Mediaboss Marketing

News comes that the environment ministry has cleared the governments project for constructing a new parliament building.

The above media report informs us that two sorts of observations have been made during the course of deliberations on the project.

One pertains to its timing and cost, and the other to the heritage value of the existing complex.

Both observations, it must be admitted, are germane, but I wish to suggest that whereas questions related to the timing and cost of the project have obvious weight, given that in times of the current pandemic moneys should be saved for rejuvenating a collapsed economy and for alleviating the unprecedented suffering of millions, the argument about heritage value is open to interrogation.

Heritage buildings do not comprise only aesthetic features but memories of bygone worlds of social and political organisation.

Often, structures of monumental cast remind us of historical practices not always acceptable in the present day. Thus much as we admire such expressions of power, it is to be doubted that we wish to see a return of the social equations or modes of governance of which they speak.

We are thrilled to visit a Red Fort or a Bastille, but hardly desire to bring back monarchy, be it benevolent or brutal.

Also read: What HT Wouldnt Publish: The Folly and Vanity of the Project to Redesign Delhi

A caveat though: not everything built by pre-republican structures of power may be said to be inhumane, exclusive or oppressive. We must continue to thank many of them for the tree-lines, the gardens, the roads, the resting places for travellers, the music, the art, the literature and often forms of social harmony they bequeathed to us. Not to speak of the cuisine.

But parliamentary buildings of colonial times remain rooted in memories of colonial oppressions as well, however the architecture may enthral us. Therefore, the moot point is not whether or not we may retain the old structure of our parliament building complex or construct a new one, but whether the new constructions will bring with them a new spirit of democracy as well.

Thus, if the colonial structures have embedded in them legislative histories that gave us a Rowlatt Act, or laws pertaining to sedition, we may not enhance the spirit of democracy much should such histories continue to inform our current-day legislative agendas. Or, if in our legislative career cesspools of feudal thought continue to find place because these persist in influencing the social lives of vast segments of our populations, from the top down, it may be added.

If the ventilator is a source of oxygen for the coronavirus patient, the oxygen of our republican democracy, incontrovertibly, is stored in our founding constitutional values.

Therefore, if the new building brings with it a new conviction in universal human rights, in the fundamental rights of free expression and informed critique, in the right of free association, a dedicated commitment to national health, with the last woman and child at the centre of policy, to providing livelihood on a sustained and dignified basis to millions of our working citizens bereft of the privileges of class, to the independence of state institutions, a willingness to learn lessons about the environment that the coronavirus phenomenon has brought to us, and , above all, to the all-important ideal of secularism, the new building may have served a purpose larger than those of a renewal of brick and mortar.

Also read: In Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic, the Central Vista Project Should Be Reviewed

Most of all, were the new building to inspire our legislators finally to evict such draconian colonial laws as sedition, UAPA, PSA, NSA and the many digital provisions of policy that function as mechanisms of surveillance, allowing the citizenry to make free and bold contributions to firming up the spirit of democracy, we may applaud the moneys spent on the new construction.

But if a new building carries with it an old heritage inimical to a republican way of life, we may feel that the moneys could have been better spent.

If a parliament building is the body of our democracy, the soul is the spirit of free enquiry and public accountability, and an impartial rule of law, none of which may be deleterious to that spirit. A mere change of vestments, it may be agreed, is a poor substitute for a transformation that may reinforce the faith of the commonweal in the ideals of the national struggle against the values of the old parliament, and in the resolve of our rulers to abide by those ideals, come what may.

Here is that magnificent plea that Macbeth makes in the play of the same title: Do not dress me in borrowed robes. Supposing the old parliament complex to have been a borrowed robe, our new building then must be our own robe that houses the covenant that we the people gave to ourselves not just in form but in a persuasive praxis that may make of the new building a heritage in turn to be truly proud of.

Badri Rainahas taught at Delhi University.

The rest is here:
If We Really Want a New Parliament Building, it Should Reflect the Spirit of Democracy - The Wire

If Gotabaya Rajapaksa and the political mechanism that brought him to power had really wanted to gain the control of central power of the State, they should have contested for the post of prime minister on which the 19th Amendment had vested Executive powers rather than contesting for the presidency which is only a nominal post sans Executive powers

Sri Lanka and India can be considered as the only two Asian countries that have chosen and followed the democratic path since independence.

