Ethics in politics

Ethics in politics has been a hotly-debated topic in contemporary politics. Many public figures have had to give up their positions over media exposes involving alleged malpractices.

Corruption has been a bane in our society for some time and now it has taken root and needs a surgical remedy, however difficult it may seem. This is not common to Sri Lanka and it is so in other countries. Sri Lanka differs only in the sheer scale of corruption compared to other countries.

All the abuses of power and other political machinations are common in other countries. However, prevalence of this malady in other countries should not be an excuse whatsoever. Neither should the argument that ‘successive regimes too have resorted to corrupt practices’ be used as it is no panacea.

The principle motive for corrupt behaviour is the shortcut to wealth and there is an absolute rat race to become a parliamentarian at any cost. This would even involve eliminating or liquidating an opponent or even suppressing dissent by any means. These are often described as ‘politically motivated’ crimes.

Citizenship

A strong democracy must demonstrate tolerance towards opposing views and if this is not manifest, it can lead to authoritarian tendencies, thus undermining the very constitution on which the state is founded.

All institutions of the state will then be subservient to the diktats of a cabal who wield power and positions within the government. Would not this be a tragic situation for a law abiding citizen?

Citizenship of the state will be of no value where actions of the state are to suppress dissent. A citizenship of the state is in fact an exalted position where the individual rights and civil liberties are guaranteed by the constitution and there are certain roles and obligations a citizen is morally bound to exercise without fear or favour.

One such case, for example, is to sit as a juror or as a witness in a court. If civil liberties are not respected then there is not a representative government but rather a government sustained by propaganda and disinformation.

We have in place a Bribery Commission introduced by the then PA Government but it does not seem to have caught any big sharks in the net. Its investigations have often been interfered with when inquiry turns into murky waters of politics and mafia.  

Conflicts of interest legislation

 Ethics is about one’s conduct based on one’s perception of what is good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, and justice. In politics, ethics is about the way in which people’s representatives and public servants conduct themselves in a manner in line with norms of the position for which they have been appointed or elected. Their primary responsibility is to ensure that public policy is implemented for the welfare of the people.

Ironically what we see today is only the welfare of the people’s representatives themselves and their cronies. Where are the ethics of governance? Where are the checks and balances that regulate the conduct of people’s representatives?

It would be pertinent to examine the legislation on ‘conflicts of interest’. Conflict of interest is a situation when an individual or an organisation is faced with multiple interests from the perspective of the individual or the organisation which would tend to corrupt the motivation for some action or behaviour towards another individual or an organisation.

As far as legal profession is concerned, there cannot be any collusion between the defence attorney, prosecuting attorney and the judge because the legal profession has established ethics in practice – perhaps the only profession that is still being practiced with some modicum of responsibility.

The medical profession has some serious issues over exploitation. A special research is required in this area. This is not so in politics where the conduct of the parliamentarians has reached subterranean levels.

Canadian legislation

It would be interesting to study Canadian legislation on the avoidance of conflicts of interest. This legislation defines ‘gift or other advantage’ as (a) an amount of money if there is no obligation to repay it; and (2) a service or property, or the use of property or money that is provided without charge or at less than its commercial value.

The purpose of the legislation is to (a) establish clear conflict of interest and post-employment rules for public office holders; (b) minimise the possibility of conflicts arising between the private interests and public duties of public office holders and provide for the resolution of those conflicts in the public interest should they arise; (c) provide the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner with the mandate to determine the measures necessary to avoid conflicts of interest and to determine whether a contravention of this act has occurred; (d) encourage experienced and competent persons to seek and accept public office; and (e) facilitate interchange between the private and public sector.

The legislation also defines what constitute ‘a conflict of interest’ such as “office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests”.

The legislation also empowers the commissioner of ethics with certain duties such as (a) review annually with each reporting public office holder the information contained in his or her confidential reports and the measures taken to satisfy his or her obligations under this act (b) to take any compliance measure, including divestment or recusal, that the commissioner determines is necessary to comply with this act.

The Ethics Commissioner is also empowered to make directions with regard to former public functionaries from (a) taking improper advantage of his or her previous public office, or (b) acting for or on behalf of any person or organisation in connection with any specific proceeding, transaction, negotiation or case to which the Crown is a party and with respect to which the former public office holder had acted for, or provided advice to and (c) giving advice to his or her client, business associate or employer using information that was obtained in his or her capacity as a public office holder and is not available to the public.

There is also provision that public functionaries could seek opinion from the ethics commissioner as to whether there is any conflict of interest vis-à-vis their position and the possible outcome of any decision.

Absence of political will

Citizens can participate in political debates and participate in public protests. Is there a ‘political will’ on the part of the policy makers to take appropriate action in this direction? How could we expect politicians to behave ethically when their suitability to represent people itself is questionable?

The public is well aware of colossal sums of money being spent and exploited by successive politicians on various pretexts and never was there an acceptable public outcry to stem such broad daylight robberies. Mass media plays a pivotal role in revealing sordid affairs of public functionaries.

It would perhaps be pertinent to legislate a Conflict of Interest Bill in the hope the conduct of the parliamentarians and public functionaries could be verified and dealt with by ethical considerations.

A Freedom of Information Bill too would have been a complimentary legislation in this regard had it been adopted through consensus. The defeat of the Freedom of Information Bill in toto must have sent bad signals to the public. It could still be resurrected through consensus. Its adoption would also enhance the credibility of the Government.

(Srinath Fernando is a freelance journalist and political lobbying and government relations consultant.)