With the unprecedented socio-economic crisis that erupted last year (2022) has come to unprecedented reforms. While the Government has already launched many programmes the country’s socio-economic situation warrants, many more are in the pipeline. However, how many of them truly benefit the public or are intended to benefit the public, is a public concern.

Those concerns in the general society and in the political arena have been intensified by the recently-issued Private Member Bills concerning the Pradeshiya Sabhas (PSs), Municipal Councils (MCs) and Urban Councils (UCs), which were presented by Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna Government Parliamentarian Jayantha Ketagoda. They aim to amend the Acts and Ordinances that govern the three institutions, in a highly questionable manner. Regarding the three institutions, they read: “Where a Local Authority Election is declared and the said Election cannot be held due to a crisis that has arisen, the relevant dissolved Local Authority/Body may be reconvened by the Minister for a period as decided at the Minister’s discretion notwithstanding the lapse of the 12-months extension made by the Minister.”

As Opposition political parties that question the Government’s motives in this regard have rightly pointed out, what these Bills are essentially aiming to do is give the subject Minister, i.e. Prime Minister and Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government Minister Dinesh Gunawardena, undefined and unrestricted powers concerning the existence of PSs, MCs and UCs. The purpose for which such powers are proposed to be given to Gunawardena is more concerning, because, if enacted, the proposed amendments would empower Gunawardena to reconvene even dissolved LG institutions at his discretion and for a period that he deems suitable. Questionably, the Government’s approach of maintaining LG institutions involves placing the fate of these institutions in the hands of Gunawardena, and that too in a manner that shows little to zero accountability, is a serious threat to democracy.

Such powers being vested with an individual in a manner that does not require him/her to be answerable to any party is a threat to transparency, accountability, and the logical nature that the public expects in a Government’s decisions. However, this is not just a matter of giving such powers to an individual. This is also a matter of stripping the public of their democratic powers to empower an individual. Although successive Governments and so-called public representatives appear to have conveniently neglected, especially during the past few years, Sri Lanka is still a democracy where the ultimate powers concerning the country’s governance lies with the public. What the said Bills would do, if enacted, is taking the public’s right to exercise their franchise to elect who represents them in Local Government institutions, and allowing Gunawardena to revive these bodies that have been dissolved. Further, what is meant by a crisis and what takes place when the crisis abates are not mentioned. What the said Bills are aiming to do completely contradicts even the most basic of principles of democracy.

For a country that most recently had significant political instability and large public protests seeking to strengthen the weak institutions, such proposals pose a threat to the integrity of the democracy. These Bills coming in a context where the Government remained extremely reluctant to hold overdue Provincial Councils (PCs) Elections citing the lack of monetary resources is also a big concern, because the incumbent Government has shown a serious lack of regard for the public’s right to elect their representatives.

The dictatorial and anti-democratic nature of the changes the said Bills are trying to bring about are self-evident. At a time where establishing and strengthening democracy, human rights, accountability, and the rule of law should be priorities in the ongoing reform efforts, the Government trying to go against it will further blunt the trust that the public has kept in the governing system and the so-called public representatives, and will send the international community, which is pondering if it can trust Sri Lanka to learn from its mistakes, a message that getting the country back on the right track is important to the Government but not as much as retaining political powers and silencing the public’s voice. A Government that has received, although not by the public’s choice, an opportunity to revive a bankrupt country and thereby gain the public’s trust and political powers in the long run, should not resort to such petty measures.