The Indian National Congress which led Indias freedom struggle had a very clear democratic vision from its very beginning. It can be said that the democratic outlook of the Congress had advanced further after Gandhi took over the leadership of the Congress. The Congress appeared strongly for democratic values and played an important role in socialising them. It had a Charter of Human Rights of its own as far back as 1936 when there was no organisation of the United Nations.

In a democratic sense, Sri Lankas independent movement did not reach such an advanced stage. Though some leaders of the independent movement of Sri Lanka had been educated in the West, they however, did not have an advanced liberal outlook. All the leaders of the independent movement except A.E. Gunasinha were so backward in their outlook that they opposed the proposal to grant universal suffrage.

From an ideological point of view, despite the leaders of Sri Lanka being so backward compared to their Indian counterparts, the country still chose the path of democracy notwithstanding these limitations and shortcomings.

Sri Lanka faced two military coups dtat and three armed insurrections in the interim, and none of them were able to change the democratic path that Sri Lanka had been pursuing. Both President J.R. Jayewardene and President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who can be considered the two most powerful leaders that emerged in Sri Lanka since independence, attempted to establish a long-term one-party rule, but, in the final analysis, they failed to achieve their dream.

Dictatorial expectations

By the time the last Presidential Election was held, Sri Lankas democratic system of governance was not on a stable footing; it was in a state of extreme decay and dilapidation. Numerous factors such as the lack of a strong foundation for democratic polity, failure to maintain the system properly, violation and deformation of the Constitution by ruling parties which came to power from time to time for their power-hungry objectives and converting public administration into a system of plundering public property after 1978 caused this situation.

The distortions and degradation of the political system caused a major breakdown in public confidence in democracy. In this undesirable social environment an idea was spreading among the people and was also being spread subtly that the country needed a benevolent dictator, a well-deserving ruler who loves the country. Obviously Gotabaya Rajapaksa was being introduced to the country, both directly and indirectly, as the best person for the purpose.

The successful role he played as the Secretary of Defence in the war against the LTTE and in beautifying Colombo city later, after the war was over, was used to build his political image. There was a strong propaganda campaign in operation for two to three years aimed at preparing the mindset of Sinhala Buddhist majority to ensure the victory of Gotabaya. This campaign was successful in building the image of Gotabaya Rajapaksa as the only hero who could rescue the Sinhala Buddhist people and the country from the grip of Tamils and Muslims.

The knotty 19

To bring Gotabaya to the fore as the presidential candidate at a time when the 19th Amendment had deprived the Executive powers of the president, thereby reducing his status to a level of a nominal head of state, was a significant aspect inherent in the program implemented to bring him to power.

Prior to adopting a presidential system in 1978, Sri Lanka had a parliamentary system of governance based on the British Westminster model. At that time, the presidents position was similar to that of the constitutional monarch of Britain. The real centre of political power rested on the cabinet of ministers headed by the prime minister, elected by the Parliament.

With the adoption of a president-centred Constitution in 1978, the importance of Parliament in State power became secondary, with the president being its main centre. Consequently, the power of Parliament was subordinated to that of the President. Now, 37 years later, with the enactment of the 19th Amendment, the situation has been reversed and the Executive power of State held by the President removed, making him only a nominal head and the cabinet of ministers led by the prime minister being made the main centre of State power.

But this amendment did not venture to change the system of electing the president; and as such, an appropriate methodology to elect the nominal president was not prescribed. Usually, a nominal president is elected either on the recommendation of the prime minister or like in India, by the vote of a limited body exclusively appointed for the purpose.

Strangely, in Sri Lanka, provisions adopted for electing the executive president were not changed despite the 19th Amendment having already deprived him of Executive power. So the same method used for electing the executive president was continued for electing the nominal president as well, i.e. by public vote in a Presidential Election held treating the whole country as a single constituency. Needless to say, this is a serious error.

Law and power

Gotabaya Rajapaksa was able to achieve a remarkable victory in the Presidential Election 2019 on the strength of Sinhala Buddhist votes. Despite the fact that the new President had been elected by a General Election held treating the entire island as a single constituency, unlike his predecessors he doesnt have Executive power; according to the Constitution he is only a nominal president.

Apparently the majority who voted for the new President were not aware of the changes effected by the 19th Amendment in the powers of the President. They seem to have believed that the new President had the same power possessed and exercised by his predecessors.

