brand logo

Politicking and its impact on the purse

23 Oct 2022

“There is no such thing as public money, there is only taxpayer’s money. No nation ever grew more prosperous by taxing its citizens beyond their capacity to pay. We have a duty to make sure that every penny raised through taxation is spent wisely” – Margaret Thatcher It was exactly 21 years ago, on 3 October 2001 to be specific, that the then Parliament voted to enact the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. The Prime Minister at the time, then in the second of his five stints in the role, was current President Ranil Wickremesinghe. The amendment, which was the then UNP Government’s response to the growing public calls to abolish the Executive Presidency, was universally hailed as a step in the right direction as it sought to vest excessive Executive authority in a Constitutional Council consisting of 10 members, which in turn presided over seven independent commissions, namely; (a) the Election Commission, (b) the Public Service Commission, (c) the National Police Commission, (d) the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, (e) the permanent Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, (f) the Finance Commission, and (g) the Delimitation Commission. Despite the setting up of this elaborate constitutional mechanism to ‘humanise’ the “monstrous” Executive Presidency, as described by a former president, there was no let-up in the public’s call to entirely do away with the post. Such was the pressure that every candidate who lined up to contest for the post four years later at the Presidential Election of 2005 solemnly promised before the people to abolish the post as a matter of priority upon election. As history would record it, the first thing the winner of that contest did was to throw that promise – lock, stock, and barrel – into the dustbin. Ever since, over the period of the next 10 years, that particular President did everything within his considerable power to further strengthen the post, which ultimately led to the birth of the preposterous 18th Amendment that not only removed the two-term limit, but made the holder of that office only second to the Almighty in terms of concentrated power. The defeat of that President in 2015 paved the way for the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo to partly honour their promise to the people to abolish the post by introducing the 19th Amendment, which was, in essence, a reincarnation of the 17th Amendment, but, yet again, fell short of going the whole nine yards. Had that promise been kept, two subsequent catastrophic events – the effects of which still reverberate today – may never have happened, namely the constitutional coup of October 2018 and the Easter Sunday attacks six months later. The comprehensive rout of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe-led Yahapalana regime at the Presidential Election of 2019 then paved the way for Gotabaya Rajapaksa to ascend the presidential throne. True to form, in keeping with the legacy of his sibling, a new constitutional monster was created in the shape and form of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, which in effect, save for some cosmetic changes, was a spitting image of the 18th Amendment pioneered by the previous Rajapaksa presidency. That amendment rendered the ‘independent’ commissions dependent on the presidency for sustenance. The result of that dangerous misadventure is plain to see, with the State ending up bankrupt and governance in disarray. It is the mother of all ironies that it was this all-powerful President, with a two-thirds majority to boot in Parliament, who was eventually forced to flee the country. It is the fallout of this disastrous episode that has now led to the enactment of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution – a clone of the 19th Amendment, which in turn was a clone of the 17th. The purpose of this brief recounting of constitutional history is to highlight the fact that the political leadership of this country has wasted two precious decades since 2001 playing roulette with the Constitution due to the machinations of one family that got accustomed to the practice of using the Constitution as their plaything. Politicians of all hues cannot escape being held collectively responsible for the current state of the nation, especially the decay that has set in at every level of governance during the last two decades, resulting from political power plays.  It is nothing but shameful that no less than 50 Members of Parliament (MPs) have voted for all of the constitutional amendments since 2001, namely, the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, and now the 22nd Amendment, each one of these being diametrically opposed to the other in terms of either empowering or disempowering the presidency and/or independent commissions. One is at a loss to understand the thinking – if at all – of these 50 odd members who over a period of two decades voted for perpetuating the cancer that is the Executive Presidency while taking a contradictory stance every few years on the matter.  It will be recalled that the first promise to abolish the Executive Presidency came in 1994. Nearly three decades later, Parliament is still playing the same old game of constitutional tinkering without taking the bull by the horns, which is the abolition of the Executive Presidency. The latest attempt via the 22nd Amendment is a feeble attempt to rein in the monster, which no doubt will further perpetuate the circus in attempting to tame it.  Ponder for a minute the colossal loss of resources to the State endured over a period of three decades, as a result of the vacillation, political cunning, and also naiveté, among other things, of the 225 MPs who have, by default, been more than a willing accessory to the self-centred political agendas of their leaders. One can only contemplate the prospect that had the independent commissions set up in 2001 through the 17th Amendment been allowed to do their job in both letter and spirit devoid of political interference, the nation would surely be in a far better place and spared of the travails endured as a result of the subsequent four amendments, each of which led to political as well as social upheaval, the economic cost of which is unfathomable. Based on this, it cements the well-grounded notion that it is the selfish, self-centred actions of a particular group of politicians that has led to the country being declared bankrupt.  At the end of the day, every act – be it by commission or omission – on the part of the elected legislators ultimately ends up hitting the taxpayer’s pocket. Therefore, even at this late stage with the country bankrupt and the regime taxing the people to the bone to make ends meet, it is prudent for the present Parliament to reflect on their regressive actions and, in doing so, on the words of Britain’s Iron Lady, who throughout her long tenure was acutely conscious of the social and economic cost of politicking and the obligation arising out of it of being thrifty with the public purse.  


More News..