Saturday, 14 March 2015 00:00
-
- {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
CORRUPTION and politics are considered by many to merely represent two sides of the same coin in the moral and ethical wasteland that is Sri Lankan politics. The pervasive nature of this belief, which cuts across the total spectrum of Sri Lankan society, is the direct result of decades of rampant political corruption perpetrated by members from all major political parties at one time or another.
The continuous perversion of State power towards the promotion of the narrow, self-serving interests of a select few eventually drew enough public condemnation that the mere promise of measures to combat corruption by the new ‘Yahapalanaya’ regime was sufficient to trigger a groundswell of support at the last presidential election.
In that backdrop, the creation a ‘Code of Conduct for Politicians’ is an extremely welcome and timely measure which could provide valuable assistance in overhauling Sri Lankan politics and slowly drag the nation out of its present quagmire. Unfortunately, initial proposals issued by People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL) for such a Code – which have since received the backing of several major political parties – while likely well-intentioned, fall woefully short of these lofty goals.
Broadly speaking, the main points of the draft ‘Code of Conduct for Politicians’ do not, as the Code’s title would suggest, relate directly to the conduct of politicians but rather acts as a vague set of prerequisites which political parties should consider when nominating a candidate.
The proposals require political parties to refrain from giving nominations to persons who have served a prison sentence based on criminal, corruption or bribery charges but also applies to any person engaged in businesses related to alcohol, drugs, gambling, casinos, prostitution or anyone engaged in a trade that is considered destructive to the environment.
The Code also proposes to disqualify those who have engaged in financial agreements prejudicial to the country and those who have abused and misused political power while individuals who do not maintain an amiable relationship with residents of the area they represent are also to be prevented from receiving such a nomination from their party.
Before proceeding with a closer inspection of the abovementioned proposals, it is useful to take note of proposals related individuals involved with alcohol, gambling and casinos – all of which are legally, if not morally, permissible, while drugs and prostitution are neither. Assuming that these proposals have been drafted with prior experience in mind, then it would appear that Sri Lankan political parties have previously nominated those of very questionable character as election candidates.
Surely a Code of Conduct for politicians ought to go beyond merely disqualifying obviously criminal elements from gaining political office by elaborating on specific behaviour to be prohibited. A survey carried out by TNS Lanka found that 59% of Sri Lankans feel that MPs should not be allowed freedom to cross over to another political party. It is disappointing to note that regulations on crossovers have not even been suggested as part of the Code of Conduct.
Codes of conduct for politicians in the United Kingdom specify a range of prohibited behaviour, such as restrictions on offering of money, food, beverages, entertainment or other gifts while on the campaign trail. The South African Code of Conduct issues an absolute prohibition on violence, intimidation, use of defamatory or inflammatory language, etc. Internationally we find numerous such codes, all of which are extensive and often backed by legal sanction. Failure to emulate such examples will only leave the Sri Lankan people defenceless against monolithic corruption– a failure which will not easily be forgiven.