If Gotabaya Rajapaksa and the political mechanism that brought him to power had really wanted to gain the control of central power of the State, they should have contested for the post of prime minister on which the 19th Amendment had vested Executive powers rather than contesting for the presidency which is only a nominal post sans Executive powers.

Yet, strangely, not only Gotabaya Rajapaksa, but also the political mechanism that brought him to power were not interested in securing the major post of the central power of the State; instead they were keen on securing the post of president, which is only a nominal position.

It is not clear whether this decision to contest for the presidency was a legal misreading of the power distribution under the 19th Amendment or a deliberate strategic attempt to gradually appropriate supreme power as a sequel to the ascension of office. If the latter is true, it is not a simple error but a serious offence.

Whats the end?

It is quite clear that the coronavirus pandemic has created a situation where a Parliamentary Election cannot be held as required by the Constitution. It is very rarely that extraordinary and unforeseen situations of this nature may arise, which are not prescribed in statutes and cannot be foretold.

In such situations, the Parliament is empowered to make laws and adopt policies necessary to meet the situation. However, the Parliament finds it impossible to intervene in this situation and find a solution as it stands dissolved at the moment and the President has stated unequivocally that he is not in favour of reconvening the Parliament despite having the power to do so.

The President too, is unable to offer a solution to the problem, as he has no legislative power to enact laws. Under the circumstances, it is the responsibility of the Judiciary to offer a solution to the problem which is of great national importance.

The Election Commission had the ability and opportunity to refer the issue to the Judiciary and to find a solution to the crisis. There was also a very clear and important Court decision to guide the Commissioner of Elections on situations of this nature. Yet, the Commission refrained from referring the matter to the Judiciary, informally passing the buck to the President.

The President also did not comply with the request of the Election Commission and refrained from consulting the Judiciary or reconvening the old Parliament. The Opposition parties too were not keen in instituting legal action or consulting the opinion of the Judiciary.

Ultimately, the issue will end at the Judiciary, subjecting the latters independence and fairness to a litmus test. Failure to find a legitimate and practical solution acceptable to all will inevitably result in Sri Lanka entering the annals of history as a nation that plunged into a state of anarchy amidst a pandemic.

Read this article:
Will the pandemic gorge up democracy? - ft.lk

This refers to the Chinese Whispers item Ripe for the picking (May 6). In politics, leaders can leave any party and join any other. The BJP claims to be the biggest party in the world. Then why does it want leaders from other parties? Surprisingly in most cases, the leaders happen to shift loyalty to the very party, which they have been hitting out at all along.

It needs to be noted that turncoats would have been appreciated had they first resigned from the party to register their differences with the leadership. If the party leadership had not lent an ear to them, then they would have had the right or option to do what is best for them politically. For them, the party ideology or heritage does not count much. That is why they have no qualms about jumping ship and looking for greener pastures if the situation demands. The Ayarams and Gayarams will, therefore, remain permanent feature of our democracy.

Tarsem Singh Hoshiarpuri

Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:

The Editor, Business Standard

Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg

New Delhi 110 002

Fax: (011) 23720201 E-mail: letters@bsmail.in

All letters must have a postal address and telephone number

Read the original post:
Letter to BS: Turncoats will remain a permanent feature of our democracy - Business Standard

THE ABS-CBN media behemoth is an anomaly that has made a mockery of our democracy. This started in the late 1950s, when the landlord oligarch clan, the Lopezes, added to their empire what was then a new medium, television, which proved to be more powerful in reaching the masses than their Manila Chronicle newspaper.

We are the only country in Asia to have such a powerful oligarch as the dominant player in broadcast media, the most effective venue in the modern era for molding the masses political consciousness and choices.

Japan has the mammoth NHK, South Koreas three major network are either government-run or funded, and Singapores broadcast and print media are subsidiaries of the government investment fund Temasek Holdings.

Here we have an oligarch clan (in ABS-CBN Corp.), a triumvirate of magnates in another (GMA7) and a foreign tycoon (Indonesian Salim in TV5).

Worse for our democracy, the Lopezes werent just ordinary oligarchs. They owned for many decades the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco), the monopoly electricity distributor in Metro Manila, whose fortunes were 100 percent dependent on government regulations.

When they were friends: Lopez patriarchs Eugenio and Fernando at the formers 68th birthday party in 1969.

The Lopezes ABS-CBN made presidential elections a farce.

