As Kenya Struggles to Recover from a Tumultuous Election, America Must Stand by Its Side

The democratic future of a key ally in East Africa is at stake.

Supporters of President Uhuru Kenyatta celebrate on Nov. 20, in Nairobi after Kenya's Supreme Court dismissed two petitions to overturn the country's Oct. 26 presidential election re-run, validating the poll victory of Kenyatta.(Simon Maina/AFP/Getty Images) 

BY JOHN TOMASZEWSKI, DANIEL TWINING-NOVEMBER 21, 2017, 11:30 AM

This week marked yet another chapter in the saga of Kenya’s now three-month-long presidential election. With the Supreme Court’s unanimous rejection of petitions to invalidate the Oct. 26 “rerun,” it appears that the reelection of incumbent President Uhuru Kenyatta is all but confirmed. Although this may conclude the procedural drama of the election, the political crisis it has sparked shows no signs of abating.

The country was first thrown into turmoil after the presidential election held on August 8 was nullified by the Supreme Court for “irregularities and illegalities.” The rerun on October 26 was boycotted by National Super Alliance (NASA) leader Raila Odinga, delivering Kenyatta a victory tarnished by continued challenges to his legitimacy. In the weeks that followed, NASA launched a national resistance movement, petitions were filed with the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the presidential election results once again, and Odinga wrapped up a tour of Kenya’s most important ally, the United States.

It’s worth noting that Kenya shares America’s democratic values, which is no small achievement in a region where countries are increasingly led by autocratic leaders, and political and civic space is closing rapidly. The Kenyan constitution is one of the most progressive on the continent and has created a devolved governance structure that empowers local communities — a development that should continue to be encouraged by Washington.

Devolution has played a constructive role in reducing the emphasis on national politics by transferring power to the local level, but what 2017’s election has shown is that the presidency remains the top prize. How can Kenya simultaneously have so many competitive polls for governor and other key county races with very little violence or political fallout alongside a presidential election that has fueled political instability and undermined the core institutions of its democracy?

The political crisis in Kenya today is not about an election, a rerun of an election, or any other technical exercise. It is about the failure to deliver on some of the core elements of a functioning democratic system: inclusion, security, the protection of minority interests, and the protection and promotion of fundamental rights.

In the end, the problem is a tale of two Kenyas. One half of society, mainly those allied with Jubilee, sees itself as a budding democracy and regional leader, providing opportunity and development for its people. The other Kenya, NASA’s core supporters, views itself as fundamentally disadvantaged, without a voice, and abandoned by their brethren.

Secessionist movements mooted by politicians in western Kenya are not the answer.

Secessionist movements mooted by politicians in western Kenya are not the answer.

 Washington should make the case that the country’s diversity is, in fact, its greatest strength, provided all sides use the democratic system to resolve difficulties so that they can work together for a common purpose. Kenya’s long and complicated road out of this political crisis will require political will on both sides, and a common desire to move forward as one Kenya.

The United States can help by working with all actors to find sustainable solutions and advocate for reforms that bolster inclusive institutions and address long-standing societal grievances. As we know all too well, democracy is never perfect and its challenges often become more complicated over time. There may be additional bullfights ahead for Kenya, but America has a vital role to play in helping its friend and ally to ensure that the grass not only regrows, but grows stronger.

Robert Mugabe resignation ushers in new era for Zimbabwe

Jubilation in streets and parliament tinged with uncertainty about future following decades of authoritarian rule


Celebrations erupt in Zimbabwean parliament as Mugabe resigns – video

Jason Burke and Emma Graham-Harrison in Harare-Tuesday 21 November 2017 

Robert Mugabe has resigned as president of Zimbabwe with immediate effect after 37 years in power, ushering in a new era for a country as uncertain as it is hopeful.

The man who ruled with an autocrat’s grip for so many years finally caved to popular and political pressure hours after parliament launched proceedings to impeach him.

He had refused to leave office during an eight-day crisis that began when the military took over last week. Clinging to the formal vestiges of power, he was unable or unwilling to recognise that after so many years of political mastery, he had lost control of both his party and the country.


 Singing and dancing breaks out on the streets of Harare - video

Mugabe, who outwitted and outlasted so many opponents during his career, had appeared determined to fight on, turning a televised address to the nation on Sunday, when he was expected to announce his own retirement, into a defiant description of future plans.

So when the parliament speaker, Jacob Mudenda, announced that Mugabe had submitted his resignation in a letter, there was wild jubilation in parliament, replicated within minutes by large crowds on the streets of Harare and in other major cities.

“I’m excited for myself, my baby, the whole nation,” said Mildred Tadiwa, who was out with her five-month old daughter. “My daughter will grow up in a better Zimbabwe.”


Mildred Tadiwa and her five-month-old daughter. Photograph: Emma Graham-Harrison for the Guardian

Zimbabweans raced up and down the wide boulevards of the capital as the sun set, honking car horns, waving flags, singing, dancing and cheering.

“We are elated! It’s time for new blood. I’m 36 and I’ve been waiting for this all my life, I’ve only known one leader,” said William Makombore, who works in finance. He was waving a flag he had kept in his car since the weekend’s protests. “It’s is going to be an all-nighter.”

