A Government Without A Bureaucracy
By Basil Fernando -January 22, 2013
Basil Fernando
The systems of government in Asian countries may broadly be described under the following categories: Democratic – the government structure is based on the liberal democratic structure, and the bureaucracy functions with basic laws and rules that are in conformity with this structure; Militaristic – where the basic structure is based on military command and the bureaucracy also functions under the same rules and command; Socialist – authoritarian, where the system is built in a way that its rules are devised by an authoritarian command and rules of bureaucracy are designed to work under these rules; and a further category is one which was militaristic, socialist or authoritarian but is attempting to make a transfer to the democratic, and the work of the bureaucracy reflects this duality.
The Sri Lankan system after 1978 does not belong to any of these categories – It is a one person system and it is antagonistic to a bureaucracy.
Each of the other systems mentioned above has its own bureaucracy and has a rationality of its own. Each system has continuous rule-bound conduct. Those who come in contact with the system can soon know the rules of the game in living and working within such a system. What might happen or not happen is generally predictable.
There is no such continuous rule bound conduct within the Sri Lankan system. No one knows the rules of the game and what might or might not happen is not predictable. The Executive President (EP) might change any rule any time. For example, terms of Members of Parliament may be extended, say from six years to 12 years, if the EP so wishes. Judgments of courts may or may be obeyed. Rules of recruitment, dismissals in jobs etc. do not exist. Everything depends on the EP’s pleasure.
Under these circumstances, a rational bureaucracy cannot function. This was the problem that was recognized in 2001 by the parliament as whole, and the 17th Amendment to the constitution was an attempt to partially address the problem. However, the EP found that it made the EP’s function difficult and did away with it.
It is this absence of a rational foundation for bureaucracy that has given rise to the EP depending on family. It is not rational rules that the working of the government is based on but blood links. Those who criticize this as nepotism are trying to apply the rules of a democratic system. It is like criticizing a dog for not being a lion.
The failure of all those who oppose the Sri Lankan system is mostly due to the failure to call spade a spade.
The government’s argument in support of the impeachment was that it is right by our constitution. Since this constitution allows the EP to do anything, that argument is valid. The government justifies not providing a proper inquiry to prove any charges against the Chief Justice on the basis that under the 1978 constitution there is no such requirement.
Those who based their criticism on the basis of democracy and the rule of law have no alternative but to work towards the abolition of this constitution and towards establishing a system based on democratic rationality.
Requesting the EP to act democratic is to ask something that the EP cannot do, so long as the system based on the 1978 constitution exists. It is just like asking for the feathers of a tortoise.
A related publication- Gyges’ Ring-1978 Constitution- Available in the internet
Where To Be Born: To Be Or Not To Be
Ravi Perera
In the aftermath of the impeachment of the Chief Justice, with the nation’s psyche still defiled with the ugly debris of the political/legal battle of a wrenching saga which gripped us for nearly two months, one could have easily by-passed the “where to be born index 2013”. Evaluating various socio-economic measurements is not a luxury a nation perpetually in crisis can indulge in. Given the drab realities of our existence, wishfully thinking of the “the best cities to live in, the top 10 tourist destinations in the world, countries with the highest quality of life, the best restaurants , the cities with the richest cultural life etc” seems a fanciful activity with no possible gain to be had. Besides, for the 20 million souls calling Sri Lanka their home the question of the best place to born in 2013 is a question a life time too late. But where the yet to be born are concerned, perhaps a question of responsibility for those considering parenthood.
Just to put you in the picture, according to this index Sri Lanka is an unimpressive # 63 among about 70 nations surveyed as to the best place to be born in, if such a choice were to be available to the unborn. Switzerland leads as the most desirable place to be born with Norway and Australia right behind it. The United States is at 16 while Great Britain has fallen back to a not so impressive 27(Japan is at 25). To get a better idea of the index we must look at the scores of each country. Switzerland the No #1 scored 8.22 while Great Britain gets 7.01, the difference between being about 1.21 points. Sri Lanka at # 63 scores 5.71while Nigeria the worse country to be born in, scores 4.74.