While the outcome of presidential elections are determined by a complex of factors, ABS-CBN has been a dominant factor, a big kingmaker, as the masses are hypnotized by ABS-CBN as they watch the 6 p.m. news while waiting for their teleserye or comedy programs.

SantiagoMiriam Defensor-Santiago in 1992 had tapped the idealism not only of the youth, but of the masses on a scale rivaling that of Rodrigo Duterte more than two decades later. The Lopezes, though, backed Fidel Ramos, their patron Corazon Cory Aquinos anointed. It was enough for a dozen or so coverage by ABS-CBN showing Santiago in a tantrum, and spreading the meme (before that word was invented) of Miriam as Brenda for brain-damaged to get the dull general win the elections.

Despite medias portrayal of him as a dum-dum, Joseph Erap Estrada was politically astute and sent all his celebrity eraps like Fernando Poe Jr. and allegedly his studios starlets to the Lopezes to get ABS-CBN behind his presidential bid. The Lopezes also hated candidate Jose de Venecia for his alleged support of the Marcos regime.

Or, perhaps, Erap did what medieval kings did, which was to establish an alliance through their childrens marriage. We learned about that only a year after the elections, when Manuel Beaver Lopez Jr. married Eraps unica hija (at least with Loi) Jackie.

The Lopezes, however, didnt hesitate to abandon Erap loyalty hasnt been that clans strength when the going got tough, as the jueteng and other scandals gave the Yellows and Ramos who feared Estrada would prosecute him for the so-called Centennial funds corruption, more than enough issues to stage a second People Power uprising.

Gloria Macapagal Arroyo tried very hard to get the Lopezes to her side, when she assumed power by accident in 2001. As Arroyos chief of staff, I attended a few dinners with Oscar and Manolo at her familys Forbes Park home to shoot the breeze as they say, although after the main meal the two Lopezes would meet with Arroyo at her living room, with no other people there.

ArroyoThe Lopezes needed Arroyo badly at that time. While Cory was in power, they racked up hundreds of millions of loans from the Development Bank of the Philippines in the hope of quickly building up the empire they lost during martial law. However, they couldnt seem to put their finances and even their house in order, especially after their primus inter pares Eugenio Lopez Jr. died in 1999.

That was the worst time for the patriarch to pass away as the 1998 to 1999 global financial crisis hit, and the Lopez empire had accumulated substantial foreign debt, the peso equivalent of which more than doubled as the exchange rate zoomed form P26 in 1996 to P54 by 2003.

The biggest problem though of the Lopezes involved their family jewel, Meralco, since the so-called Electric Power Industry Reform Act (Epira) was passed in June 2001, but was implemented only starting 2007 due to delays because of the suits against it that dragged on up to the Supreme Court.

I was assigned both before the law was passed and after to help Meralco with a small group of Arroyos closest Cabinet members in getting their side into the Act and then having their side taken into account by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) that decides on how much Meralco could charge its customers.

With then Trade and Industry Secretary Manuel Roxas 2nd (who was believed to be very close to the Lopezes, his fellow Ilonggo), Energy Secretary Vicente Perez Jr. and presidential legal counsel Avelino Cruz Jr., we met several times in secret with Meralco Chairman Manuel Pangilinan and his vice president, a lady in charge of electricity economics.

UnbundledWe spent so many hours poring over the details of how the firms prices were to be unbundled (i.e., its costs made transparent), how the performance-based rating system which replaced the return on rate base method that had been in effect since 1986, would work in practice.

While purportedly aimed at encouraging private sector investment in the power industry, the new pricing system made electricity costs in the country one of the highest in the world, while turning Meralco into a cash cow for its owners.

For some reason I dont know though I left Malacaang in 2005 to become the ambassador to Greece Arroyo, or the Energy Regulatory Commission delayed the implementation of the new price system. With Meralcos costs zooming up because of the pesos devaluation, it was racking up so much losses to nearly keel over.

Coincidentally or not, the so-called Hello Garci scandal broke out in 2005 when Arroyo was recorded talking over the phone with a Comelec commissioner before the 2004 elections. The group of inane Cabinet members called the Hyatt 10 resigned and called for her resignation, Cory and Cardinal Jaime Sin demanded that the president step down. ABS-CBN became vicious in its attacks against Arroyo.

With their finances getting worse, the Lopezes sold Meralco to their ally, the Indonesian Anthoni Salim, in March 2009. A few months later, the ERC implemented the Epiras pricing system. Meralcos profits starting that year zoomed, with its dividends expanding from P1 billion in 2007 to P2.8 billion the year Salim took over and to at least P12 billion every year since 2013.

