Mayhem in the House

A very pronounced redeeming feature of the mayhem that enveloped Parliament on Budget Day was the way in which President Mahinda Rajapaksa managed the vicious invective which was directed at him from the Opposition benches. He stood tall and took it all with an equanimity of spirit which was exemplary. The seasoned politician that he was, the President never for a moment lost his calm and self possession. This was an object lesson in the handling of rowdy conduct of a very offensive kind.

One could argue that the mayhem which broke out in Parliament on November 21st is nothing new and that such scenes have been witnessed not only in the local legislature on occasions past but in legislatures in other parts of the democratic world too. This may very well be the case but this no excuse for some of our 'law makers' to run amok within the hallowed precincts of the highest law-making institution of the land. Two or many other wrongs do not make a right.

Accordingly, Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa could not have done better than to get down to investigating the lawless conduct by some of our law makers on Budget Day and to initiate disciplinary action against them.

There is no getting away from the fact that the Rule of Law must be upheld everywhere, regardless of whether the place in question is the legislature or elsewhere.

That said, it cannot be emphasized enough that the lawlessness of Budget Day was instigated and sustained a great deal by sections of the Opposition. They are not only guilty of provoking rowdy behaviour through their very 'unparliamentary' conduct of carrying inflammatory placards into the legislature and getting on to a highly confrontational course with the government side, but of also violating very grossly all norms of democratic behaviour by attempting to prevent the President, in his capacity of Finance Minister, from making his budget speech.

As some quarters have observed, these sections of the Opposition seemed to be working to an established plan of destructive behaviour. They were all out to disrupt the business of Parliament from the very inception and in the process they were not only pandering to the baser emotions of the volatile sections of the larger public but trying to impress some international quarters too. It seemed as if the trouble-makers were playing roles which were dictated to them from some external elements which enjoy the spectacle of this country being in a state of crisis.

Moreover, the most hallowed norms of good parliamentary behaviour were wantonly violated and thrown to the winds. As far as our memory serves, such unruly scenes have never been witnessed on Budget Day. The scrupulously observed principle thus far has been to allow the government of the day to present its budget proposals without let or hindrance and to present one's criticisms, if any, at the allocated time for such objections or arguments.

In fact, Parliamentary tradition dictates that the Opposition plays a prominent role in ordering Parliamentary business for the budget debate. This being the case, the behaviour resorted to by the relevant sections of the Opposition would strike the observer as most intriguing. One could not be faulted for inferring that these sections of the Opposition were intent on scuttling the presentation of the budget by the President at any cost.

This begs the question: how democratic and true to the highest values of representative governance are these sections of the Opposition which ran amok? How would such bizarre behaviour contribute towards the furtherance of democratic ideals? We have no choice but to conclude that those who gave into lawless behaviour on Budget Day have travestied democracy.