The need for oversight

Friday, 10 April 2020 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

As the total number of COVID-19 cases in the country continued its steady rise, another, less publicised but almost as important, number also came close to hitting double digits. As it stands nine people have been arrested on charges of criticising public officials and sharing false information on social media.

When this directive was first issued at the start of April, many activists and human rights advocates denounced the move, warning that the COVID-19 crisis was being used as a smokescreen to curtail freedom of expression. But one of the most sinister facets of a crisis is, that if it is large enough, it has the curious ability to frighten the public into doing away with many of the rights that traditionally define a democracy.

The danger with the present law is that it equates criticism of public officials to the obstruction of their duties and an intent to spread disinformation. In a true democracy, freedom of expression is a fundamental right, and one that not only imbues the public with the right, but necessitates that they hold public servants accountable for how taxpayer funds are spent.

While it may initially seem like an attractive proposition to allow authoritarianism to run free in an unprecedented crisis such as the one the world is facing at the moment, far more urgent is the need for consensus building – a process wherein criticism is inherent.

It is at this juncture where it might be pertinent to look at one of the only other countries that have taken as stringent measures as Sri Lanka. In New Zealand, where a countrywide lockdown was announced much earlier than most other places, the number of cured has now well surpassed the number of infected. To paraphrase an op-ed from earlier this week, not only are they flattening the curve they are absolutely squashing it.

But for a country such as New Zealand that values democracy so highly, the decision to take authoritarian action was not one taken lightly. As such they have taken unprecedented measures to ensure transparency and consensus in the decision making process. Most intriguingly, they have put in place an Epidemic Response Committee - a majority of which is made up of members of the Opposition – which has a sole directive of reporting to the House on “matters relating to the Government’s management of the COVID-19 epidemic”.

By contrast the evaluation mechanism put in place in Sri Lanka is carried out by those in charge of implementing the measures. At a time when even media oversight has also been scaled back due to COVID-19 related constraints, this is not the time to clamp down on freedoms of expression.

Indeed, most if not all of the measures put in place during this crisis has been facilitated through the use of public funds, and it therefore goes without saying that the public be able to criticise fraudulent public service officials. After all, if previous crises in Sri Lanka have taught us anything, it’s that being a public servant does not guarantee moral, ethical, and legal perfection.

While partisanship has in the past been a difficult hurdle to cross, if we are to ensure that the right decisions are taken over the foreseeable future, then we need to put in place mechanisms that hold those decision makers accountable.