Political observers are finding it increasingly difficult to discern as to who exactly is calling the shots in the Government these days given the contradictory nature of what is being said and what is being done. While the President is busy globe-trotting, spearheading a public relations drive with a delegation in tow to convince the international community of the country’s democratic credentials in return for economic assistance, the events at home are increasingly pointing towards the contrary. The raft of new legislation in the works points to the laying of the foundation for the creation of a Police state by an insecure regime that is decidedly not only averse to elections but also hellbent on curtailing basic freedoms enjoyed by the people.
For all intents and purposes, the current interim President is the biggest beneficiary of the people’s revolution last year that propelled him to the office that has eluded him for the better part of his 46-year political career. Yet there appears to be an increasing propensity within the Government he heads to introduce legislation explicitly targeting the prevention of a similar movement in the future through drastic curtailment of the people’s democratic and fundamental rights in the guise of various laws.
Given the make-or-break situation with regard to the country’s economic revival prospects, it is indeed cause for concern that, rather than busying itself with matters that will hasten a return to economic sustainability, the regime is preoccupied with formulating more and more legislation that will, in the end, adversely impact the revival process. To put it bluntly, the introduction of unnecessary and uncalled-for legislation further shrinking the democratic space with increasing frequency, adding further complexity to what is already an over-legislated constitutional framework, will in no way infuse confidence among the business and investor community.
In fact, while the President is fond of speaking of the Information Age and all it entails during his foreign sojourns, his own Government is introducing legislation which, in the opinion of MP Dr. Harsha de Silva, will drive away major tech companies such as Google, Meta, and X among others, from Sri Lanka.
The lack of focus on the need of the hour, which is to create confidence among the investor community, and instead continuing its vendetta against the people will not do the regime nor the country any good and will only make a bad case worse. The regime must come to terms with the fact that a key feature of a democracy is that laws are formulated for the greater good of a nation and not for the benefit of a particular individual or regime in power. It is for this reason that legislation is often the result of an exhaustive consultative process among all stakeholders that can usually take years. Unfortunately, this is not the case as far as Sri Lanka is concerned, where laws are simply gazetted out of the blue or rammed through Parliament using an outdated parliamentary mandate, leaving the democratic process in shambles.
What our lawmakers need to understand is that Sri Lanka is facing an extraordinary situation and has become the world’s basket case for bankruptcy. Therefore, by default, all actions of the regime are subject to microscopic scrutiny by the international community and every one of its actions must decidedly be designed to instil confidence in the recovery process.
There is no way that any confidence can be created by ramming provocative legislation through a lame duck Parliament that will only lead to further public agitation. Having robbed the people of a better future by causing economic bankruptcy, it is the height of absurdity to now attempt to rob the people of their fundamental rights through repressive laws.
The latest avatar of the highly-controversial Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) – the replacement for the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which failed to prevent terrorism for four decades, including the Easter Sunday terror attacks – is in the opinion of the legal fraternity even more draconian in nature than its predecessor, although some provisions of the initial draft first introduced in March this year have been watered down.
But the main stumbling block, which is the definition of the word ‘terrorism,’ remains as it was. In the absence of a clear definition as to who constitutes a ‘terrorist,’ any individual whom the regime considers a nuisance could potentially be labelled as such and locked up. It is for this reason that the ATA is being described as the same old wine in a different bottle. Therefore, there is every likelihood that the initial uproar that forced the regime to withdraw the bill in March will now resurface, adding to further disruption.
The raft of new legislation that has emerged in the past year such as the Rehabilitation Act, where any individual the State deems as requiring ‘rehabilitation’ can be packed off to obscure locations for a ‘programme’ shrouded in secrecy, an anti-terror law that seeks to drastically curtail civil liberties, a so-called ‘social media and online safety law,’ which on the pretext of ensuring online safety is a brazen attempt to not only curtail the people’s freedom of expression but also ropes in service providers for ‘unsuitable’ content that a ‘commission’ exclusively appointed by the President will sit in judgement, and the already-introduced broadcasting regulatory law, which for all intents and purposes is now a Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of all media houses in the country, are all targeted towards one thing – stifling the right to dissent.
It is the same political dispensation that drove this country to bankruptcy that is now eagerly pushing through this raft of controversial legislation in Parliament, the objective of which is becoming clearer by the day. It remains to be seen whether the President will play in to the hands of the proponents of the online safety law by giving his nod for its passage, which to the average citizen is a not-so-subtle attempt to silence social media on the shocking revelations being made, among other things, on the Easter Sunday terror attacks.
The evidence revealed by the Opposition in Parliament during the debate on the matter last week appears to be far more comprehensive than the revelations made by Channel 4. Almost all of the revelations made were in fact extracts from sections of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry report that remain hidden from the public. Therefore, the inaction of the authorities to institute legal action rather than reinventing the wheel through a fresh investigation is indeed intriguing.
Given these developments and the absence of justice for the 43 foreign tourists who perished in the terror attacks, how can the regime look the investor community in the eye and seek a second chance at economic recovery? The bottom line is that the entire nation and its future is once again being compromised to save the political careers of those responsible for the economic calamity by the stone age strategy of shutting out dissent.
Given this deplorable state of affairs and the regime’s insistence on arbitrarily pushing through these draconian pieces of legislation, somewhat of a compromise for the lack of consultation would ideally be the creation of some space for post-enactment judicial review, but even that remains off the table.
Ironically enough, all of these actions will ultimately contribute to further strengthening the Executive Presidency, which every elected president since 1994 has promised to abolish. At the end of the day, as per the new legislation, it will be the President who will ultimately decide who is to be detained under the ATA as the Minister of Defence and also as the proxy judge of what should and should not be on social media through the commission appointed exclusively by the President for that purpose.