It may be argued that although it is not considered a good place to be born in, things are looking up for those like us who are ex post facto. After all, we have a President who is on a crusade against corruption in high places, a leader of the opposition whose broad forehead perhaps is indicative of a head well crammed with details of sub-clauses and protocols of international covenants before which we would slip and a Chief Justice committed to the hilt to national unity and nation building. What more can a nation asks for in the leadership department, one may ask?
But surveys such as the best place to be born (in 2013) give a darker, even sinister, interpretation to this golden picture. If one were to go by the declarations by the government news media, the shrill tone which belies the genuineness of its assertion notwithstanding, the country is presently run by a passionately patriotic cabal extremely sensitive to constitutional niceties .So what is the truth? Is the truth with those far-a-way-surveyors working on various data in the comfort of nice places to be born in? Or is the truth with that unprepossessing looking mob shouting themselves hoarse in front of the Parliament House( built with Japanese money and skills in the late 1970s) about the sovereignty of parliament ?
There was a poignant scene at one point in their demonstration. Two gleaming four wheel drive vehicles stopped by the sweaty slovenly looking crowd. From one of the vehicles alighted a well groomed politician dressed in sparkling white, obviously on his way to the parliament. His security detail took up position ready for any eventuality. The politician spoke to the crowd. The crowd smiled happily and cheered. The politician got back to his vehicle which then whizzed towards the parliament.
When parliamentarians like Wimal Weerawansa and Ranil Wickramasinghe speak of the concept of the sovereignty of the parliament it is obvious that they are talking about a very foreign idea. The idea of the parliament evolved in far away Britain. It is amazing that a country to which the notion of a bath is said to have been introduced only in the Roman era ended up a few centuries later as one of the greatest nations in the world ever. The idea of a parliament is only one of the innumerable contributions to the world, by that nation in its effloresce. In contrast, our style of government seems to have remained unchanged from the time of King Vijay to Sri Wickrama Rajasinghe, two thousand years later. We developed no parliaments, comparable courts of law or for that matter any other democratic institution as recognized today. Nothing changed; every new event unfolded only a part of a revolving chain.
In the mimicking of cultures and institutions of another civilization, have we missed the essence? Was the virulent attacks on an almost defenseless Chief Justice and the nearly orgiastic ending of that drama the bricks and mortar on which the idea of a parliament was built? Surely the sovereignty of the parliament or for that matter any other institution means anything only if it is there to improve, strengthen and enhance human freedoms and dignity. That is the bedrock of the system we have adopted. Even a criminal is presumed to be innocent, the case against him must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before a select panel of his peers and after all that he still has a number of appeals available. It is a process that has won the acceptance of peoples far and wide.
It is said that in England the mere presences of an unarmed policeman is sufficient to bring most situations under control. His power comes from the acceptance by the populace of the essential justness of the British systems. In Sri Lanka on the other hand we saw that despite all the power play of the impeachment motion and the subsequent swearing in of another Chief Justice only naked power ensued its execution. Where such naked power has to be unleashed we surely cannot argue that there is general acceptance as well.
The motley crowd that greeted their representative in front of the parliament that day has another reason to cheer now. It is reported that the legislature may, in the event any one of them is arrested by the Police, extend the period of that detention, before he is to be produced before a magistrate. In other words, he will not have the protection of the law for a much longer period. But of course as their slogan said the parliament is sovereign.
It may be that the “truth” of any situation is relative. That day the crowd saw no wrong in the manner of their transport, the meals provided and even the payments made in return for their services. It mattered not that they had no real idea of what they were doing. That is the truth of an existence for those fated to be born in a not so desirable place. But in this world there are other realities, other truths as much as other parliaments. But one day if that crowd of simple people were to ask as Hamlet did “To be or not to be, that is the question:/Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer/ the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune/ or to take arms against a sea of troubles/and by opposing, end them”, will the truth appear very different?
