Why keep watchdogs behind curtains?

Friday 11th December 2020

Tempers frayed during the budget debate, in Parliament, yesterday, with the Opposition MPs taking exception to the use of the parliament logo in some recent news reports on the proceedings of COPE (Committee on Public Enterprises). They asked Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena to find out how that had happened and who was responsible. COPE Chairman Prof. Charitha Herath said information about the COPE discussion at issue had been taken from an official video. But the Opposition would have none of it.

Why the Opposition has seen red is obvious although some of its MPs have said their protest is not against the media coverage of the parliamentary committee proceedings as such, but the use of the parliament logo. The COPE is currently investigating some financial irregularities and the resultant losses to the state during the UNP-led yahapalana government.

Minister and Chief Government Whip Johnston Fernando reiterated that the COPE proceedings should not be open to the media. The people have a right to know who is responsible for causing staggering losses to the state coffers through questionable deals, etc. There is no reason why the government or the Opposition should object to the media gaining access to the proceedings of COPE, etc., and disseminating it for public consumption if it has nothing to hide.

The people, in whom sovereignty is said to reside, have a right to know what Parliament or parliamentary committees do in their name. The election of a parliament is only a temporary arrangement for facilitating the exercise of the people’s sovereignty, and parliamentary privileges do not empower the MPs to subjugate the interests of the public to theirs. No restrictions should be imposed on the media coverage of the proceedings of parliamentary committees if people’s right to information is to be safeguarded.

In advanced democracies, the people are wise enough to ensure that their interests always take precedence over those of their elected representatives, who are denied special treatment, much less considered demigods. Sweden is perhaps the best example; its ministers are not entitled to official vehicles and have to travel in buses and trains just like the ordinary people. Not even the Speaker of the Swedish Parliament is given an official car. Only the Prime Minister can use an official vehicle. Such is the concern Swedes have about public funds, and no wonder politicians are not living high on the hog at the expense of the public in that country.

It is high time Sri Lankans woke up to the fact that they have to assert their right to hold politicians accountable to them and weed out the corrupt elements in the garb of elected representatives. This is not something easily attainable, but a serious effort has to be made to achieve it. One may recall that in Australia, Prime Minister of New South Wales Barry O’Farrell had to resign, in 2014, over his failure to declare a gift of wine from a businessman, after admitting to a ‘massive memory fail’. In this country, feigned memory losses help politicians get away with their involvement in mega scams.

Swedish politicians have to keep their place not because Sweden has achieved development and become a mature democracy; it is the other way around. No country can achieve its development goals so long as its public officials and elected representatives are not held accountable to the public.

Parliament, vested with powers to control public finance among other things, should carry out its fiduciary duties in a transparent manner, and granting the media unrestricted access to the proceedings of its watchdog committees is the way to ensure transparency, which is a prerequisite for bringing about the much-needed culture of accountability.