There were no immediate details from generals, allies or party officials about what would happen to Mugabe and his family after his resignation. Always a ruthless operator, Mugabe is certain to have negotiated hard over the conditions for his relinquishing of power.

The letter allowed him to leave office with some remaining dignity, but it also allowed the group behind his downfall to present it as a constitutional transfer of power, rather than a change of government effected at gunpoint.


Zimbabweans celebrate Robert Mugabe's resignation – video

The military generals moved against Mugabe due to factional struggles within the ruling Zanu-PF party, and with the support of his presumed successor Emmerson Mnangagwa, a party stalwart and liberation war veteran known as “the Crocodile”.

Mnangagwa’s firing as vice-president at the start of the month triggered the takeover and the subsequent unravelling of Mugabe’s control. The party that had bent to Mugabe’s every will for so many years was quick to turn on the 93-year-old, first evicting him from his position as party chief and then leading the impeachment drive.

However, what began as a palace coup developed into a popular revolt. Mugabe’s downfall unleashed extraordinary hopes as hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans poured on to the streets at the weekend to call on him to leave.

Crowds also turned up to cheer MPs when they began impeachment proceedings on Tuesday afternoon, and began singing, dancing and chanting in Africa Unity square. Though many Zimbabweans respect Mugabe’s role as a guerrilla hero of the liberation struggle, fewer and fewer were willing to defend his recent record.


Emmerson Mnangagwa stands behind Robert Mugabe in a 2014 swearing-in ceremony. Photograph: Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi/AP

He has ruled as an autocrat, prepared to sacrifice the economic wellbeing of 16 million people in order to remain in power. Industry and farming have collapsed throughout the country, while inflation has spiralled and only 10% of young Zimbabweans can find jobs at home.

By the end, Mugabe had few options left as he controlled the country through a mixture of coercion and bribery papered over with the rhetoric of revolutionary movements. Support in some branches of the security establishment had evaporated and he increasingly alienated some of his former allies by openly supporting the political ambitions of his wife, Grace.

Even Zimbabweans reluctant to criticise the man who led the country to freedom from the British bridled at the prospect of a Mugabe dynasty. Much of the anger evident in recent demonstrations focused on Grace – and the faction that had formed around her.


Robert Mugabe: life of a dictator – video profile

Mugabe’s fall will reverberate across a continent where hundreds of millions of people still suffer the excesses of authoritarian rulers, are denied justice by corrupt or incompetent officials, and struggle to hold even elected governments to account.

The deal Mugabe has struck to leave power might tempt other rulers to leave before they are pushed, if he is able to protect his family and some of the assets he is thought to have accumulated while in power.

Coups have been extremely rare in southern Africa. Zimbabwe’s new rulers will aim to protect a reputation for civilian rule and so avoid sanctions and diplomatic penalties usually triggered by forced transition.

The generals insisted from the moment they put Mugabe under house arrest that they were acting in his interests and in service of the state. Zimbabweans have largely praised the military for acting in the national interest.

Mnangagwa, 75, the war veteran, Zanu-PF stalwart and former spy chief, is expected to be sworn in to replace Mugabe as president later this week. However, he is not the obvious face of change.

He was Mugabe’s right-hand man for years, falling out of favour only as Grace’s political influence increased. Mnangagwa is dogged by many of the accusations of corruption and human rights abuses that tarnished Mugabe’s own record.

Members of the ruling Zanu-PF have anointed Mnangagwa president in waiting, although his succession will not be automatic because he is no longer vice-president.


Robert Mugabe kisses his wife Grace in April 2017. Photograph: Jekesai Njikizana/AFP/Getty Images

Mnangagwa was conciliatory in his only public comment since the coup, a statement issued hours before Mugabe announced his resignation.

“My desire is to join all Zimbabweans in a new era,” he wrote. “In that new Zimbabwe it is important for everyone to join hands so that we rebuild this nation to its full glory, this is not a job for Zanu-PF alone but for all the people of Zimbabwe.”

The fragmented opposition movement will be hoping for a commitment from any new ruler that they will be included in any transition government, and that national elections due to be held by next August will go ahead as planned.

Zimbabweans know that the change was driven as much by competition for power within Zanu-PF as by popular anger at a dictatorial and corrupt regime. For one evening, however, they wanted to focus on celebrating the change they had almost given up hoping would come, the end of a rule which has defined generations.

“I’m 35 and I have children. I was born under Mugabe, and they were born under him,” said Munyaradzi Chisango, an engineer. “This is going to put Zimbabweback on the map.”

597 days. And still waiting.

10,000 people died in the past year while stuck
in a backlog of judges’ disability cases.
What will happen to Joe Stewart?

Story by Terrence McCoy- November 20, 2017

Webster County, Miss. — On the 597th day, the day he hoped everything would change, Joe Stewart woke early. He took 15 pills in a single swallow. He shaved his head. And then he got down to the business of the day, which was the business of every day, and that was waiting. He looked outside, and saw his mother there in a green sedan, engine running. So many months he had waited for this moment, and now it was here. Time for his Social Security disability hearing. Time to go.

.

