It is said that when the people fear the government, there is tyranny, and when the government fears the people there is liberty. However, in a bid to retain its hold on power, a government that fears the people, tends to resort to draconian measures that are deleterious to civil liberties and democracy and could lead to tyranny. Among them is the misuse of Emergency regulations on some pretext or another. Sri Lanka has spent most of its post-Independence years under a state of Emergency.
The JVP-NPP government keeps on extending emergency regulations even though several months have passed since the landfall of Cyclone Ditwah, which warranted their imposition. It drew severe criticism for an initial delay in declaring a state of Emergency, which it now cannot do without for all intents and purposes. A staunch critic of Emergency and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), the JVP/NPP came to power, promising to abolish the PTA and use the Emergency regulations responsibly, but it has reneged on that pledge.
On Thursday, Parliament voted to extend the State of Emergency under the Public Security Ordinance. There were 137 ayes and 27 nays. Members of the SJB, the ITAK, the NDF, the SLPP and Jaffna District Independent MP Dr. Ramanathan Archchuna opposed the government motion seeking the extension of Emergency. A vote was held after ITAK MP Shanakiyan Rasamanickam called for division. Worryingly, only 165 MPs, including the Speaker, were present in the 225-member House at the time of voting. Where were the other 60 MPs? Among the absentees were 21 government MPs and 33 Opposition members, according to media reports. At least the Opposition, which called for a division on the motion, should have ensured that all its MPs were present in the House. So much for the commitment of the MPs to their legislative duties and functions. They often haul state employees over the coals for dereliction of duty. First of all, they should put their own house in order.
A state of Emergency is no doubt a legitimate constitutional tool, but it must be used responsibly and sparingly strictly in response to genuine crises. Its extension for political reasons risks undermining democratic institutions, civil liberties and, most of all, public trust in democratic governance.
The deplorable practice of keeping a country under Emergency regulations for extended periods leads to the weakening of democratic culture, public distrust in government, corruption, lack of transparency, the debilitation of civil society and media freedom, an authoritarian drift, and economic and social uncertainty. The misuse of Emergency regulations could create a climate of instability, driving investors away at a time when Sri Lanka is emerging from its worst-ever economic crisis and desperately seeking foreign direct investment to build its forex reserves.
Political leaders currently in the Opposition wax eloquent in Parliament on the ill-effects of a prolonged state of Emergency. But their parties cannot absolve themselves of the blame for the culture of Emergency; the UNP, the SLFP and the JVP are prominent among them. There have been numerous instances where Emergency regulations were invoked in this country. In 1953, a UNP government imposed an emergency rule to restore order during a countrywide hartal. The SLFP did so in 1958 to suppress communal riots. Thereafter, the UNP used Emergency regulations to suppress a Tamil civil disobedience campaign. The SLFP and its leftist allies started the practice of extending Emergency regulations to consolidate its power after crushing the JVP’s first uprising in 1971. The situation took a turn for the worse under the UNP governments after 1977, and the country was under a state of Emergency during the Eelam war, which ended in 2009. The main Tamil political parties backed the LTTE both in and outside Parliament. In the post-war period, an anti-Muslim riot, the Easter Sunday terror attacks, the beginning of the current economic crisis, a mass uprising and natural disasters also led to the imposition of Emergency regulations.
Emergency has been more abused than used in this country. The incumbent government is now emulating the SLFP, the UNP and the coalitions led by them where all bad practices are concerned, while pontificating on the virtues of good governance.
