Need for structural reforms to ensure accountability
Text of presentation by Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, MP, at a meeting on
the COPE report arranged by Women for Good Governance, Sri Lanka, on
January 30, 2012
This is the second panel discussion on the COPE report that I have
been invited to in less than a week, so I thought I should not repeat
myself, in case any of you had been at the other event. However, I have
brought a few copies of my presentation then, and it is available on my
blog; www.rajivawijesinha.wordpress.com
I thought today that, given the wider interests of the organizers, I
should talk in general about principles of good governance. I had a
series of articles in the ‘Island’ some months back on the role of
Parliament in promoting good governance, and that too is available on
the blog, in a separate section. I had written these following a request
from the Parliamentary administration to contribute to a journal they
had started. Sadly I was the only Parliamentarian to contribute to that
journal, which I thought a sad reflection on my colleagues, including
those I have come to think of as the second and third most intelligent
and objective individuals in Parliament who are speaking with me here
today.
Political concerns
Sadly however I now think that the reflection is on me, for thinking
that detailed analysis of public policy serves any purpose. My articles
drew no response whatsoever in the press, except for one thoughtful
article by a man called Wijeweera whom I did not otherwise know. Sadly
we have lost the custom of building on the good ideas of others.
|
Parliament
- country’s supreme legislature |
The papers are full of individuals referring to the writings of
others in order to attack them.
Rarely however do people who think on the same lines refer to similar
ideas when they advance their own, so the result is that each of us
seems to be working in a vacuum. My colleagues therefore who concentrate
on more parochial considerations are perhaps wiser than I am, in giving
priority to their own political concerns, in speeches and
pronouncements, rather than trying to develop discussions on principles
that might contribute to reform.
I say all this because I was particularly impressed by the credo the
organizer of this event sent me in requesting my participation.
She said that you wanted to suggest ways forward to the government
rather than be antagonistic, and that you did not stop with
recommendations but used several strategies to make change happen. I
will therefore use this opportunity to look at the different reasons for
misuse of public funds and suggest ways in which you can contribute to
reform.
Legislative role
Since the discussion is based on the COPE report, I will concentrate
on the role of Parliament in promoting such reforms. As you know our
powers are limited, and the manner in which Parliament is now elected
has made it difficult for Parliamentarians to work coherently at their
legislative role. Parliament has essentially two main functions.
The main purpose is to make laws, or rather to approve them, since
the formulation of new laws is now considered the prerogative of the
Executive.
This is a pity, given the role Private Members’ Bills could play in
drawing attention to matters that need remedial action, but the
ridiculous manner in which my colleagues pile up motions makes it clear
that we can expect no intelligent input in that area. Efforts by
Sumanthiran and myself to amend Standing Orders to emphasize the
possible creative role Parliament could play have come to naught, the
victim again of parochial infighting.
Unfortunately we now have a method of election that denies personal
initiative to Members of Parliament. They are seen as simply lobby
fodder, elected through a party and therefore not supposed as
legislators to be unduly independent. This nonsensical concept has
survived even the introduction of the preference system, and sadly
efforts to reform again seem to have collapsed. Let me start then by
suggesting that the first thing your organization should do is spearhead
a campaign to ensure reform of the electoral system. You can do this
through petitions as well as articles, to make it clear to those who can
make changes happen that this is what the country needs. I have no doubt
that the country at large knows how destructive the present system has
been, but if you leave it to those who have got in through this system
to reform it, it is unlikely that anything will happen.
Electoral reform
I say this with regard to COPE, because the system has contributed to
the total abnegation of the second responsibility of parliamentarians,
namely passing the budget and monitoring its operation. We have this
power by virtue of our legislative role, but the fact that revenue is
raised through laws has given parliaments over the years control not
only of supply, but also an obligation to ensure that that supply is
used properly for the people on behalf of whom we have approved supply.
Unfortunately what I term the representative function of
Parliamentarians has now completely taken most of them over, given the
need to promote the welfare of people in massive areas, since most
Parliamentarians have to function in entire districts. It is no
coincidence that the three speakers you have invited today are all
National List Members, which leaves us more time to think and work in
terms of principles. But, as you know from the composition of the
National Lists, other considerations than those originally envisaged
play a role in appointments, so that we are comparatively isolated in
Parliament.
