At a general election, an individual or a private institution has the right to help a party of his choice. However, a government official or a government institution has no such right at its level. What the government officials and government institutions must do is to be politically silent and inactive and allow the people to elect a government of their choice.
One of the main objectives of the 17th Amendment was to put a stop to this malpractice. Although the 17th Amendment has been adopted and it has become part of the law of the country, it has not been possible to achieve the aims of the law on an independent election commission.
After the government announced the election, it increased the salaries of the government servants and the pensions.
It made the temporary employees of government institutions permanent. Thousands of teachers were given promotions on the specific ground that they had been politically victimised.
Although the Elections Commissioner has informed heads of all government institutions that the resources of departments, corporations or statutory bodies must not be used for the benefit of any party or to the detriment of any party, this institution has been disregarded by many heads of government institutions, and the government party politicians have been permitted to use the resources of government institutions at will. All the media of the state are functioning as mouthpieces of the PA disregarding the principles of the 17th Amendment.
The IGP rejected the request made by the Elections Commissioner to cancel all the police transfers made by the IGP after the election was announced. What the IGP said was that, as he was the administrative authority of the police, he alone had the right to transfer police officers. The Elections Commissioner thereafter accepted the IGP’s interpretation.
Although the IGP is the chief administrative officer of the police, the Elections Commissioner has the right to prevent him taking any administrative action that might make an undue effect on the election at election time. The IGP says that there were a large number of transfers before the 1994 election too, but there was no shouting about it at that time. In 1994 there was no 17th Amendment. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that it has not been possible to establish a Police Commission.
Under the Police Commission that will be established under the 17th Amendment, the IGP’s powers to effect police transfers and disciplinary control have been taken away from him and vested in the Police Commission. All the political parties agreed to the enactment of such a reform because there was a general recognition that the IGP as a rule has had to function as a political tool of the executive.
At previous elections, in areas where there was violence some high ranking police officers functioned as tools of local political leaders of the government party, and the IGP took no effective action at all to control the situation. What it showed was that the IGP’s conduct at elections had not been impartial.
The role being played by the chief of the government’s media institutions is similar to the political role being played by the IGP. Instead of objecting to the Election Commissioner’s directives in public as the IGP did, they follow a policy of refraining from following those directives. Their excuse is that directives aimed at them alone cannot be just.
It will be desirable to have a policy frame work incorporating principals that all mass media must follow at elections. However, although a private media institution has the right to act for the benefit of a party of its choice, a government mass media institution has no such right. For instance a private TV institution can work for the UNP and another can work for the PA without contravening the election laws.
However, no state media institution can work for the benefit of one party and to the detriment of another party. The state media should follow a policy of total impartiality. The reason is that, unlike the private media the state media are an institution of the public and are run on public funds.
There can be no doubt that the autocratic conduct of the IGP and the chiefs of the state media institutions serve the government’s purposes. What it shows is that the PA government which functions as a care-taker government until the end of the elections, as well as the President, is prepared to follow the principles of the constitution including the 17th Amendment which was passed with her own support, which may be considered to be the fundamental law of the land. It is no simple offence. That offence alone would suffice to invite an impeachment against the President. The IGP and the state media are under the President’s direct control.
The politicians as well as the state officials who act in disregard of the fundamental law of the land do not appear to have realised the serious consequences that they might have to face. The politicians who use the movable and immovable properties belonging to the state, a state corporation or a statutory body for political purposes, as well as the state officials in charge of those properties who permit such action on the part of the politicians, can be found guilty of offences of corruption coming under the election law as well as offences under the law relating to bribery and corruption. A person found guilty of such offences can be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and be deprived of civic rights.