Stewart, 55, set out on crutches, tottering out of his mobile home and down a metal ramp he’d laid when stairs became too much. “I’m sweating my ass off,” he said, getting into his mother’s car, his long-sleeved dress shirt hanging open. He tilted the passenger seat all the way down, placed a pillow at the small of his back and, groaning and wincing, settled in as best he could.

“Did they say long-sleeved?” asked his mother, Jean Bingham, 73.

“It was the only decent shirt I had!” he said.

He knew only what he’d been told by his lawyer, who wanted to see him again before the hearing, and that was not to wear a T-shirt and to bring along a list of medications he uses to treat the pains that are all he has to show for a lifetime spent installing vinyl siding throughout Webster County.
 Neurontin for nerve pain. Baclofen for muscle spasms. Trazodone for depression. Hydroxyzine and Buspirone for anxiety, a condition that seemed to worsen each day his wait stretched into the next.

Stewart had first applied for federal disability benefits on May 21, 2015. The application was denied, and so was his appeal. When he appealed the second rejection, he went to the back of one of the federal government’s biggest backlogs, where 1.1 million disability claimants wait for one of some 1,600 Social Security administrative law judges to decide whether they deserve a monthly payment and Medicare or Medicaid. “A death sentence” is how Stewart, who has no health insurance, has come to think of another denial.

For other applicants, the wait itself may be enough to accomplish that. In the past two years, 18,701 people have died while waiting for a judge’s decision, increasing 15 percent from 8,699 deaths in fiscal 2016 to 10,002 deaths in fiscal 2017, according to preliminary federal data obtained by The Washington Post. The rising death toll coincides with a surge in the length of time people must wait for a disposition, which swelled from a national average of 353 days in 2012 to a record high of 596 this past summer.

The simplest explanation is that there isn’t enough money. The Social Security Administration’s budget has been roughly stagnant since 2010, while the number of people receiving retirement and disability benefits has risen by more than 7 million, despite a slight decline in the disability rolls beginning in 2015 as some beneficiaries reached retirement age.

The more complicated explanation, however, also includes fewer supporting staff members helping judges. A recession that increased the number of applications and appeals. A new regulation that requires additional medical evidence, lengthening the files judges have to read. And heightened scrutiny in the aftermath of a 2011 scandal in Huntington, W.Va., where one judge, who approved nearly everyone who came before him, was later convicted of taking $600,000 in bribes. Since then, according to a September report by the Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General, the average judge has gone from deciding 12 cases every week to fewer than 10, a relatively small slowdown that, spread across hundreds of weeks and hundreds of judges, has contributed to the crushing backlog.

People are dying waiting for disability. What's taking so long?

In the last two years, nearly 19,000 Americans died waiting for disability. The wait has soared from around 350 days in 2012 to nearly 600 in 2017. Here's how people make their way through the disability approval process.

Read More

NHS overcharged by millions for key drug, says watchdog

Dr Mark Vanderpump told the BBC patients were seeing liothyronine sold for £5 in other European cities

20 November 2017

Drug company Concordia overcharged the NHS by millions for a key thyroid treatment, the Competition and Markets Authority has provisionally found.

The CMA said that last year the NHS spent £34m on its drug, liothyronine, up from about £600,000 in 2006.

The amount the NHS paid per pack rose from around £4.46 in 2007 to £258.19 by July 2017, an increase of almost 6,000%.

Concordia said it did "not believe that competition law has been infringed".

The price change occurred in the years after the drug was de-branded in 2007. The CMA said the price rise took place despite "broadly stable" production costs.

Canadian drugs giant Concordia sells drugs to patients in more than 100 countries.

Liothyronine tablets are primarily used to treat hypothyroidism, a condition caused by a deficiency of thyroid hormone affecting at least two in every 100 people and which can lead to depression, tiredness and weight gain.

Until earlier this year, Concordia was the only supplier of the drug.

CMA chief executive, Andrea Coscelli, said: "Pharmaceutical companies which abuse their position and overcharge for drugs are forcing the NHS - and the UK taxpayer - to pay over the odds for important medical treatments.

"We allege that Concordia used its market dominance in the supply of liothyronine tablets to do exactly that."

Analysis: Michelle Roberts, BBC News Online health editor

Image copyrightPA

Prescription medicines that are still under patent can be expensive, but the government caps profits from any that are sold to the NHS to keep costs low.

But this system does not cover so-called "generic medicines", where a drug's patent has run out.
The loophole means the price of older, established drugs coming off patent can rocket.

A company, after filing and obtaining appropriate approval, can start trading the rebranded medicine and set a high price for it through a process known as "debranding".

It's something the Competition and Markets Authority has challenged a number of drugs companies over.

'Open and transparent'

Mr Coscelli stressed that, at this stage in the investigation, the findings were provisional and there had been no definitive decision that there had been a breach of competition law.

Concordia said the pricing of liothyronine had been conducted "openly and transparently with the Department of Health in the UK over a period of 10 years".

"Over that time, significant investment has been made in this medicine to ensure its continued availability for patients in the UK.

"We continue to work co-operatively with the CMA as it proceeds with its investigation."

It added that the CMA's statement included matters that pre-dated Concordia's ownership of its international segment, which it bought in 2015 from investment firm Cinven and other sellers, including Hg Capital. The CMA has also written to those two firms.