There are exceptions such as the extraordinarily able Member who
chairs the Petitions Committee, which has also recently produced a very
helpful report, but by and large you should be agitating for a system
that ensures there are more people who can work as Parliamentarians in
the old sense of the word.
This was envisaged through the German mixed system of elections to
which everyone pays lip service, but unfortunately the proposals that
have been brought before Parliament for electoral reform, starting with
the perversion of the German system proposed in 1995, have been based
not on principles but on perceived advantages, and have accordingly been
aborted.
This is the sadder in that we need to strengthen the Committee system
in Parliament. Soon after I got into Parliament, I presented to the
President a proposal for oversight committees which I had obtained from
the Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
The President, who is both swift and sharp, thought these a good idea
and asked me to pass them on to the Leader of the House. Unfortunately,
that office in Parliament does not tend to respond to letters, and my
proposals were swallowed up, to be regurgitated some months later by
Karu Jayasuriya.
He may of course have got them independently from the IPU, but it is
a measure of the refusal of Parliament to take itself seriously that
ideas the President thought should be followed should die without trace,
only to emerge again from the Opposition. I believe something similar
happened to the proposed Bill about Freedom of Information, which is
part of the Presidential vision, but which was simply not worked on
coherently by those who should have taken on responsibility for reform.
Education opportunities
Instead, we continue with an archaic system, inherited from the
British, which the British have long changed. Bills come to Parliament
in a manner that no one can understand, because all we get are
amendments, often themselves to amendments. Sometimes this leads to
sheer nonsense, given the declining abilities of the Legal Draughtsman’s
Department, but nobody cares. We also spend a great deal of time passing
regulations, whereas we should have a regulations committee, as happens
in other countries, to look into such matters, and simply make sure that
the Parliamentary Act under which such regulations are made is not being
abused. At the last session, for instance, we passed regulations about
the import among other things of swine semen and extracts of glands for
organotherapeutic uses, which seem to me details which should not take
up the time of Parliament.
University system
Meanwhile urgent national business, to do with expanding
opportunities for education, with the protection of children, with
electoral reform, with freedom of information, with land rights in the
context of protracted occupation during terrorist times, are all
hopelessly delayed.
With regard to finance, we need to be clear about why abuses occur.
Whilst obviously there is dishonesty, we find that far more often there
is carelessness and waste, arising from the absence of clear and simple
regulations as well as the absence of oversight systems.
Much of this is the responsibility of the Treasury, which now has
much more work than it can manage, but which has not made any attempt
over the last half century to streamline its powers and delegate
management to others. I have suggested that we should ask for revision
of aministrative and financial regulations, and indeed suggested that
the former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, Faiz Mohideen, be asked to
oversee this, with a clear mandate to streamline operations and make
responsibilities clear, but I fear such simple mechanisms are unlikely
to see the light of day.
Oversight is facilitated by Transparency, and I believe we should
develop systems whereby accounts are readily available to all
stakeholders. I remember years ago suggesting that the universities
should make schedules of expenditure available to students, whereupon
the then chairman of the UGC, who presided over perhaps the greatest
wastage of funds in the university system through what was called the
IRQUE project, telling me that transparency being ensured by the
accounts being audited and submitted to Parliament. This idea, that we
should waste time and money in shutting several stable doors after
horses have gorged themselves to death, is ridiculous, when instead we
should be promoting timely interventions and, more importantly,
awareness on the part of those responsible that they are being closely
monitored.
I will end by hoping that the follow up to COPE will not simply be
the trading of allegations, and witch-hunts against particular
institutions that have been particularly bad. Whilst obviously remedial
action as recommended in the report is a must, we must concentrate on
developing mechanisms to ensure that such remedial action is not
regularly required in the future.
This can be simply done if we make sure that those responsible are
facilitated to act expeditiously without being straitjacketed through
regulations that inhibit only the honest - for the evidence we sifted
through makes it clear that the few who are determined to make money cut
through such regulations; but that all are required to report regularly
to oversight bodies that include stakeholders. And we need to make sure
that the responsibilities of Parliament in this regard are fulfilled
though promoting a system that will get us more Parliamentarians who can
spend more time on financial oversight as well as study of proposed
legislation.
But perhaps we all get not what we need but what we deserve.
|