Depoliticise corruption

Is Sri Lanka facing the consequences of politicising corruption? When civil society activists, academics, professionals and politicians gathered to form the ‘Yahapalanaya’ movement that eventually saw the election of President Maithripala Sirisena it was with the utopian goal of wiping out corruption, in any form or size regardless of who was behind it. It was the first time the Sri Lankan public, arguably, voted for a principle rather than the customary handouts promised at elections and everyone expectantly waited for a new era of law and order to be born. 

But what most people failed to foresee was that in the process of creating a new ‘Yahapalanaya’ Government the very concept of ‘Yahapalanaya’ became politicised. No longer were illegal activities wrong because it was against the law or against a principle. Corruption had to be weighed against political considerations. If the offender was part of the former Government then corruption investigations were expected but if they were from the ruling Government then it was a loss of face for the top rungs in power and therefore had to either be denied completely or conveniently ignored. This conflict of interest is becoming ever clearer as the days tick by for the coalition Government. Both the President and the Prime Minister have been guilty of protecting their own at the cost of the good governance they professed to champion.

 

The growing malaise of politicisation erupted into public eye last week after President Sirisena publicly criticised commissions appointed to probe bribery and corruption faulting them, among other things, for not keeping him informed. 

The President’s statements were pored over by political analysts and slammed by good governance activists who have deplored what they see as a move to undermine the power and reduce the independence of commissions. Insider reports have also revealed that Sirisena was miffed that members of his party were being investigated for “understandable” crimes such as abusing official vehicles and giving jobs to their family members.    

      

So it is clear anti-corruption measures are being defined along two clear lines; one the party of the offender and two the “size” of the offence. These parameters cross at different points for different people. Meanwhile those who voted for the Yahapalanaya Government have been watching with increasing dismay as their election pledges are tossed out one after the other. 

Corruption is wrong because it is against a principle, the person, party or size of the crime should not matter but it is important that the Government is seen to uphold the law equally. In the absence of such an assurance more and more people find themselves facing a void where they do not want to support the nationalistic policies of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa but have lost faith in the current administration.  

Corruption, even more than minority issues, was the single biggest reason for Rajapaksa’s spectacular fall from power. His refusal to stem the power of his bothers and sons as well as efforts to centralise power led to his overnight downfall. The current administration would do well to remember that for voters corruption is the kingmaker! Caught amidst an economic storm the Government cannot court disaster on multiple fronts by letting petty political considerations define their time in power.