"I get some from Greece, some from Mexico"

Image copyrightTARA RIDDLE

Before she started taking liothyronine, Tara Riddle said her life was "utter, utter exhaustion".

She told BBC 5 live: "I had to lean on something, rather than stand, I couldn't go out, I couldn't shop. It was awful, absolutely awful."

Having researched her condition online she convinced her GP to prescribe her liothyronine which she took for four weeks.

"My life came back completely," she said. "Then I called my GP and he said 'I am so, so glad, but I'm afraid I am not allowed to to give you any more because they are so expensive.'"

Tara is now forced to buy the drug overseas via the internet.

She said: "I get some from Greece, some from Mexico. I talked to my MP about it and he said they could be dirty drugs, and I said I know, but I said I wasn't going to go back to that bad place I was in.
"The NHS is paying around £900 for 100 tablets, and in Greece and Turkey they can be got for about £3. The NHS is paying way, way too much and there's something wrong."

'Massive difference'

An NHS England spokesperson said: "This action sends an important enforcement signal to relevant generic drug manufacturers, and also wholesalers, that taxpayers and the NHS will not tolerate market abuses."

Dr Mark Vanderpump, former president of the British Thyroid Association, explained how he saw the cost of liothyronine rocket: "Historically the drug cost the NHS about £20-30 a month. The new cost was over £300 a month.

"Patients were telling me they could go to a foreign capital and pay about £4-5 a month, so there was a massive difference in what the NHS was being charged versus what people were accessing it at at a European level."

If the provisional finding is upheld the CMA can impose a fine of up to 10% of Concordia's annual worldwide turnover.

Earlier this year, Concordia was also accused of pushing up the price of a "lifesaving" NHS drug by striking a deal not to compete with another firm.

The CMA said in provisional findings that Actavis and Concordia fixed the market for hydrocortisone tablets. Concordia also said then it did not think it was in breach of competition law.

More investigations

The CMA said the liothyronine case was one of a number it was looking at within the pharmaceutical sector.

Previously, the watchdog has fined drugs giant Pfizer and Flynn Pharma nearly £90m in relation to what it called "excessive and unfair prices" for the anti-epilepsy treatment, phenytoin sodium capsules.

It also fined a number of pharmaceutical companies a total of £45m in relation to anti-depressant medicine paroxetine.

Both those decisions are under appeal.

The CMA is pursuing another seven investigations into several companies in relation to drug pricing and competition issues.

eLECTRIC AND HYBRID CARS MUST BE PRICED REASONABLY

By Rathindra Kuruwita-2017-11-20

For a significant number of Sri Lankans the most important budget proposals are those governing the prices of motor vehicles. Ceylon Today met with Ranjan Peiris, the President of the Vehicle Importers Association of Sri Lanka (VIASL) to discuss how the Budget will affect the vehicle market.

First of all tell us your opinion on the impact of the Budget on motor vehicles?

A: There were many positives in the Budget. We are very thankful to the Minister and his team for bringing in this new simple way of calculating duty, which is applicable to all of us, for franchise dealers as well as other dealers. Earlier it was not that, there were two different systems to calculate duties for the two categories.

The Budget brought good news to people who had wanted to buy a small car, i.e. below 1000 CC, as the duty on these vehicles, have come down aCCording to the new duty structure. And as expected the taxes on the luxury category have gone up tremendously.

However, we were surprised to see the Government has increased duty on the hybrid category up to 1500 CC. Many of us and the general public feel that it should have been the other way around or they should have left it as it is. In fact, we have made a request to reconsider this increase and urged the Government to keep the duty on these vehicles to what it was before the increase.

The 1500 CC category hybrid vehicles are being used by those who rent or hire their cars, use them as airport taxis or in the tourism industry. So in a way, this 1500 CC hybrid category propels a lot of industries, not the small car or the luxury car. There are many economical cars in this category, there are about 12 cars for example Toyota Axio gives you about 23 kilometres per litre, and so most of these tourist drivers use Axios. On the other hand, a car like the Toyota Aqua, Honda Fit, Grace and Vezel are used by families, so all these cars are very common on the road. These vehicles are also used by junior executives in the corporate sector because this category was affordable and economical. So, we believe that the Government will take our request seriously and do something reasonable.

There was a lot of allusion to a green economy in the budget and for that we must encourage people to usehybrid and electric cars. However, that won't happen if the prices are too high.

So, we think that the Government must leave the 1500 CC category as it is, we are not asking for a reduction of duty, but just for it not to be changed. I think the Government will definitely consider this and I think that overall it's a good Budget, especially thinking about people who want to upgrade from a motorcycle to a new car and for them it is a good opportunity.

The Government also brought in some minimum safety standards. Not only do vehicles that will be imported need to have two airbags and the anti-lock braking system (ABS) but also they need to adhere to Euro 4 emission standards. Are you happy with this move?

A: Indeed, we welcome the decision to introduce some safety standards and this was one of the proposals we submitted to the ministry. We asked for two airbags and the anti-lock braking system (ABS) and those came through in the Budget. These have to be made compulsory because so many aCCidents happen and people lose their lives due to the lack of safety features in the vehicles.

