Focus on the bigger picture

ALL media have reported extensively and uniformly against the gun fight that transpired between MPs Duminda Silva and Baratha Lakshman Premachandra, which resulted in the death of the latter. The usual call for an impartial and objective investigation of the incident is prominent in the reporting. Yet what is most disturbing about this is that even though there are eyewitness accounts about the culpability of MP Silva in the shooting, the law has not taken any restraining action against him.

Verite Research, a media monitoring organisation, in its latest report points out that even though the incident involved two prominent politicians of the ruling party, the Government has not taken responsibility for the violence. “The fact that both the factions were heavily armed and consisted notably of those from the ‘underworld’ has not been treated with the seriousness that it deserves. The indications are that the political patronage system in Sri Lanka might be nurturing structures similar to the notorious Italian Mafia.”

This is exactly the question on everyones mind. When Media Minister Keheliya Rambukwella was asked this as the Government Spokesman, his retort was that an arrest could not be made because it was not humane for Silva to be handcuffed to his bed while in such a precarious state of health.

Laughable as that justification is, what is more disturbing is that the Government can get away with such crackpot excuses for not even naming Silva as a suspect in the shootout. Even though the Police have run out of breath insisting that the Criminal Investigation Department has questioned everyone connected to the crime and arrested eight people, it remains silent as to the judicial process involving Silva.   

Even as the court started hearing the case on Thursday, there was no indication if Silva would finally be arrested or even named as a suspect. Unless the law is allowed to take its path, the Government’s claim that an impartial investigation will be made simply does not hold water.

Furthermore, security for politicians was significantly increased during the final years of the war with the LTTE, but has not been reduced much since. Instead, post war, the provision of security has been politicised with the deployments changing overnight based on whether parliamentarians support the Government or not. As such, the explanation of security provided being based on intelligence threat assessments lacks credibility.

As this incident highlights, the ‘security’ of politicians has gradually become a source of ‘insecurity’ for Sri Lanka's public. The Police and the military are not perceived as able to intervene responsibly to safeguard public safety. In addition to becoming politicised, the security establishment has also been tacitly privatised: It is forced to accommodate private militias, as was present at this incident, and subjugated to powerful personal interests on behalf of or against the favoured or unfavoured individuals of the regime, the research report observed.

The responses by media and civil society are mainly focused on the superficial issues and symptoms: Blaming the proportional representation election system, the lack of Police training or the existence of the underworld. The private-politico capture of the security apparatus and the resulting sponsorship of criminality and violence have not received due public and civic attention. It needs to be taken up by the people and the Government has to finally take responsibility for its wrongdoing.