A Question of Ethics

Morality in Political Decision Making

Contrary to the above quote the law of the majority is all that matters in the Sri Lankan political culture.  It is shrouded with appeals to the majority among the voter base, pampering their whims, shaping public opinion to acquiesce to the strategies put forward by politicians for their success. Success is measured by culling the vote base of a majority of individuals regardless of the morality of the issues concerned. Provision is not made any longer for a conscience vote in the constitution. Conscience driven choice is no longer an objective in a society encouraged to live bereft of ethics.  Politics in Sri Lanka is therefore one of expediency, it relates to benefits and the advancement of the politician and the political party they belong to.  There is no reference to any code of morality beneficial to society.

Value based decisions are not considered necessary or practical if it does not carry the majority with it.  Moral values do prevail among large sections of the people influenced as they are by their respective religions. However what people think privately, if it be morally correct or not, is not relevant to politicians.  All that matters is to have the thinking of the public to coincide with theirs. Such is the political environment within which politicians have shaped their past and continue to shape the present and the future.  All politicians come within this barometer and changing one lot for the other does not make a significant difference.

Coalition Between the Sirisena SLFP and the UNP

Yet hope springs eternal. There remains hope that changing politicians through elections can make a difference at least for a while. It is with this belief that the 2015 coalition was secretly and skillfully put together. As is well known a section of the SLFP broke away from the main party and aligned with their traditional bête noir, the United National Party. 

The raison d’etre for the two parties to get together was to change the national profile which was defaced under the then existing government.  Charges of widespread corruption, overall lawlessness, personal insecurity, a captive media, and creeping authoritarianism made effective through the instrumentality of the Executive President worked out through an oligarchy composed of family, relatives and friends. A powerless citizenry was compelled to be onlookers fearful of the breach of their personal and family security by goons attached to important personalities in the government and others closely connected to the powers that be.

It was a dark period and people stood divided as well.  However, persons associated with the government were insulated from the aggressive reach of the then government; others stood silent in fear wanting to be ‘neither victims nor executioners'(Albert Camus)

Lack of 2/3 Majority Handicaps Coalition

The present government is slow in putting into effect much of the promises to the people preoccupied as they were and are to have the majority back their policy decisions.  Sadly, those who came to make the changes fell into the same trap much too soon.  Perhaps the lack of a 2/3 majority in parliament aggravated the situation and made the present power elites to get sidetracked from the straight and narrow path they had promised the people. The trust placed on this government too remains questionable. Considerations to gain support of the majority remains the reality.  Morality is once again put on the backburner and opportunism appears to be the winner.

To make up for the lack of a 2/3 majority this government should have demonstrated the moral strength of their convictions which was how they defeated the strong government of their predecessor. A show of a strong government, a government with promise would have been sufficient to win the public over and have those sitting on the fence to jump over to join the government .For want of numbers the coalition showed its weakness in having to be dependent on its opponents for support, the selfsame people against whom they carried a successful campaign and won the support to form a government.

One of the very first acts that sacrificed ethics for friendship was the enabling of defeated candidates to enter parliament through the national list contrary to choices the people had made at the elections. This is a grave violation of the franchise rights of the people. Coming close on these footsteps was the appointment of a foreign citizen as Governor of the Central Bank.  This became a serious misstep when the bond scam surface and the accused and the Governor are seen to have a close relationship revealing an obvious conflict of interest, certainly unethical.

The 19^th Amendment was introduced to terminate the institution of the executive presidency, seen as the source of injustice.  But those who gave support to make the 2/3^rd majority in parliament were keen to retain this institution having been the main exploiters of the institution under the former regime. Therefore the Executive Presidency was retained but with reduced powers.  The tenure of office of the President was reduced from 6 to 5 years and the two term limit reintroduced, and the threat of dissolution of parliament after the first year that put severe strain on stability was changed and substituted with the clause -not before the expiration of four years.  The number of cabinet ministers was reduced to 30 which had since been violated to accommodate the horse trading in membership drive to join the government to add up to the numbers in parliament.

