Thursday Sep 19, 2024
Thursday Sep 19, 2024
Tuesday, 13 January 2015 00:52 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
The cut-outs were required to provide an artificial boost to an otherwise degenerated image that emanated from the poor performance at the hustings in the provinces. The Provincial Council elections were conducted for the very purpose of gauging his electoral chances. The provincial electorate sent a clear message that he was on a losing streak. Yet President Rajapaksa was also gripped over the predicament that might befall him in March as a result of the Genevahuman rights council deliberations.
President Rajapaksa felt that his popularity was sinking at an alarming rate and he thought, through his steamer roller majority and his blatant abuse of state resources and state terror and propaganda, that he could orchestrate an artificial election victory.
Even his ministers and confidants might not have been convinced that he could secure a victory, as were some of the public pronouncements. But he went ahead with the election, determined to win thinking that his main opponent would be Ranil Wickremesinghe. All strategies went awry with the emergence of President Maithripala Sirisena from within the camp backed by former president CBK, the UNP, JHU, SLMC, TNA and tacit support from the JVP.
The UNP camp was solidly behind the move to back Maithripala Sirisena, this was unexpected and the decision was ratified unanimously by the UNP Group of 20 and the working committee. Even Deputy Leader Sajith Premadasa threw his weight behind the campaign.
If President Rajapaksa had waited yet another two years, things would have been even more difficult as he was sure that March Geneva deliberations would target the Rajapaksas and the people around him and that would pave the way for desertions within the camp.
All in all, the election campaign was full of defections and disappointments for President Rajapaksa. President Rajapaksa would not have dreamt of an election if he had any hint of the scale of crossovers.
Was the election
free and fair?
President Sirisena would have secured even more votes had there been a free and fair election. Rajapaksa brazenly abused state media and resources and turned a blind eye to thuggery. The Opposition campaign faced several attacks by Rajapaksa acolytes. There was no free access to state media.The state media came under the supervision of the party apparatus and this has been going on for 10 years unabated. The UNP never took Rupavahini and SLBC to the task. Even public interest litigation (PIL) against Rupavahini and SLBC was not pursued. Ranil Wickremesinghe was subjected to vilification and black propaganda by the state media. President Sirisena did not get a fair share of air time.
Did US Govt. contemplate unilateral sanctions against Rajapaksa regime?
Apart from UNCHR in Geneva there was also yet another possibility of unilateral US sanctions as was demonstrated against the Belarus regime. Belarus was formerly part of the Soviet Union and came under US sanctions. Belarus was not accused of war crimes but there were widespread allegations of corruption, lack of transparency, lack of judicial integrity, nepotism and cronyism.
The US was of the opinion that the Belarus system of governance was a direct threat to the US’ financial system and the US Government attaches great importance to the integrity of the global financial system as it has a direct bearing on US national security. Not only would it threaten the US system but even US allies in Europe and other highly developed countries.
The majority of Sri Lankans do not understand the importance of good governance. Now we live in a globalised world where all money transactions are monitored due to terrorist financing and also where money laundering is a very serious business. The US Government has also penalised Chinese banks in the past. The US Government was able to contain the narcotics business in Mexico and Colombia to a considerable extent through intelligence-sharing and by following the money trail.
Supremacy of US
financial system
US pre-eminence in the world owes partly to the financial system and if a global partner is behaving not in accord with international norms of good governance it would threaten the US financial system.
The threat to the US financial system would come in the form of cyberattacks, money laundering, tight banking secrecy, frauds, tax evasion, etc. The most recent incident came from North Korea where SONY Entertainment was targeted. The US Government accused North Korea of hacking SONY Entertainment. In order to protect the US financial system, the US Government must ensure that all governments in the world must demonstrate practices of good governance whereas in Sri Lanka it was far below US standards. There was a total lack of transparency on some of the key infrastructure development transactions, a breakdown in the rule of law, lack of independence of the Judiciary and the sudden and unjustified removal of the former Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake. These were considered as actions that demonstrate an authoritarian style of governance which is very harmful to the US financial system.
One might wonder how then US Government tolerates authoritarianism in other countries. However, in those countries, on a case by case basis, the style of authoritarianism differs and they do not face any allegations of interfering with the Judiciary, nor is there a breakdown in the rule of law.
The central thrust of the argument is that US government would not be able to conduct an investigation on its own because (1) Evidence could not be obtained from such governments and that (2) Evidence could also be suppressed with state assistance by the cronies and that (3) The US Government cannot expect a credible investigation internally from a country with a dubious track record. (4) It can also protect criminals from justice. (5) It would then be late for the recovery effort.
A case in point is the presence of Laura Davies, Deputy High Commissioner of the British Embassy in the High Court to ensure that justice was meted out to perpetrators and also to send a strong message that the Government must ensure that judicial independence is maintained in the Khuram Shaikh case.
Why was it necessary for the British High Commission representative to be present in a court of law? Does it not imply that there is no faith in the administration of justice in our country? The Judiciary in India is extremely strong as is the judicial activism. People’s power is very strong in India solely because there is a free media and that media has not be threatened or been made to cow down. Since there is free media, it is easy to raise awareness.There are ample lessons to be learnt from Indian democracy.
How credible are the allegations of massive
corrupt deals?
It is important to ponder as to why the Rajapaksa administration disliked the Right to Information Act (RTI).Karu Jayasuriya presented the RTI bill twice but the Government rejected it. The RTI laws are very much in common in many countries as it is part of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and in some international conventions such as WTO.
The WTO needs to know if public procurement activities are done in an equitable manner and whether the letter and spirit of the WTO are stuck to. The RIT provides transparency in all Government decision-making process. A citizen has a right to know the basis on which the Government has taken a particular decision. Whether the decision-maker has taken into consideration any ‘irrelevant’ matters which ought not to have been taken into considerations or whether the decision-maker has omitted to take into consideration any ‘relevant’ matters (Wednesbury principle in administrative law) or whether the decision was based on subjective satisfaction, bias or in excess of jurisdiction. None of these are available for public scrutiny. The Rajapaksa Government maintained a tight lid on such matters and the public has been kept in the dark as to the reasons.
There have not been any public consultations as to the viability of massive infrastructure projects. There are allegations that even the Cabinet of Ministers is not aware of the Government’s decisions and that decisions have been made by a handful of persons who wielded political clout in the Government. This also sent yet another message that it was useless to maintain such a huge Cabinet of ministers and that it is never consulted on important issues.
High Commissioner Nonis resigned because he fell
off a chair?
It was extremely unpleasant to hear that senior officials at the highest level of Government engaged in a fracas in New York. After an internal inquiry it transpired that no one had seen the actual incident and vague and defensive answers were provided. It was mentioned at the internal inquiry that there had not been a physical assault but that High Commissioner Chris Nonis had fallen off a chair.
Can anyone believe that High Commissioner Nonis resigned because he fell off a chair? These types of questions demand that the Government spend not just 6% of GDP on education but 50 % of GDP on education.
The less money spent on education the more gullible and naïve citizens will become. The more money is spent on education the more intelligent the citizens would become hence it would be counterproductive to authoritarian regimes. When people are rendered ‘naïve’ and ‘gullible’ it would be easy to carry on with ‘false patriotism’, ‘faulty justifications’ and freely engage in complex transactions.
(This writer is a freelance journalist, a Government affairs analyst and a registered member of the American Association of Political Consultants.)