There are so many cars, I don't like to mention where they come from, without these safety features.

In the motor industry safety features like two airbags and the anti-lock braking system (ABS) are now very common. The Japanese domestic vehicles we import are with much more safety options than two airbags and the anti-lock braking system (ABS). Even if we look at a vehicle like Suzuki Wagon R that comes from Japan, the car has the radar brake system as well. If the vehicle you drive has the radar brake system, if the car that is travelling ahead of you applies the brakes your car automatically stops. That's a very valuable safety system as it automatically maintains distance and you would have seen that most of our drivers don't do that, which leads to many aCCidents. Our request is not to have radar based safety features, although we would like that, our request was to, at least to have two airbags and the anti-lock braking system (ABS). So, we were happy to see the Minister making these two features compulsory because this will greatly benefit the people.

We also requested the Government to at least have Euro 4 emission standards and the budget prohibited the importation of Motor Vehicles below the Emission Standard of the Euro 4 or its equivalent from 1 January 2018, in line with the Health and Environmental safeguard measures. The current European standard is Euro 6 but it was really good to see the Government making Euro 4 standard compulsory. We again thank the Minister for taking these two requests seriously.

There was a lot of talk on promoting electric cars in the Budget. The Minister has also given a tax concession of one million rupees and has decided to encourage electric car charging stations. Do you think this is enough or does the Government need to do more?

A: Electric cars should come into the market and I think the Government also wants that. The Minister said that they will build charging stations and provide incentives to encourage the use of off-grid solar power in establishing electric car charging stations.

Those are good ideas because you need such stations at least get to Kegalle from Colombo and return. But then again having charging stations alone would not do. We should also encourage people to buy these cars.

For that reason, we must bring down the duty; they have given a concession of one million rupees duty on electric cars. Earlier, it was only for brand new cars, but now they have extended it to include cars used for a year, however, a car used for one year too is still very costly. The Government allows the import of cars that have been used for three years, and I think extending the concessions on cars used up to three years must be considered by the Government.

If the idea is to have electric cars and hybrid cars on the road, we must price these cars reasonably, otherwise people won't buy as there are other options available, including small petrol cars. So, if the idea is to have more and more hybrid and electric cars, the Government must do something to reduce the duty. We can only regulate the prices using the duty structure, we expect the Government to consider this as well.

The tax concession for electric cars is only valid for vehicles with motors between 70-80 KWs. However, the new models of Nissan Leaf, which is the most popular electric car in the country now has a motor capacity of 100 KWs. Does this mean that the Government has not kept in touch with the latest developments?

A: Among the electric cars Nissan Leaf is the most popular vehicle and while there are so many high-end electric cars which are expensive. So again we have to go to the Ministry and get that corrected, as the Nissan Leaf which is going to be launched in January is at a higher motor capacity and one can travel longer distances.

If this concession does not come within that limit there will be issues, I think we need to talk to the Ministry officials about the coming models and their capacities, so that, everyone can get a better idea of what the situation is.

Main idea behind this is that the vehicles must go into the markets. If people do not agree with the price then there is no point.

When they increased taxes up to 50 per cent, the Nissan Leaf that we were selling at around Rs 3 million went up to Rs 4.7 million and no one bought them. Because when you are willing to spend Rs 4.7 million, you can easily buy a Toyota Aqua or a used Axio for that price, which would allow a person to travel from Galle to Jaffna without any problem. There are plenty of petrol stations, the vehicle is hybrid and is good on fuel then no one looks at the electric car. That is why I am saying if the price is not right, we will not be able to get the electric cars on the road.

Have you considered importing electric cars with smaller engines?

A: A lot of people have asked me this question in recent days, 'why can't we bring down electric cars with a smaller motor?' There are cheaper cars in China, there is a wide variety used in the Chinese market, but we are still not sure of the quality of these vehicles.

The other thing is that Nissan is a known brand, Nissan vehicles have been in the country since the 1970s and there is no need to convince someone of the quality of a Nissan vehicle. But that is not the case with Chinese cars, they are a completely new product and if we bring a Chinese model we will have to spend a lot of time and resources explaining to the people what the car is, how reliable it is and so forth.

So, all things considered Nissan Leaf is a good car and if the Government gives a better deal on this car, people will buy it. When the duty was 5 per cent some time back, the vehicle was priced between 2.7 and 3 million rupees, and a lot of people bought electric cars. But all of a sudden the duty went from 5 per cent to 50 per cent, after that the demand went down rapidly. I don't expect the duty to come down to the 5 per cent level but the Government must look at a reasonable duty structure so that the car can be marketed. However, I am confident that the Minister will consider this.
rathindra984@gmail.com

The Significance of Article 9 of the Constitution Should or could it be removed

2017-11-21

• Buddhist thinking superimposed upon all Eastern thought the notion of the equality of all human beings - C.G. Weeramanthry
• Social contract theory requires the Govt to use such power for peace, safety and public good of the people
• Giving foremost place to Buddhism proved to be a sound constitutional machinery
• “Sovereignty is in the people” was a fundamental feature of the Buddhist system of Government - Dr. Wijeyethunga

Article 9 of the Constitution has become the subject of much discussion. Could or should it be removed from the Constitution?   