Attempts to breakup the coalition

 Attempts to unite the divided SLFP, the Maitripala Sirisena faction and the Rajapakse faction has been touted for quite some time.  Why would anyone want to unite with the man they had dubbed ‘traitor’ unless the secret motive is to weaken him and make him a ‘have been’.  What indeed can be the moral base for such a move?  A demand of the Rajapakse supporters is for the Sirisena group to break away from the UNP, their coalition partner to build the dream of a united SLFP.  At what cost and for whose benefit will this be executed? This sends wrong signals to the public. One, that the President is not loyal to those who gave him a helping hand in his hour of need and two, that the newly elected coalition government is weak and troubled with contradictions. The request to make a break with UNP maybe to ensure SLFP victory, isolate the president and banish him into political wilderness.  The former President and his men cannot be expected to forget or forgive the fact that Maitripala Sirisena broke away from the party and was successful in defeating them. 

On the other hand constant suggestions of abandoning the UNP will create instability in the government and within the country.  The present and future becomes bleak and hopeless; suspicion, mistrust and cracks begin to surface between the partners slowing implementation of strategies making them unpopular with their supporters for not fulfilling their pledges.

Demands made or suggested for negotiations appear equally reprehensible. One of the demands is for all electoral organizers of the former President to be reinstated. What do they expect to do with those already nominated by the coalition partners and working already on the field? The other demand was that in the event, the former president cannot be appointed PM, he should be made Leader of the Opposition ‘as leader of the numerically largest group in the opposition’. (island Nov 27, 2017) Fulfilling these conditions will be to deny the reality of the coalition wherein Ranil Wickremasinghe was installed as PM on the election pledge to the country to appoint him PM, if the coalition wins the elections. Again removing the ‘symbol’ of national unity with the former President who is not perceived as a friend of the minorities would wreck what is left of the mood for reconciliation.  As it is there are complaints of a slack in the government’s progress towards the reconciliation process. This situation calls for diffusion and not aggravation.  The individuals agitating for rebuilding bridges between the two factions of the SLFP have only their personal interest in mind and not of the nation. This is an obvious attempt at currying favour with the former President.

Today this country has a leader of the opposition from the minorities and he along with his party are participating as an integral unit in the governance within this country. What would be the constructive path for healthy peace building?

The moral base for continuance of this government gets a little nod as a result of some very significant achievements: The most important are the fact that considerable media freedom is ensured; so it is with personal security, and to some extent improvement in inter racial relations. It is an accepted position that for the first time the government has unequivocally stated that to have national development national unity is essential. This is a positive signal given to the country.

Moral Agenda of the Coalition government

 The horror over the extent of corruption during the previous regime and consequently its moral bankruptcy was the main agenda during the elections. But within the three years since the coalition came to power no important political personality had been charged or committed apparently for want of hard evidence.  Was the corruption story a fabrication or are there other reasons why no culprit had been netted so far? Alarmingly the present government too had come under a cloud of suspicion, for there is talk of bribery and corruption in the present government as well.  Three Ministers have been compelled to resign within the three years of this government’s duration.  After a short lapse in time one of the Ministers who resigned has been reappointed as Minister once again.  The logic behind the reappointment is unclear. What kind of ethical code can guide people in high profile to reappoint a minister who had resigned and his resignation accepted.

Indecisiveness in decision making

Imminent provincial council elections and the greed for permanence in their political positions have brought a slack in decision making.  No one wants to alienate one section or other of the people.  Such contemplations have shown up the government as an indecisive one.  For instance hate speeches that create disharmony and violence had gone by unchecked while the fallout arising out of such actions by anti-social elements had created unrest and hostility among ethnic communities. Even so the government has shown reluctance to legislate against hate speech.

Again regarding the SAITIM matter the government took a long time to come to a decision and sadly the matter was allowed to escalate so much it became as though it was a confrontation between two equal partners, the government and the GMOA.  It went from bad to worse when the GMOA began to make demands from the government on matters outside their professional purview.

Similarly confrontation has snowballed with the Sangha because this government did not commit themselves on various issues that came up from time to time for fear that their utterances might be taken advantage by the former president and his gang of supporters which  would help him to take a lead in electoral politics.  The various confrontational voices make the government appear to be weak.  The Sangha too as can be seen from the news reaching us has shown interest to protest on a variety of issues best left to politicians and law makers to work on.

If policies are decided upon, committed and implemented with determination and conviction the government will be appreciated by the people.  A strong government calls for respect as long as it acts responsibly and not become a bully. 

Need for value based decisions

Being guided by value judgment is something all governments should adopt instead of pursuing the Machiavellian approach to governance. Moral judgements will keep a government above mischief and on the rails on which it must travel.  Pronouncements made on the merit of the issue concerned without other extraneous considerations will be a laudable approach.  This will bring about a value based governance process possible.