THE CALL FOR NEW LEADERSHIP

Dr. Jehan Perera explains why elections are needed to effect systems change

One of the key demands by the youth-led public protests, better known as the aragalaya, is for systems change. But a system change needs to go beyond words and requires an understanding of what systems thinking means.

In simple terms, it’s an approach to problem solving by viewing issues as parts of an overall system rather than reacting to specific components. It requires the examination of the linkages and interactions between the elements that compose the entirety of the system. The 21st Amendment to the Constitution is unlikely to bring about the desired changes and will only consolidate the existing system in parliament.

This call for systems change is accompanied by the demand that the president, prime minister and all parliamentarians should resign. It’s validated by the observation that little is changing and the more things change it seems the more they remain the same.

Priority being given by parliamentarians to provide new houses costing tens of millions of rupees to MP’s whose houses and properties were lost to arson recently doesn’t inspire confidence in their impartiality at this time. This discrepancy becomes even more glaring in the context of the government’s offer of only Rs. 100,000 as compensation to families of missing persons.

The homes of ordinary people and the commercial establishments they owned have been subjected to arson, looting and destruction from the time of the first post-independence riots that usually took on communal overtones.

This type of wanton destruction took place during the war as well.

Innocent people who had done nothing to deserve this fate were given compensation amounting to only Rs. 150,000 in 1990 in comparison to what’s being contemplated for parliamentarians who lost their properties, some of which were well beyond the extent of their known sources of income.

The present draft of the 21st Amendment (21A) creates a stronger system of checks and balances but it doesn’t reduce the president’s power to appoint ministers. It seeks to establish a Constitutional Council, which will ensure fair and nonpartisan selection of heads of state institutions.

Under 21A, there will be greater independence for those appointed to head the higher judiciary; bribery, elections and human rights commissions’ and national audit and procurement committees. But the president will have the power to pick the prime minister and ministers.

Systems change also needs to be accompanied by people change to evidence real transformation. There is a need for individuals of integrity who can transcend systems that breed corruption, as is the case with the present arrangement. The Human Rights Commission is an example.

Under the 20th Amendment, the president can appoint anyone he wants to high positions of state including the judiciary, Human Rights Commission (HRC), Bribery Commission, Elections Commission, Police Commission and Public Services Commission to name a few. And this method can lead to deference to the president’s wishes.

However, individuals of integrity can rise above the system that brought them to those positions. The recently appointed Chairperson of the HRC – retired Supreme Court Justice Rohini Marasinghe – has challenged government policy with regard to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which is denounced by local and international human rights organisations, and questioned the police about their use of it.

Under her leadership, HRC has also demanded an explanation from the government for the reasons for the declaration of a state of emergency when the protests at Galle Face were largely peaceful and adhering to police guidelines.

Similarly, the recently appointed Chairman of the Office on Missing Persons Mahesh Katulanda has expressed his determination to ascertain the truth behind those who went missing, which is a break from the past.

The positive responses by these new appointees give rise to the hope that a new generation of leaders are around the corner and the old must give way to the new.

One of the justifications given for restricting the changes under the 21st Amendment and retaining the president’s powers to appoint ministers is the composition of the present parliament that’s dominated by those who are loyal to the former PM rather than to the incumbent.

But this can only be a first step. The way out of this dilemma is to dissolve this unsatisfactory parliament as soon as possible and hold elections soon.