The accountability issue

mby Rajeewa Jayaweera-May 16, 2020, 12:00 pm

The Oxford Dictionary defines the word Accountability ​as ‘the fact of being responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain to them when you are asked.’ It may sound simplistic, but, in a nutshell, the definition best explains the word as applicable from the highest in the land.

Something we regularly hear is the 19th Amendment to the Constitution made the President of the Republic accountable to Parliament or the Legislature. Other than the reintroduction of term limits for the President and the Right to Information Act, multiple aspects of the said piece of legislation, purpose-designed to hold the Rajapaksa clan at bay, was seriously flawed. Nevertheless, that is best left for another day.

An interesting article appeared in The Island on May 12 titled "Holding the executive accountable is a democratic necessity.’ It dealt with several issues, including COVID-19, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s leadership role, and popularity besides the current dilemma over parliamentary elections.

What was most interesting was a reference to a statement by ex-parliamentarian Sunil Handunnetti. He had highlighted the two options available to the Executive President, namely remaining as the decision making authority and the alternative of bringing in the institution of Parliament into the decision making process. The JVP politician had opined, it was not the personal qualities of the 225 parliamentarians that mattered but the institution of Parliament as an oversight body. Ex-parliamentarian Eran Wickemeratne has endorsed the former’s view on the basis that the overshooting of the debt ceiling by the current caretaker government required parliamentary ratification.

It is a chicken or egg situation. Has the institution of the Parliament in this country evolved from the personal qualities of parliamentarians, past and present, or does parliamentary traditions in its pristine form guide parliamentarians? In this writer’s subjective opinion, it is the former and not the latter. If not, there is no explanation for the many political travesties in Parliament during the last 72 years.

At the outset, now that the President has been made accountable to the Parliament, the next most natural question is, who holds Parliament accountable? There is no gainsaying that parliamentarians will be held accountable by the people during elections every five years.

Once a parliamentary election is over, voters do not have a chance of holding their representatives accountable for five years. They are unable to challenge a Member of Parliament (MP) to prove he or she continues to enjoy the confidence of voters in the electorate.

At an electorate or district level, voters do not have the privilege of a ‘Recall Vote.’ It should be a requisite based on specific parameters to hold MPs accountable and in check.

Similarly, the Constitutional Council, ideally suited to exercise oversight over Parliament is a farce. Whereas the Council should not have had a single parliamentarian, it contains seven of them. Only three members are from civil society.

The bottom line is, Parliament is an authority unto itself. Who overlooks the nation’s watchdogs? Among other things, MPs fix their remunerations, perks, and privileges besides their disciplinary matters. The lack of due process against those who resorted to damaging state property and thuggery inside the Parliament during the Constitutional crisis in 2018 is a telling example.

Returning to Handunetti’s lament of the institution of Parliament as an oversight body, a key concern expressed is the exceeding of the debt ceiling by the caretake government. Multi-million dollar contracts currently in the pipeline involving foreign entities with no transparency has suddenly become a critical factor.

It would be pertinent to examine how this hallowed institution, known as the Parliament, has ensured Accountability, transparency, and oversight in recent years.

Parliament impeached Shirani Bandaranayake, 43th Chief Justice of Sri Lanka, in January 2013. The charges brought against her by a Parliamentary Select Committee comprising of MPs would not withstand scrutiny by any self-respecting independent body.

We woke up on the morning of January 9, 2015, with a Prime Minister from the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA). By evening, the United National Party (UNP) leader had replaced him, sworn in a few minutes after the newly elected President. He did not prove he commanded the confidence of Parliament for a full eight months till after General Elections.

Commencing January 2010 till November 2019, both Mahinda Rajapaksa and Yahapalana regimes signed multiple multi-million dollar agreements. Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport (MRIA), Hambantota Port, Nelum Pokuna, and Lotus Tower besides several expressways resulted from such contracts. The cost per kilometer of roads is known to be substantially higher than those even in developed countries.

Parliament was in session during the nine years when all such projects were negotiated, approved, and completed. Did Parliament carry out its oversight function? If so, how could opposition parliamentarians substantiate their claim of the family of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, stashing away a fortune of 18 billion dollars in foreign banks?

Handunetti, Wickremaratne, and many others are insisting on reconvening the dissolved Parliament in the absence of a general election. The holding of a general election hangs on the balance due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Judging from its past track record, Parliament has failed to live up to expectations and failed in the execution of its sacred duty of ensuring Accountability, transparency, and oversight of successive governments.

The clamor to recall parliament smacks of opportunism and is an exercise for narrow political gain.

The opposition wants Parliament reconvened chiefly to invalidate their respective nomination lists for the forthcoming general election. They also wish to capitalize on incumbency fatigue of the government in office. The UNP and Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) may harbor dreams of patching up their differences and contesting on a common platform together with several minor and minority parties. If successful, fresh nominations would be to their advantage.

The Sri Lanka Podujana Pakshaya (SLPP), together with the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and several other smaller parties, have no desire to reconvene Parliament and permit their opponents to link up. It would be an obvious electoral disadvantage. The SLFP breaking away and joining the SJB is another possibility further complicating matters for SLPP and its partners.

COVID-19 is not only a local but also a global pandemic and has engulfed both Sri Lanka and the world. Unlike during the previous crisis periods, reaching out with our usual begging bowl is bound to be less successful as other countries, too, are reeling from the adverse effects of the coronavirus.

The management of the pandemic requires the undivided attention of President Rajapaksa’s government. Notwithstanding assurances of cooperation from the opposition, a divisive Parliament can unnecessarily hold the government, and a minority government at that, to ransom. It will also distract the government from giving its best shot in bringing the country and its economy out from the fallout of the pandemic with minimum damage.

A Chinese tourist was the first infected person to be detected in the country on January 27. A Sri Lankan tour guide discovered on March 10 was the first local. A total of 889 persons confirmed positive and nine deaths is the tally to date.

Despite all the pros and cons, lockdowns, and curfew, it is an impressive and enviable outcome when compared with those of most other countries, including in the developed West.

Under the circumstances, a mandate for the Head of State to govern till the end of the year to finish what is currently underway based on the ‘Doctrine of Necessity’ would be the most prudent course of action.

Dr.Jayampathi Wickramaratne, a Constitutional expert and drafter of the flawed 19th Amendment, has cautioned against the concept citing Pakistan as an example. He opines it is not a ‘kokatath thailaya’ (cure for all ills). COVID-19 is also not a ‘samanya vasangathye’ (common virus). The requirement is not for ever and a day as practiced in Pakistan but a specific period of six months.

Opposition parties, major, minor, and minority all claim to have the interests of the poor people at heart. Let them prove themselves by leaving the government to get on with the job and extending their silent support. They claim they will extend their unstinted support to the government if Parliament is reconvened. They may do so once Parliament reconvenes for one day, three months before Polling Date of January 01, 2021, or thereabouts. They may provide necessary covering approvals for all that is required before the dissolution of Parliament the same evening. They could also agree to go forward with nomination lists already filed.

It would be a genuine and welcome gesture from an opposition claiming concern for the welfare of the country and its people. It would also prove the genuineness of their offer.

If the situation worsens in the next six months, we as a nation will have other far more severe issues to worry about than elections.

If not, elections by January 01, 2021, or thereabouts, maybe even without social distancing, is a practical solution and a distinct possibility.