The Island:by Dr. B. S. Wijeweera
(Part I of this article appeared yesterday)
The political party has a pervasive influence on parliamentary activity. RW himself referred to this when he explained that “members vote simply in terms of what has been prescribed by their parties”. Thus, the individual loses his identity and becomes a mere cog in a party machine. Of course, the justification is that it is the party that got him elected in the first place and, hence, the individual’s views do not count. The situation becomes worse when members cross over to the other side. Even the justification of party loyalty is placed on its head, and the member becomes “lobby fodder” for the party that he originally opposed.
Political Party as the Cement
Professor G L Pieris once explained that the political party is the cement that binds the Executive to the Legislature. In a parliamentary executive system this is so, because it is the major party in Parliament that forms the Executive. Even our hybrid system is primarily parliamentary, because the centre of governmental power shifts to Parliament the moment the President’s political party loses its majority in Parliament. This was the case when President Kumaratunga failed to enjoy a parliamentary majority in the period 2001-2003.
When there is a separation of the Executive from the Legislature, there is no need to have this binding cement – the political party. In fact we should seriously re-examine the need to continue with this shibboleth in a separation of powers regime. The political party and party allegiance can be a serious obstacle to the objective performance of parliamentary functions such as legislative scrutiny and financial oversight. They are better performed in a spirit of open–mindedness and critical objectivity rather than through the myopic vision of party allegiance and competition.
Chanaka Amaratunga’s Appeal
Sometime in the early nineteen nineties the Late Dr. Chanaka Amaratunga in a little known essay made a plea for a “free and independent” Parliament. He explained that a “vital necessary condition for a free Parliament is the existence of the complete freedom of conscience of the MP”. Today, MPs are not really representatives of the people that voted for them but of the political parties that gave them nomination, which to him was a “regressive conception of the MP”. He argued that a MP’s “final responsibility must be to his conscience, to his individual morality and to his conception of the national interest”. In stating this he was echoing the position taken up by the English legislator, Edmund Burke, in the celebrated “Speech to the Electors of Bristol”.
Of course, in his essay Chanaka did not push his arguments for an independent Parliament to the extent of calling for a separation of powers. However, if faced with the reality of a separation of powers he would have advocated the elimination of the political party from Parliament.
The Youth Commission Report
The Youth Commission (YC) of 1990 reported about the skepticism in the country at large about the role of political parties and the lack of “internal democracy”. The situation is far worse today. The YC noted “disenchantment” with political parties “across the national spectrum” and sounded the warning that “disillusionment with such parties cannot but strike at the very root of our democratic system”.
Twenty years after this report we see no signs of a “candid exercise of self scrutiny” on the part of political parties. They are like the proverbial caravan that simply moves on. It is time to use a strict application of the separation of powers doctrine to banish these predators from Parliament and establish a truly “free and independent” Legislature.
Anecdotal Evidence
One piece of anecdotal evidence provided by Professor Ravindra Fernando, a distinguished Professor of Forensic Medicine, gives an indication of what political parties do to society (Sunday Island, 12 October 2008). He had come to Siri Kotha to seek nomination for the December 2001 parliamentary election when he bumped into his medical colleague Dr. Raja Johnpulle of Anuradapura. Dr. Johnpulle had advised him to abandon his quest for nomination (which advice he did not follow) explaining that politics was not for people like Prof. Fernando, because “you have to carry a T56 in one hand and a hand grenade in the other to do politics”. Of course, we know that seven years later Dr. Johnpulle paid dearly with his life for the failure to follow the advice he had so sincerely given his friend.
The Political Party in Political Theory
It is often explained that a political party performs an aggregative function in society, i.e. to put together diverse opinions and expectations of various groups into a coherent form and when in power translate them into executive and legislative action. It is also explained that the primary purpose for which a political party exists is to compete and win the power to govern. On both these counts the proper place for the political party is the Executive arena, which in a separation of powers regime is the focal point for executive action, policy formulation and initiation of legislation.
Parliament’s role is to play the guardian of the public interest and the public purse, through scrutiny of legislative measures and financial oversight. In fact, as pointed out earlier, open political party affiliation can inhibit Parliament in playing an objective role.
How can this Objective be Realised?
Having discussed the preliminaries, it is now time to explain the steps that should be taken to concretize the objective. The first step would be to amend the parliamentary election laws to prohibit candidates being nominated by political parties, i.e. to do away with the requirement that nomination papers should be signed by party officials. A candidate should be able to seek nomination through a proposer and seconder who are on the voters’ list of that particular constituency. Invariably, all candidates will be nominally “Independents” and Parliament will not recognize party affiliation. How does this procedure square up with fundamental rights?
Article 14(1)(c) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of association, which Includes the right to join a political party and work for it. The writer is not proposing to ban political parties, or to curtail their right to contest presidential elections and secure executive power. What is prohibited is for them to nominate candidates at parliamentary elections. Political parties will be even free to support and canvass for candidates of their choice, in the same manner religious groups, caste groups, etc. work for particular candidates during elections.
The constitutional authority for this seemingly radical move lies in Article 15(7) of the Constitution which states that the exercise of fundamental rights shall be subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed by law for the purpose of meeting the just requirements of the general welfare of a democratic society. A good constitutional lawyer can make a name for himself by successfully arguing this case before the Supreme Court.
The Quality of MPs
Most persons are agreed that Parliament has seen a steady deterioration in the quality of MPs that get elected. We should not be satisfied with the argument that the “Expenses Claim” scandal in England, or similar scandals elsewhere point to a universal pattern. Let others look after their problems; we must address ours. What sort of an individual will emerge victorious in a competition of “independents”?
The first question is whether this would benefit those with money to spend on elections? We cannot eliminate the advantage that money confers on individuals. Even today, those with substantial resources find it easy to get party nomination. No party puts forward insolvents. Rich businessmen contest in the expectation of recouping their expenditure through lucrative contracts, sale of duty free permits and corrupt deals. Under the new dispensation they will not be a part of the Executive, so the opportunity for lucrative contracts will be minimized. And, let us put a stop to the issue of duty free permits. If not immediately, at least over time this measure would enable an improvement in the quality of persons that get elected to Parliament.
The other problematic issue is how does the Executive secure the authority for expenditure and raising of revenue from a set of “independents” in Parliament? It is not fair to assume that the new type of MP will become obstructionist by habit. If public services are stalled because of a deadlock, then, not only the Executive but also the MPs will have to face public anger. No MP will want to jeopardise his chances of re-election by getting into an obstructionist mode without convincing reasons. Thus, it is not unrealistic to predict that both sides will work together in the public interest, especially because they are not in political competition with each other.
Finally, the removal of government ministers (with their fleets of government vehicles and security thugs) from the fray may just encourage decent and intelligent people to come forward at parliamentary elections.
Conclusion
We have come a long way from RW’s simple proposal for the adoption of separation of powers. As his political mentor, Chanaka Amaratunga, found out it is not easy to reform the world; it is much easier to go along with it. However, as Karl Marx put it the point is to change the system. If RW is prepared to give the lead from within, organizations like the OPA, CIMOGG and several public spirited persons may make common cause with him. Let us not underestimate the influence committed persons can exert on political potentates.
RW’s plea for separation of powers and Chanaka’s appeal for a “free and independent” Parliament will be equally resisted both by the establishment in Government and the Opposition. As Indian legislator, former Union Minister and political scientist, Dr. Arun Shourie, cautioned in The Parliamentary System “how can that alternative be brought about when the decision to change rests with those who would lose all were the present arrangement to be replaced?” A dedicated social activist from humble origins by the name of Anna Hazare demonstrated just this recently in India.