Our Dysfunctional Parliament
by Sanjeewa Jayaweera-May 2, 2020, 8:21 pmAt the outset, I need to confess; I am neither a constitutional expert, a lawyer, nor a civil society activist. I retired recently after a satisfying career in the private sector spanning 25 years, and my forte was finance and corporate management.
An epidemic of unprecedented scale is impacting our country and the world at large, resulting in a gigantic economic crisis. However, the focus of politicians, constitutional experts, civil society activists, and the media is on the vexed question if General Elections should take place or the dissolved Parliament reconvened. The President claims the Constitution does not permit him to revoke the gazette dissolving Parliament nor recall it. There have been articles written by several individuals, including lawyers contradicting him. They claim constitutional provisions are available for him to reconvene the dissolved Parliament.
The vast majority of the people are struggling to make ends meet, and their focus is on survival and trying to make it to the next day. They do not care about the recall of the dissolved Parliament nor a possible constitutional crisis. Who can blame them? Lack of interest and indifference is due to the consistent failure of the Parliamentarians to discharge their duties and honor the promises made before elections. It is in that context that I decided to write this article.
The President of Sri Lanka can justifiably claim he represents the will of the country in that he was recently elected. On the other hand, the dissolved Parliament elected four and a half years ago did not represent the current wishes of the electorate. The Yahapalana government was an absolute disaster, and in my view, the final nail on the coffin of good governance.
The President did not command the support of a majority of Members of Parliament (MPs) in the legislature. On the two previous occasions, our country had a President who was from a different political persuasion to that of the majority of the Parliament; the consequences were disastrous. It culminated in the tragic loss of 260 innocent lives and an economic catastrophe just over a year ago.
None of us wishes to see a repeat of implications arising from an unholy alliance, particularly in these challenging times. The decision to dissolve Parliament at the earliest possible date, as provided for by the Constitution in my view, was sensible.
Opposition MP's claim public interest is their objective. If that be the case, they could have joined the MP's who supported the President and voted for the dissolution of Parliament soon after the Presidential Election in November 2019. That was the right thing to do as they had lost their mandate.
According to news reports, the Prime Minister is planning to meet the 225 MP's of the dissolved Parliament to discuss the situation in the country. We can only hope that petty party politics will not stand in the way in arriving at a pragmatic solution to enable the President to govern with minimum impediments so that the country can move forward in resurrecting what is left of the economy.
An article penned by Ravi Ratnasabathy around a year ago for Advocata Institute captioned "A Failure of Governance." sheds some crucial reasons for the failure of our system of governance. They are listed below.
Citizens assume political actors are mainly concerned with the interests of the public and the State exists to carry out the wishes of the people. When individuals become politicians, they do not suddenly abandon their interests and turn into public-spirited persons who make morally correct decisions in the 'public interest.'
Politicians act to please interest groups supporting them, pushing policies that lead to re-election and pursuing other personal agendas.
Politicians take collective decisions. They are made by politicians on behalf of the public, and not by the people themselves.
All decisions involve a cost-benefit trade-off, but when an individual makes an economical choice, he or she is faced with costs and also enjoy benefits. Thus, they will only act if it is in their interest. In collective decisions, whether they involve giving jobs to graduates or building roads, beneficiaries (e.g., graduates, road users) are not always the people who bear the costs (taxpayers or homeowners losing property).Collective decisions, unlike individual ones, carry considerable implications. Good politicians should weigh overall costs and benefits on our behalf to determine if the right choices might increase' social welfare.' The question is, do Sri Lankan politicians have the motive, or even the capacity, to do so?
Campaign finance required for election to Parliament creates incentives for corruption and poor governance. The 1978 Constitution removed the limits and requirement to disclose campaign funding. Based on conversations with other commentators, it is estimated to be between Rs. 50-100 million, rising to Rs 150 million for those canvassing for preferential votes.
This type of funding requirement excludes the majority of citizens, including the educated, from Sri Lankan politics.
Politicians turn to wealthy backers, some connected to the underworld, to fund campaigns and provide labour in return for political protection or rewards. It results in a group selected based on access to cash and a workforce, not intellect, capability, and integrity entering Parliament. Moreover, the need to recover campaign spending means they come into office under obligation to their sponsors, carrying an inbuilt incentive to corruption.
It has undermined the technical capacity of the State; how can proper policy be formulated if the politicians and bureaucrats are ill-qualified to perform the necessary analysis? The bureaucracy has an essential role in policymaking, providing an objective assessment of policy options, drawing on the experience, and practical considerations. Unfortunately, decades of nepotism have sapped its capacity. The concept of independent policy analysis does not exist in Sri Lanka, leaving a vacuum vulnerable to capture by special interest groups.
Political actors will pursue their interests, but functional governance systems can check the worst of these impulses. The most important is Parliament, which works through questioning government ministers, debating, and the investigative work of committees.
Unfortunately, serious deficiencies exist. Engineering crossovers, in return for political office, reduces Parliament to a rubber stamp. Thus there is little incentive for MPs to take Parliament seriously. Many don't even attend. (Please see table 1 for an analysis of attendance in 2018 and 2019)
Even those who attend often remain in the House only for the first hour. Attending funerals, weddings, etc. is their priority; they recently voted themselves a new monthly allowance of Rs.100,000 for gifts to be given at such functions.