Aquino 3rdIn the 2010 elections, ABS-CBN went all-out for Benigno Aquino 3rds presidential bid, its huge corps of journalists throwing dirt on the main rival then, the magnate Manuel Villar, tagging him as Villarroyo and running investigative reports alleging how he got highways in Las Pias built near the vast subdivisions he was developing. Villar ended up third, with Manuel Lopezs in-law Estrada the runner up.

The Lopezes kingmaker role in the post-war era isnt really new, as a University of California doctoral dissertation narrated:

The Lopezes are the only family that has consistently stayed on the fringes of power since 1945, when they came to power with [Manuel] Roxas. Consistently they have been the manipulators of political balances in this country. When they abandoned Quirino and the Liberal Party in the 1950s, there was a stampede out. When they joined the Magsaysay bandwagon in the 1960s, they forced Garcia down.

Then Macapagal came; but in two years the Lopezes were able to bring about a crisis of major proportions against him, and so bring on his downfall. And it was the Lopezes who engineered the coup of Ferdinand Marcos against Senate President Rodriguez that started his bid for the presidency. They rode with Marcos (and supported his bid for the presidency in 1965, and then abandoned him in 1969). What makes them so deadly? One: their control of media. They have one of the best radio and TV networks in the country.

Now do you think that Sen. Miguel Zubiris complaint that with ABS-CBN closed he wont be able to watch ANC in the morning anymore, the sympathy that 2,500 of its employees (per BIR figures) will lose their jobs, or the fear we wont be informed about the pandemic anymore make any sense?

This Congress, the 18th, and this President, Duterte, the only president who won without ABS-CBNs backing, will go down in history as oligarch-killers, as builders of Philippine democracy.

Email: tiglao.manilatimes@gmail.comFacebook: Rigoberto TiglaoTwitter: @bobitiglaoBook orders: http://www.rigobertotiglao.com/debunked

Link:
ABS-CBN closure will strengthen our democracy The Manila Times - The Manila Times

In a funeral oration in 430 bce for those who had fallen in the Peloponnesian War, the Athenian leader Pericles described democratic Athens as the school of Hellas. Among the citys many exemplary qualities, he declared, was its constitution, which favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. Pericles continued: If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if to social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way; if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by obscurity of his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life.

A century later, Aristotle discussed democracy in terms that would become highly influential in comparative studies of political systems. At the heart of his approach is the notion of a constitution, which he defines as an organization of offices, which all the citizens distribute among themselves, according to the power which different classes possess. He concludes that there must therefore be as many forms of government as there are modes of arranging the offices, according to the superiorities and the differences of the parts of the state. Ever the realist, however, he remarks that the best [government] is often unattainable, and therefore the true legislator and statesman ought to be acquainted, not only with (1) that which is best in the abstract, but also with (2) that which is best relatively to circumstances.

Aristotle identifies three kinds of ideal constitutioneach of which describes a situation in which those who rule pursue the common goodand three corresponding kinds of perverted constitutioneach of which describes a situation in which those who rule pursue narrow and selfish goals. The three kinds of constitution, both ideal and perverted, are differentiated by the number of persons they allow to rule. Thus rule by one is monarchy in its ideal form and tyranny in its perverted form (see tyrant); rule by the few is aristocracy in its ideal form and oligarchy in its perverted form; and rule by the many is polity in its ideal form and democracy in its perverted form.

Aristotles general scheme prevailed for more than two millennia, though his unsympathetic and puzzling definition of democracywhich probably did not reflect the views of most Greeks in his timedid not. Aristotle himself took a more favourable view of democracy in his studies of the variety, stability, and composition of actual democratic governments. In his observation that the basis of a democratic state is liberty, Aristotle proposed a connection between the ideas of democracy and liberty that would be strongly emphasized by all later advocates of democracy.

Nearly 20 centuries after Aristotle, the English philosopher John Locke adopted the essential elements of the Aristotelian classification of constitutions in his Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690). Unlike Aristotle, however, Locke was an unequivocal supporter of political equality, individual liberty, democracy, and majority rule. Although his work was naturally rather abstract and not particularly programmatic, it provided a powerful philosophical foundation for much later democratic theorizing and political programs.

Link:
Democracy - The theory of democracy | Britannica