Tuesday Dec 24, 2024
Tuesday Dec 24, 2024
Friday, 5 July 2019 00:10 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
There is a wide circle of readers who used to ask me various questions over the phone and through social media viz. SMS and Facebook, in relation to the issues that I discuss through newspapers.
“How to eradicate the corrupt system that prevails in the country at present?” can be considered the most common of the many questions they have posed to me in contemporary times. Though the question is presented in various forms, the essence of it remains same.
Electoral system
Most of those who desire to have a real change in the system are of the view that it should be achieved through capturing ruling power of the country by contesting elections. Yet, my contention is that the problem of the system that Sri Lanka is facing cannot be solved that way.
The electoral system in Sri Lanka has been designed in such a way that it would not be possible for those keen on changing the system to acquire ruling power by contesting elections.
In many countries where a democratic system of governance is in operation, the electoral system has been established in such a manner that the people’s sovereignty cannot be bartered for money. Strict laws have been imposed on political party funds. There is an upper ceiling imposed on the funds that can be received by political parties and candidates from individuals and companies. For instance, the maximum amount that a company in India could legally donate to a political party is restricted to Rs. 25,000.
Since 1977, the electoral system in Sri Lanka had been designed in such a way that the rich people could buy the sovereignty of people for money. No legal limit has been imposed on party funds and electoral funds received by political parties. There is no system of audit being carried out on funds received by political parties or the candidates and how they are being spent.
Most of those who desire to have a real change in the system are of the view that it should be achieved through capturing ruling power of the country by contesting elections. Yet, my contention is that the problem of the system that Sri Lanka is facing cannot be solved that way. The electoral system in Sri Lanka has been designed in such a way that it would not be possible for those keen on changing the system to acquire ruling power by contesting elections
Nature of the system
The average expense incurred by a candidate of the two major political parties contesting a Presidential Election in Sri Lanka amounts to Rs. 3 billion. There have been certain candidates who have spent more than Rs. 250 million for Parliamentary Elections.
Prior to 1977, there were strict laws restricting electoral expenses in Sri Lanka. At the 1970 General Election, the maximum amount that a candidate contesting for a parliamentary seat could spend had been restricted to Rs. 5,000 only. All candidates contesting for elections were legally bound to submit a comprehensive report of all expenses incurred for election to the Commissioner of Elections.
All rules and regulations imposed for sustaining the electoral system at a civilised milieu have been completely abolished, creating a system in which the rich could buy over the voters for money. The system that is in operation in Sri Lanka has created a background in which the rich can buy not only the voters, but also the heads of state elected or likely to be elected.
Therefore, it can be said for sure that there is hardly an opportunity for a group of people or a political movement desirous of making a genuine change in the system for the common good of the country to capture ruling power of the country by contesting elections.
Wijeweera of the JVP too contested the Presidential Election 1982. The JVP incurred very heavy expenses for the election despite having a very strong organisation capacity. Hector Kobbekaduwa contested the election from SLFP, following Sirima Bandaranaike, the Leader of the SLFP, being deprived of her civic rights.
Hector Kobbekaduwa was not a charismatic leader compared to Sirima Bandaranaike. Yet, he polled 2,548,438 votes (39.7%) while Wijeweera was able to secure only 273,459 votes (4.19%). Wijeweera wanted to become a strong contestant and give a close competition though he knew he couldn’t win. But he failed to achieve that expectation.
The common candidate fielded by the Opposition in 2015 against Mahinda Rajapaksa was able to win the Presidential Election because of the support he received from the UNP which constituted a strong political party. The fate of the common candidate would have been a miserable failure had he not been supported by the UNP.
The path for system change
Any third party which may intend contesting the two forthcoming elections, the Presidential Election and the General Election, with a view to changing the system, is most unlikely to even become a strong contestant, let alone winning the election, unless with strong financial support.
Presently, the Sri Lankan State is not in a strong position. It is in a state of degeneration and virtual collapse. The entire State has reached a historical crossroad at which it has to be recreated.
In this context, those contesting future elections with the intention of changing the system, which of course they cannot win, would invariably result in giving a new facelift to the old State which is on the verge of collapse whilst at the same time contributing to destroy the morale and the enthusiasm of most of those who are anxious to effect a radical change in the system for the common good.
My opinion is that all proponents of the proposed system change must attempt to convert the forthcoming Presidential Election into a crucial referendum to register their protest on the survival of the present system.
For that, the citizens can request the Election Commission to print a special square in the ballot paper so that the voters can express their consent for a change of the system. Otherwise, the next course of action would be to invalidate the vote through an organised citizens program and transform the Presidential Election into a referendum to decide on the fate of the current system.
It is important that a National Centre consisting of people’s organisations is established to work towards a referendum to change the system accompanied by a strong publicity campaign to raise people’s awareness of the program. The main object of this program would be to win a People’s Constitution for the country that would pave the way for effecting far-reaching structural change in the entire socio-political system.
A People’s Constitution is an advanced concept, which not only the ordinary people of the country but even the intelligentsia are not very familiar with.
It is a methodology acknowledged by international law and being adopted successfully by many countries to make a complete transformation of the socio-political system without resorting to a violent revolution. Its scope extends beyond the task of drafting a mere constitution and involves a comprehensive social process looking into all other aspects connected to it.