Once elected, the goal is Cabinet appointment, as this presents opportunities for gain and furthering political careers. Once ensconced, the incentive is to enjoy office, not to risk the privileges by questioning authority. The multiplication of the Cabinet is driven more by the need to lure opposition MPs to maintain a rubber-stamp majority than strictly functional requirements.
Ratnasabapathy has well-articulated what ails the Parliamentary system of governance in Sri Lanka despite him stating, theoretically, the Parliament should act as the deterrent for abuses in governance. I am not aware of a single prosecution despite numerous startling revelations of corruption and financial mismanagement made before COPE. The Committee, empowered only to investigate but not prosecute, may also not summon Ministers. In most instances, it is Ministers who issue irregular directives to public servants who are later summoned before COPE.
Parliament meets for eight days each month as two four day sessions, with a ten-day interval in between. Records indicate, 46 and 52 MPs attended less than 50% of parliament sessions in 2018 and 2019, respectively. There are some very well known proponents of Parliamentary democracy in the two lists! Do they have a moral right to seek re-election?.
See Table 1
On two or three occasions in the recent past due to the lack of a quorum (minimum of 20 MP's), the Speaker had to adjourn Parliament!. On one occasion there were only three Yahapalana MP's out of 106 in attendance whilst they were in power!. These are the same people who are now demanding that Parliament be reconvened.
The 2018 Statement of Financial Performance of the Sri Lanka Parliament discloses, Rs. 2.37 billion was the cost of salaries, other employment benefits, and various goods and services of the Parliament. In the absence of precise details, I am assuming the figure includes the salaries and allowances of MPs besides the cost of approximately 920 Parliament staff. What a colossal waste of public funds!.
Mangala Samaraweera, a former Minister, has recently released a statement stating it would be extra-constitutional for the President to draw from the Consolidated Fund after April 30, 2020 as the previous vote on account (VOA) expires on that date. He has further stated, any person acting in contravention of constitutional provisions, on conviction by the Court of Appeal, shall be subject to civic disability for such period not exceeding seven years and forfeit his movable and immovable property.
This is the very same person who without either Cabinet and Parliamentry approval committed the Government of Sri Lanka to co-sponsor a resolution on war crimes at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva (UNHRC). His actions in trying to get various security agreements with the United States of America signed and sealed without Cabinet, and Parliamentry approval just prior to the Presidential election are well known.
The hilarity of our Parliament has no limits. Former President Sirisena and former Prime Minister Wickremesinghe would, by all accounts, be MPs in the next Parliament, either elected or through the national list despite both being criminally negligent for the loss of 260 innocent lives due to the Easter Sunday Bombings. They would be enjoying the many privileges of being an MP instead of serving time in the Welikada prison
According to Transparency International, only Nine MPs have submitted their declaration of assets and liabilities as required by Law. It is pertinent to question whether the balance 216 MPs should be allowed to contest the next General Election?.
The disgraceful behaviour of several MPs from both sides of the divide in November 2018 inside Parliament does not give them the moral authority to demand its recall or seek re-election in the forthcoming general election. The leaders of the two main political parties failed to restrain their MPs. The Speaker took no punitive actions against the offenders even after one and half years. It is a reflection of their commitment to parliamentary democracy.
My father, a former senior government servant, would regularly say, "Thu vitharak, Mung okkama horu" – "Curse them, they are all crooks" whenever he watched a politician interviewed on television. It was nearly 35 years ago. Unfortunately, things have gone from bad to terrible.
The all-important functions of the Parliament are: Exercising the legislative power of the people, full control over public finance, and oversight over the Executive. It is abundantly clear the last Parliament and the many before that failed miserably to discharge their functions effectively. The plight of our country is due to the poor calibre of Parliamentarians we have elected over the years.
In my view, a parliament that does not function as it should and does not perform its envisaged functions is a luxury that we can ill afford despite it being the central pillar of a Democratic country. As articulated by Ratnasabathy, the financial resources required to be an MP in Sri Lanka is beyond the means of most decent and law-abiding citizens for whom financial integrity is non-negotiable. To continue with Parliamentary elections in the current format would be to perpetuate further misery on the people of this country.
I am no constitutional expert, and I am unable to propose an alternative while being compliant with the existing constitutional provisions. I for one yearn for a smaller legislative assembly of a maximum of 50 persons without any political affiliations possessing an unblemished record of financial integrity with either professional or commercial experience in their respective fields. The assembly in all probability will need to be an unelected chamber. I hope a panel of non-partisan constitutional experts will come up with a solution.
It will be ideal if the Cabinet of Ministers consists of persons who have previously not been MP's! Ideally, they could be professionals and members of the business community with a proven track record.
In the corporate sector, my generation of senior executives when deciding on the suitability of a person to be promoted used to ask ourselves "Can he/she get the job done?". Simple as that!.
The time has come to think out of the box and explore new horizons.
MP's scuffle at the Parliament on 15th November, 2018