Article 9 reads as follows;   

“The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14 (1) (e). (Emphasis mine).   

The Significance of Article 9 of the Constitution Should or could it be removed.docx by Thavam on Scribd

Constitutional Reform: Wijeyadasa’s Errors

By Nihal Jayawickrama –21November 2017

The lengthy article by Dr Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe PC on constitutional reform published in the newspapers recently appears to contain several errors of fact and of law. I have no wish to argue with the former Minister of Justice on his views on the legality of the current constitutional reform process in which he participated until his removal from office. However, any debate should proceed upon the basis of accurate information and correct statements of the law.

1. Dr.WR: “We gained Dominion Status which did not amount to full independence with Soulbury Constitution and Ceylon Independence Ordinance in 1947/48.”

The Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council 1946 granted full self-government to Ceylon based upon a draft constitution that had been approved in the State Council by 51 votes to 3, including the affirmative votes of members belonging to the Tamil, Muslim and Burgher communities. That Constitution provided for a Governor, and established a House of Representatives and a Senate. The Ceylon Independence Act 1947, enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Ceylon (Independence) Order in Council 1947, both of which came into force on 4 February 1948, granted “Dominion Status” to Ceylon.  From that day, Ceylon was “fully independent”, except that the Queen was the Head of State and was represented in Ceylon by the Governor-General who was appointed in consultation with, and thereafter acted on the advice of, the Prime Minister of Ceylon.

2. Dr.WR: “The Soulbury Constitution did not confer the power on the Parliament to replace it with a new constitution.”

This is a misinterpretation of the law. Section 29 of the 1946 Constitution stated explicitly that “Parliament may amend or repeal any of the provisions of this Order”. The exceptions were that “(a) no law could prohibit or restrict the free exercise of any religion; (b) make persons of any community or religion liable to disabilities or restrictions to which persons of other communities or religions were not made liable; (c) confer on persons of any community or religion any privilege or advantage which was not conferred on persons of other communities or religions; or (d) alter the constitution of any religious body except with the consent of the governing authority of that body”.  That restriction on legislative power was the compact between the majority and the minority communities, and the basis upon which Independence was granted to Ceylon. It was the condition precedent to Independence.  Subject to that restriction, Parliament had the power to repeal and replace every other provision of the Constitution. The power to “amend or repeal” necessarily includes the power to replace.  In fact, in 1970, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was replaced by our own Court of Final Appeal, and in 1971 Parliament abolished one of its constituent units, the Senate, and chose not to replace it with another second chamber.

3. Dr.WR: “Dr Colvin R de Silva, with his wisdom realizing the legal barriers of the Soulbury Constitution to replace it, advised to form the said Constituent Assembly outside the Parliament.” . . . “Since the Soulbury Constitution had not provided the authority and a procedure to adopt a new constitution by repealing the existing one, the government elected in 1970 had no option but to establish a Constituent Assembly operating outside Parliament”.

This is not a correct statement of fact. The Common Programme drawn up by the SLFP, LSSP and CP in early 1968, in anticipation of forming a government at the next general election, stated quite explicitly that “A Constituent Assembly will be established, and a new Constitution will be introduced. This Constitution will declare Ceylon to be a free, sovereign and independent Republic”.  There was no legal impediment to Parliament enacting the necessary legislation to declare Ceylon to be a Republic, a course which several other Commonwealth countries had already followed. Nor was there any legal impediment to Parliament establishing a Constituent Assembly as India had done. However, Dr Colvin R de Silva refused to consider the perfectly practical option of terminating Ceylon’s link with the British Crown through the powers conferred on Parliament by the British Crown.  He argued that freedom should be asserted by a free people through a body constituted outside the legal order established by the British Crown. This was a principled stand by one of the twentieth century’s greatest lawyers who had consistently refused to apply for “silk” since he had no wish to be one of “Her Majesty’s Counsel Learned in the Law”.  That exercise in autochthony – in establishing a new legal order that sprang from our own native soil – was a bold, idealistic, exciting, even romantic, experience not only for those of us who steered it through possible legal pitfalls, but also for a great many constitutional lawyers and academics worldwide for whom this legal revolution was a rare precedent.

4. Dr.WR: “The draft of the constitution made by the constitutional assembly was presented to the Parliament and it passed with a majority of 2/3 on 22^nd May 1972 by replacing the Soulbury Constitution.”

This is a complete misstatement of facts.  Following the July 1970 ceremonial meeting at the Navarangahala of the elected members of the House of Representatives at which they constituted themselves as the Constituent Assembly, it was resolved that all future meetings would be held in the parliamentary chamber. Nearly two years later, following the final meeting of the Constituent Assembly, at which the draft constitution was adopted by 119 votes to 16, the members (including those from the UNP who had voted against) adjourned to the Navarangahala.  There, at the auspicious time of 12.43 pm, the President of the Assembly, Stanley Tillekeratne, certified the adoption and enactment of the new constitution by the Constituent Assembly. Immediately thereafter, Mrs Bandaranaike took her oath of office as Prime Minister. She then nominated William Gopallawa as the President of the Republic, whereupon he took his oath of office. The focus then shifted to President’s House (until then, Queen’s House) where superior court judges, ministers, permanent secretaries and service commanders took their oaths of office. Ceylon ceased to exist, and in its place the Republic of Sri Lanka arose. The new constitution was never submitted to Parliament.