As there is an extensive corpus of published literature available on this subject,
I do not intend describing its process in detail at this stage. In short, it can be described as a process which is not confined only to the members of Parliament; it is a comprehensive program that gives greater focus and majority power of the constituent assembly to the public and makes its workings transparent and open to the public, allowing them to actively engage in the entire process from its beginning to the end.
The main object of this program should be to recognise the circumstances that led to the degeneration of the State and obstructed the process of building the modern nation and also to identify the reforms required for building the modern nation and recreating the State and implementing them. This program must be implemented by a constituent assembly, exclusively set up for the purpose, giving more powers to the representatives of people’s organisations and lesser power to the parliamentarians.
The constituent assembly established for this purpose, in addition to making a new constitution, should address the following issues as well.
1) Issues which caused the degeneration of the State:
2) Issues which caused the division of the nation:
Civilising media culture
Sri Lanka will be able to achieve a deep and far-reaching transformation in the political sphere only if it would be possible to change the irresponsible and uncivilised conduct of media organisations and bring them into a civilised milieu in which they will work properly and responsibly for the fulfilment of social obligations incumbent upon them.
First of all, it will be much easier to acquire the desired transformations and structural changes required for common good of the people, provided a positive change is made in the media culture. Then, the media can serve as a strong force that will buttress the transformations and structural changes rather than acting against them.
Actually speaking, the true capacity for civilising media culture lies in people themselves. The public should make the electronic media their first target in effecting this change.
The public has an inherent claim on radio frequencies, on account of them being a public property, which the electronic media uses.
Under the circumstances, electronic media has a greater responsibility to work for the common good while the public has a special right to demand a better service.
However, the campaigns and programs launched by the public to influence the electronic media shouldn’t be based on arbitrary and haphazard actions and processes.
The process that they adopt should be justifiable, legal, disciplinary and democratic.
The public should refrain from demonstrating and clamouring in front of electronic media organisations. Instead, they can insist on the media organisations to change the policies which are not conducive to the common good of the country and inform them that they would keep their TVs and radios switched off unless and until their demands are met.
For this purpose, a notification can be issued to media institutions as follows:
1. Radio frequencies utilised by electronic media constitute a limited public property. Therefore, the electronic media has a special responsibility to work for the common good of the people. So much so, the public has a right to make a legal interference on occasions when the media organisations fail to fulfil this obligation.
2. As people of this country, the public can request the electronic media organisations to make changes in their programs for the common good of the country. 3. Until these changes are effected, the people associated with this movement will keep their TVs and radios, used in their homes, switched off.
It will be done peacefully, patiently and in keeping with the law.
4. The demands of the people are as follows:
(i) 50% of broadcasting time must be allocated for programs aimed at the common good.
(ii) The content of programs should be of high standard.
(iii) The content of programs broadcasted should be accurate, impartial and capable of inspiring public interest.
(iv) The debates on controversial issues and reporting of incidents should be presented in different perspectives so that the viewers and listeners could get a broader view of the issues debated and reported.
(v) Media should refrain from broadcasting programs that may lead to create social divisions and conflicts based on sex, caste, ethnicity and religions and create resentment, disgust or hatred against any social group.
5. The following facts are mainly relevant to the idea of public welfare:
(i) Protection and promotion of democracy and the rule of law.
(ii) Ensure national security.
(iii) Deny the recognition accorded to discriminatory practices based on sex, caste, ethnicity and religion and protect and promote national reconciliation and social harmony.
(iv) Protection and promotion of fundamental rights.
(v) Promotion of truthfulness and plural character of society.
(vi) Dissemination and promotion of scientific knowledge.
(vii) Protection of environment.
(viii) Raise awareness of society and the State about the issues that may affect the wellbeing of public life and survival of the country.
(x) Raise awareness of the State and the society about the serious mistakes and offences taking place in the country.
A policy frame, acceptable to people, must be formulated based on the issues mentioned in paras four and five above, in entirety and published by the media institutions.
If the public is agreeable with the policy frame published by respective media institutions, then the boycotting launched against them will be terminated.
If a public program of this nature can be successfully implemented, undoubtedly,
it would be possible to make a wholesome change in the media culture as far as electronic media is concerned.
It will certainly augur well, not only for the common good of the country, but also for the welfare of the electronic media organisations themselves whilst at the same time strengthening the process of the urgent transformation and structural changes that Sri Lanka needs urgently.
Sri Lanka will be able to achieve a deep and far-reaching transformation in the political sphere only if it would be possible to change the irresponsible and uncivilised conduct of media organisations and bring them into a civilised milieu in which they will work properly and responsibly for the fulfilment of social obligations incumbent upon them. The public should make the electronic media their first target in effecting this change. The public has an inherent claim on radio frequencies, on account of them being a public property, which the electronic media uses. Under the circumstances, electronic media has a greater responsibility to work for the common good while the public has a special right to demand a better service
The statement made in my previous article that “the Japanese Government has banned the production, sale and possession of microwave ovens” is incorrect. It was an inadvertent error caused by incorrect information contained in a video clip sent to me by a learned person. I express my deepest regret to the readers for inconvenience caused in this connection
– Victor Ivan –
