Transparency in politics

Transparency is a word in vogue, especially in the media and the political platforms. There are also Non-Governmental organizations both at local and international levels concerning transparency. Even world bodies such as the United Nations are also concerned about transparency.

All of them talk about transparency of Governments, Government institutions and other statutory bodies. Though not much talked about transparency of private sector institutions is also a subject that has come into the discussion recently.

However, there is one field the transparency in which has not been questioned so much so far. That is the field of politics. Not only economic deals but also political deals should be transparent.

In the run up to the Presidential Elections various political deals are being finalized and sanctioned by candidates. Unfortunately most of them are not so transparent. Politicians, political parties and groups are duty bound to inform the public of the nature of deals they have transacted, their aims, objectives and expected benefits.

The United National Party (UNP) and the Janatha Vimukti Peramuna (JVP) have entered into some sort of agreement to support the New Democratic Front candidate Sarath Fonseka in the Presidential Election 2010. Up to now neither Fonseka, nor the UNP or the JVP have made clear what constitutes this agreement. They not only make diverse statements but also contradict one another at times. The voters are perplexed as to what goes on. It seems that this confusion is not an accident but a deliberate attempt on their part.

To make matters worse Fonseka has published a manifesto in his own name. As such the allies - the UNP, JVP, SLMC etc. have no commitment to that manifesto. How could one trust the guarantees given by these outsiders in the campaign? By publishing the manifesto unilaterally he has given a clear signal that the UNP or the JVP would not be able to dictate terms to him in the unlikely event of him winning the election. Or is it because both the UNP and the JVP are unable to go before the people as they are discredited that they want a proxy to issue the manifesto?

Democracy does not mean hiding your agenda from the voters. That would amount to getting their votes by fraudulent, unfair methods.

The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has extended its support to Fonseka. There was earlier talk that the TNA would support any candidate only on the basis of receiving positive answers for a set of proposals to be placed before them. What is the agreement the TNA has with Fonseka or his mentors- the UNP and the JVP.

In the meantime the so-called Committee for the formation of a Provisional Transitional Government of Tamil Eelam (PTGTE) has issued a New Year Message under the signature of its Coordinator V. Rudrakumaran in which it declares their intention of creating a political space for Tamils in Sri Lanka with the assistance of international humanitarian actors.

The PTGTE is also reported to have met representatives of the TNA in London and come to an agreement on the political line to be followed during the Presidential Elections with a view of creating the political space referred to earlier.

A website with connections to the LTTE groups among the Tamil Diaspora carried a news item last Tuesday in which it is stated that NDF candidate Fonseka has pledged the TNA to declare an amnesty for all former cadres of the LTTE now being held in custody. The same website says that Fonseka has handed over to TNA Parliamentary Group Leader R. Sampanthan his program according to his media spokesman.

Is there an understanding between the PTGTE, international humanitarian agencies, TNA, UNP, JVP and Fonseka? If so, what is it?

Transparency demands that these agreements or understandings be made public. This is especially necessary in view of the practice of politicians to say one thing and do another.

The Presidential Election is much more than electing a leader. The leader must have clear policies. The people must know these policies. It is only on the basis of such information the voter could arrive at a correct decision. It cannot be a case of blind leading the blind.