The Country Does Not Deserve Anything Less Than Success From Us
Lacille de Silva
The wrong people teach us best lessons. As a clever Nation, we had always used our ballot and chased wrong people away, when they nose-dived. Despite a few progressive steps taken, such as improved democratic space, MS/RW government is a good case study for bad governance. There is disappointment and disillusionment all over. They have wasted three years in office. In Parliament too, there appears to be big-time confusion. If the promised political reforms had been carried out credibly, i.e., the abolition of Executive Presidency, elimination of corruption, returning to parliamentary system of governance etc., all that could have created a significant impact on the State, the culture of impunity and governance.
The government failed to consider the need to look into promised economic revival, creation of employment, reduction of cost of living. They ignored confidence building measures while moving forward. The government also delayed local government elections, which has subsequently resulted in a political impasse, which is also a creation by choice unwisely. They furthermore began changing the ‘political will’ to investigate high-profile corruption cases and their mindset of taking legal action against perpetrators even before the expiry of the first year in office. The first step in that direction, was my removal from PRECIFAC w. e .f 1st March 2016. All these, no doubt was ‘political bungling’ and had now bounced back on the government causing irreparable damage.
The legislative process in Sri Lanka is based on constitutional provisions and the Standing Orders adopted by the Parliament in terms of Article 74 of the Constitution. Standing Orders are the rules and guidelines for conducting the day to day business of the House, in an orderly manner. In Parliament, the Speaker, who is expected to act with impartiality and authority, on the guidance of the Secretary-General, should not allow the members to engage in politics. Parliamentary politics is necessarily permitted only if members fall in line with the rules, regulations and practices of parliamentary procedure.
Speaker has the power to rule members for “unparliamentary” language and conduct and suspend a members when they disobey the orders wilfully – which is commonly called naming. Parliamentary practice is inherently procedural. Since we follow our mother Parliament, being a Westminster model parliamentary system, we need to rely greatly for reference and apply the processes etc., in the “Treatise upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usages of Parliament” by the Secretary-General on a daily basis. And it is not meant to be kept under the pillow. It is an essential tool for understanding the foundational concepts of parliamentary practice and procedure and seek guidance on a regular basis. Why don’t they apply the guidelines therein and prevent the parliamentary system from decay and destruction?
Thomas Erskine May (1815 – 1886), who had joined the House Commons, in the United Kingdom, as Assistant Librarian in 1831 (at the age of sixteen) had risen up through the ranks, having eventually ended up, as the most senior official, the Clerk of the House (1871 – 1886). He had been nominated to the staff by the then Mr. Speaker Manners Sutton. Treatise written by May, had been venerated with biblical solemnity, since it was first published in 1844.
The Treatise had subsequently ceased to be the work of May. It is now an expression of the collective wisdom of the Clerks throughout the history. It is also an account of developments that had taken place in parliamentary practice and procedure. The Clerks since the first identified Clerk of the House of Commons could be described as multi-tasked doyens, such as advice-giver to the Speaker, the Chief Executive Officer – a technocrat, to say the least. In Sri Lanka too, we continued with the same designation and was subsequently re-designated, in order to add more glamour and prestige, as Secretary-General of Parliament.
May had strongly supported the rhetorical view of Parliament as an exemplary deliberative assembly, and had praised the freedom of debate in the Westminster Parliament. Rules of Parliament had been designed to afford every legitimate opportunity for discussions, freedom of debate, generous regard for liberty of individual members, tolerance, within the walls of Parliament. He had added that the members nevertheless could be interrupted during the debate by crying “Order!” “Order!” if the debate is not in line with the procedure.
