kind of political nirvana which everybody is apparently striving to achieve.

Transparency and accountability are two main pillars of good governance. Will the UPFA and the UNP-led alliance in power set an example for others by revealing information such as the amount of funds raised for their recent presidential campaigns; who contributed funds and how much was actually spent?

The fish, it is said, rots from the head down. What moral right do political leaders who don’t account for funds they collect for elections have to ask others to refrain from unethical and/or corrupt practices? They are behaving like the proverbial crab which moves sideways while urging its offspring to go straight.

As for the proposed constitutional amendments, the government is tinkering at the edges of a much wider problem which, unless properly tackled, will render the envisaged solutions unworkable. Haste has to be avoided in constitution-making and there should be adequate time and space for a wide public discussion on proposed changes to the basic law before their ratification.