Democracy in the time of a pandemic

Monday, 12 October 2020 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

In the fantasy epic ‘A Game of Thrones’, the story revolves around high-stakes political intrigue while a larger looming threat rumbles along in the background. The case of Sri Lanka’s latest COVID-19 outbreak and the political back and forth surrounding the 20th Amendment to the Constitution fits neatly into this narrative mould.

In terms of immediacy, suppressing the community spread of COVID-19 is understandably the Government’s – and indeed the entire population’s – number one priority at the moment.

Some of the blame for the latest outbreak must be shouldered by the members of the public, whose complacency in adopting the rigorous health and safety measures seen in the early months of the outbreak has meant that the virus might possibly have spread faster than it otherwise would have. By extension, the Government, too, must be taken to task for possibly not being forceful enough in ensuring public adherence to the necessary hygiene guidelines, while corporates must be questioned around the eagerness with which work-from-home arrangements – something that was proving workable – were done away with it.

But the lesson, if there is one, is that all these actions and non-actions have consequences. It is in that vein where the country’s longer term future must not be ignored, simply because it might be too troublesome to ponder.

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his Government came into power, in part by telling the public they will improve governance and minimise corruption. However, the proposed 20th Amendment (20A) threatens to severely undermine key parts of this endeavour by removing or gutting several key safeguards.

On a weekend on which it was revealed that the Government is set to sign off on a $ 500 million loan from China, just weeks after the similarly-sized MCC grant from the United States was rejected following months of scrutiny, the need for strong regulatory oversight of the Government has been highlighted more clearly than ever.

Former Speaker of Parliament Karu Jayasuriya last week pointed out provisions in the 20th Amendment that, if enacted, would essentially lead to a situation where neither the President nor the Prime Minister would be able to be audited by the Auditor General.

This critique joins other red flags present in the 20A, such as the removal of the National Procurement and Audit Commissions. The multitude of issues that have cropped up in the recent past can be traced directly to the way tenders are awarded and how State-run companies are managed. The corruption and mismanagement will have an additional layer of impunity now if both the Procurement and Audit Commissions are scrapped. Removing the latter will ensure that public officials cannot be held responsible if their actions cause a loss to the State, reopening the door to an unhealthy nexus between politicians, public servants and nefarious business entities.

What is particularly worrying about the move to pass the 20th Amendment is the Government’s assertion that a two-thirds majority in Parliament should suffice in passing it into law – something to be decided by the Supreme Court.

However the most democratic of options would undoubtedly be a public referendum, in addition to Parliamentary approval, putting this most serious of decisions about the country’s future in the hands of those most impacted by it.