5. Dr.WR: “When Mrs Sirimavo Bandaranaike and Mr J.R. Jayewardene wanted to enact new constitutions in 1970 and 1977 respectively, they did not seek advice of any overseas experts or spend public funds in millions on expert advice. If the members of the legislature are not competent or have capacity to make the laws necessitated for the country, what is the use of maintaining such a Parliament?”.

None of our constitutions were “drafted” by members of the legislature. The drafting history of the 1946 Constitution is too well known to require recounting here. The 1972 Constitution was drafted by a 12-member Drafting Committee consisting of lawyers, academics and political scientists (in which I had the privilege to serve), and thereafter channelled through a Ministerial Sub-Committee and a Steering and Subjects Committee to the Constituent Assembly. The Assembly then divided itself into eleven committees, with each committee examining a chapter in detail and receiving oral public representations, after which the Drafting Committee prepared the final draft for submission to the Assembly. The 1978 Constitution was also drafted by “experts” (believed at the time to have included Gamini Dissanayake and Mark Fernando). It was tabled at the final meeting of a Select Committee of the National State Assembly that had been appointed to consider the revision of the 1972 Constitution. The Committee had held several meetings, some of which I attended as an advisor to the Opposition Members on it, Mrs Bandaranaike and Maithripala Senanayake. It had heard oral representations, and then considered draft revisions, including a new chapter on fundamental rights that I prepared for submission by the SLFP. Much to our astonishment, it became apparent that what the government had in mind was not the revision of the existing constitution through the Select Committee, but its repeal and replacement by a wholly new constitution prepared outside the Select Committee.

Read More

New Constitution:National perspective versus political aspirations

By Shivanthi Ranasinghe-2017-11-20

This month began with the Parliament convening specially to debate about the Constitution. While one camp demands a new Constitution, another insists on only amendments. Pressures outside the Parliament oppose any tampering to the Constitution.

They find the Constitution surgeons not trustworthy. Amidst these sharp divisions, the outcome from the four day debate is unclear. Parliamentarians are not addressing the issue from a national perspective, but based on their own political aspirations and political survival.

The United National Party, Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, and Tamil National Alliance are determined to throw the existing Constitution out and draft a new one. The earlier generation of the UNP introduced the Executive Presidency along with the present Constitution (in 1978). Yet, since 1994 the prestigious Executive Presidency has eluded them.

Under Ranil Wickremesinghe (the party leader since 1994) the UNP suffered at the polls. Yet, their party Constitution does not give them sufficient power to oust their party leader - though they tried. In 2011, certain individuals gathered behind Sajith Premadasa in order to challenge Ranil Wickremesinghe's leadership. However, at the last minute, Premadasa backed out, letting down everyone who risked their political careers for him and Ranil Wickremesinghe continued to be the leader.

Wrong decisions

Under Ranil Wickremesinghe, the UNP took all the wrong decisions. Their role in the Millennium City Betrayal and the infamous 2002 Ceasefire Agreement are cases in point. When the wartime Rajapaksa Administration opted for a military strategy, the UNP ridiculed the efforts. They believed their Western allies and were under the impression that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) could never be defeated.

When Sri Lanka defeated the LTTE in 2009, the UNP knew that if Ranil Wickremesinghe is fielded as their presidential candidate, they will be doomed to be in the opposition. America rescued the UNP.

Robert Blake was the US Ambassador during the war and played a pivotal role in assisting the wartime administration to get essentials to those trapped in the war zone. He convinced Ranil Wickremesinghe to step aside for a common candidate for the 2010 presidential campaign. They chose General Sarath Fonseka - a key figure in the war winning team.

They chose him even though the US Ambassador at that time, Patricia Butenis accused Fonseka of war crimes. Interestingly, they got the support of the TNA. The TNA was not only the LTTE political proxy, but is a main accuser of war crimes allegations.

Fonseka lost both the election and the sympathetic support he since got due to his own folly. Now that he is utterly discredited, he is once again associated with war crimes. The American Government that brought Fonseka out as a presidential candidate in 2010 refused him visa to attend the 2017 UNGA, citing war crimes allegations.

For the 2015 Presidential Campaign, too, the UNP, again, with the support of the US, fielded a common candidate, Maithripala Sirisena - another close associate of the war winning team. It was only after he won that Ranil Wickremesinghe managed to secure the consolation prize of Premiership. Ranil Wickremesinghe knows that the Executive Presidency is beyond his grasp, so he needs to convert the Executive Presidency into an Executive Premiership.

Weak hierarchy

With the weak hierarchy, many aspire to become the next UNP leader. Apparently, it is not only the old salts of the UNP, but also those like Dr. Rajitha Senaratne and Champika Ranawaka who got marooned in the UNP camp during the August 2015 General Elections. If Ranil Wickremesinghe succeeds, they would be better off seeking the Chief Minister post in a province than the country's President or Premier. This is obvious, but they seem keen not to upset the apple cart.

