KEEPING DEFENCE IN THE FAMILY
By Shyamon Jayasinghe,
former Additional Defence Secretary
It is reported that His Excellency Mahinda Rajapakse has appointed
his own brother as Defence Secretary. This raises our eyebrows for very
good reasons. It is not a charge of nepotism that we are immediately
concerned with.
Maybe, the President has thought of firming the line of command by
putting in someone blood-linked to him in charge of the peak office
of Defence. Assuming the incumbent remains faithful to his CEO brother,
it certainly does give great strength to the latter’s line of command
and this is a key consideration in defence matters. On the other hand,
the adverse aspects of such an appointment must be noted
The central flaw in the whole thing is that checks and balance on both
the new secretary and the President disappears simultaneously and such
checks are most crucial in terms of accountability. This, in turn, can
impact negatively, firstly, over the control of abuse of power. The
secretary has the police, the army, the navy, and the airforce under
his jurisdiction and if he so desires he can go berserk by violating
human rights of personnel in the Forces and of private individuals on
the understanding that the brother would back him. So can it be vice
versa.
Then there is the consideration that Defence deals with huge arms deals
where persons are alleged to have earned commission in large amounts.
Just two percent commission would be a good harvest. Already former
President CBK went through the embarrassing experience of having appointed
her uncle Ratwatte as Defence Deputy. The latter is facing a court trial
for abuse of power and there have been many charges of corruption associated
with him.
Any administrative system must be in place to take note of potential
temptations of men and women however good the latter may be now. Sure,
there is nothing against Gotabhaya Rajapakse right now; but the latter
is human or he can fall into a trap not of his creation.
One of the accusations commonly been made by people is that the war
became unwinnable because of the corruption of many of those in charge.
There is a lot of credence in that argument. Corruption, if it prevails
in the future, can make peace itself unwinnable and war, if it occurs
also unwinnable. Both war and peace will go with the wind if corruption
prevails.
The final consideration is that even if any of these untoward events
might not take place they may be perceived to have taken place and this
would undermine the new President’s regime and weaken the latter’s
hold on the Defence Forces and the electorate.
Can somebody advice the new President?
|
