Editorial

The Price Of Democracy

Following LTTE Leader Velupillai Pirapaharan's 'Mahaveer Day' speech on war and peace and the attempted assassination of Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse, the government announced the Emergency (Prevention and Prohibition of Terrorism and Specified Activities) Regulations.

This was in response to the mounting cry in certain quarters for the banning of the LTTE which was orchestrated from within the government itself. The President however could not impose the ban because of opposition from several ministers in his government. What he opted for finally was the introduction of new emergency regulations and lifting the moratorium on the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), both of which can be draconian in nature if abused.

There is no doubt that the LTTE is escalating its terror through violent acts and immediate remedial action is called for. The new emergency regulations should be viewed in the perspective of whether they could in reality be an effective bulwark against further terrorist activity or is a Trojan horse to stifle dissent in the south against a government all at sea using the emotional cry of battling the LTTE. If the regulations are to be used strictly to combat terrorism no one will have any complaints, but will it be the case?

Since terrorist activity commenced in the late '70s, successive governments have been thickening the country's legislative enactments with anti-terrorist laws and regulations. There are plenty of such anti-terrorist laws and regulations in our statute books. Is it the paucity of such legislation that contributed to the escalation of terror? Were the new regulations necessary and if so will it help in curbing the growth of terrorism?

Let us not forget that it is with such regulations in force and a ban on the LTTE to boot that the country witnessed devastating bomb attacks on the Central Bank, the Bandaranaike International Airport, the Kolonnawa oil installation and President Chandrika Kumaratunga just to name a few incidents.

While considering the merits and demerits of the new regulations, it would also be worthwhile to consider whether the spread of terrorism has been caused by other factors such as the non-implementation of the existing laws. In that context, is new legislation the answer or innovative thinking, of which there appears to be bankruptcy in the government?

While law enforcement authorities invariably welcome laws that give them more freedom and scope to act against terrorist suspects, it has  been the experience that such legislation has also resulted in greater harassment of ordinary citizens and deprivation of their basic rights, making governments more resented and unpopular.

It is in this light the current regulations too have to be viewed especially given the loose wording of it which can be all embracing and used not just to harass the minorities under the cover of fighting terrorism but also any form of political dissent in the south. The regulations can be all the more frightening if placed in the hands of extremists who are not only intolerant of minority rights but any form of criticism levelled by the media.

A noticeable feature of the new regulations is that they are extremely widespread in their application. The legislation though intended for the LTTE does not specify any person or organisation. This may probably be because to do so may have necessitated the banning of the LTTE. But this has resulted in innocent civilians being vulnerable to charges of terrorism.

For example terrorism has been defined by the regulations as: 'any unlawful conduct which (a) involves use of violence, force, coercion, intimidation or threats.' To our lay minds this definition could cover even an altercation that takes place daily in a bazaar or fish market. The authorities may not have had that objective in mind but a police officer enforcing the law could well take in those brawling in a market on charges of terrorism!

While the government has assured the public the new regulations will not be used to harass ordinary citizens or stifle the media, when the going gets tough the natural tendency will be to use the regulations available to put a lid on any form of dissent.

A much greater point of concern is where terrorism is also defined as: 'threatens or endangers national security' (16 (b)). 'National Security' is also brought in Section 4 (5) where it is stated: no person shall provide any information which is detrimental or prejudicial to national security to  any person, group or groups of persons or an organisation which acts in contravention of Regulation 2 of these Regulations.

Those journalists involved in reporting or writing on 'security issues' since 1983 or even before that are well aware that 'national security' has been the refuge of scoundrels and criminals just as much religion and patriotism have been and still are the refuge of such despicable characters.

Journalists of today know very well that reporting a security official or politician caught with his pants down, the hand in the till or a smoking gun in hand or some such disgraceful misdemeanour will result in being  accused of engaging in anti-national activity or breaching national security, particularly if the offender is from the ruling party or has powerful connections.

There have been widespread allegations about highly placed politicians and security officials being involved in corrupt deals. This regulation on 'national security' could be well used against those who wish to expose corruption in arms deals.

The Rajapakse administration in an effort reportedly to stem such corruption had decided to establish special companies for arms procurement. Would not these regulations prevent the investigation of the activities of such companies and their directors?

In this context what is called for are not ominous laws that would stifle the media but tight internal security to prevent those within the establishment who are leaking out information to terrorists. It is now being alleged that even movements of convoys of VIPs are known ahead to terrorists. Therefore, these laws, as much as they are to be used against terrorism, should be directed at those who seek to profit from the conflict.

These laws also involve offences specified in the PTA, offences under the Public Security Ordinance, Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the Suppression of Terrorist Financing Act. While resorting to a wide umbrella of legislation for prevention of terrorism could be appreciated, it is essential that in their implementation the harassment of civilians caught up in it and the stifling of the freedom of the media and thereby the freedom of expression should not take place.

This newspaper has personal experience of this tendency where the emergency regulations were used just a couple of months back by the CID on the insistence of the Defence Secretary to question the Editor of The Sunday Leader over a report of a possible court action being filed in the United States against Gotabhaya Rajapakse.

If the emergency regulations could have been resorted to over a simple news report a few months back, with the country situation being much worse today what guarantees are there the new regulations which are far more draconian will not be used against the media which is the only Estate highlighting the abuse of power and corruption in government in the face of an impotent opposition?

Therefore, it is of paramount importance to ensure that the new regulations are only used to combat terrorism and not stifle public dissent against a government which has clearly lost its way.