Former Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe played a pivotal role in bringing Fonseka as a forerunner and spearheaded the Constitution making process for the UNP. Yet, his recent attacks of conscience had him impressively rebelling against the Government he helped to form. Many saw him as the next UNP leader. He was soon shown the door.

Last week, he wrote to the Speaker, Karu Jayasuriya and stated that the conduct and process of the Constitutional Assembly is unconstitutional. He asked the Speaker to either annul the motion or accept the blame. He too has now joined the camp that are of the view that the country's situation is not conducive for drafting a new Constitution and the incumbent Parliament is not suitable for the task.

The TNA just wants their piece of the pie. Once they get their much hankered self-determination, they would not care whether Sri Lanka has a presidential or parliamentary system. The two things that stand in their way are the people who oppose federalism and the Executive Presidency that retains a grip on the provinces. Their solution to the first obstacle is to hoodwink the public with a new federal Constitution called a "unitary" Constitution.

Devolution for the North and East

Some of their supporters while denouncing federalism push for devolution for the North and East. They argue that failing to do so gave birth to Prabhakaran and failing again is to repeat the folly.
The Government, however, is of the view that terrorism can never rise again. The TNA also agrees as they, too, pressurize the Government to reduce military presence and to hand over military establishments including the strategic Palaly Airport to the civilians.

The JVP wants power in Parliament, because that is their ceiling. As a party with a despicable history, they can never be the king.

The Sri Lanka Freedom Party Sirisena faction is equally vociferous that it is not a new Constitution that is needed, but amendments. Other Sirisena loyalists are also in this group such as Ranawaka, though he contested on the UNP ticket.

Abolishing the Executive Presidency was one of the main pledges made at the 2015 Presidential Campaign by the then candidate, Maithripala Sirisena. After becoming the President, the pressure to abolish the Executive Presidency mounted.

The architect of the new Constitution, Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne reminded us recently that the original plan was to abolish the Executive Presidency during the first 100-day programme and to hold a referendum ahead of the August 2015 Parliamentary Polls. However, when Sirisena could not get the required support from the UPFA, the plan was shelved.

Dr. Wickramaratne refrained from referring to the deliberate confusion created by the Sirisena camp soon after ascending to power. During the campaign, the pledge was to abolish the Executive Presidency with its arbitrary powers. Soon after, this was twisted into removing the arbitrary powers of the Executive Presidency.

Interestingly, Senaratne - considered as a Sirisena loyalist - was also in the same stage as Dr. Wickramaratne. According to the grapevine, Ranawaka and Senaratne are President Sirisena's key advisers. The two are apparently bitter political rivals, eyeing the same position.

Contesting for President

Though pledging that he will never contest for President again, President Sirisena has since indicated otherwise. He won the sympathy of his supporters by pointing fingers at his predecessor. He conveniently ignored the collective parliamentary responsibility to relieve himself as a powerful cabinet minister of the previous administration.

He is still utilising the same strategy. Despite being the President, with executive powers, he claims ignorance of all contentious issues. He audaciously claims he found matters from the newspaper - long after the incident. The 2018 Budget was presented on 9 November, but he chose to address the Army officers at the Army Hospital Auditorium, instead of addressing them in Parliament.

The new Finance Minister called for liberalization and globalization of our already open economy. He proposes to remove safeguards on the premise that competition will challenge us to improve our local industries. It is a budget that is received with a muted applause, much to Premier Wickremesinghe's annoyance. Dr. Nalaka Godahewa has aptly named the budget bandumkarabadu (bond scam taxes).

It is so with the Geneva Resolution. President Sirisena claims he saved our war heroes from the "electric chair." Pablo de Greiff was categorical that "if the Sri Lankan Government would not, those alleged with war crimes would be tried elsewhere." What the President and his ministers discuss with UN rapporteurs behind closed doors is confounding. Soon after this, we hear two different versions from both sides.

Whether voters will still relieve President Sirisena remains to be seen. It appears that the Sirisena Camp thinks it is a worthwhile shot to heap the blame on the UNP as they did to the Rajapaksa Administration to ride to the next power wave.

Bond Commission and Parliamentary Privileges

2017-11-21

Government parliamentarians and their peers in the joint opposition seem to agree at least on one thing; their opposition to the Attorney General’s Department for revealing secret telephone conversations among government members of the Committee on Public Enterprise (COPE) and Perpetual Treasuries Ltd. owner Arjun Aloysius. Since it is not about one missed call or two, but regular telephone conversations spanning over the period of COPE investigations into the Central Bank’s dodgy bond deal involving Perpetual Treasuries, this is a clear-cut case of conflict of interest and is possibly an effort to obstruct and manipulate the dealings of the parliamentary watchdog on public enterprises.  

According to details revealed by the Attorney General’s Department last week, Mr Aloysius had spoken a total of 227 times to Minister Sujeewa Senasinghe, 18 times to Minister Dayasiri Jayasekara, 176 times to MP Harshana Rajakaruna and 73 time to MP Hector Appuhamy from January 2015.  

Had some COPE members acted in good faith, those like MP Rajakaruna ought to have recused himself from COPE

Mr. Rajakaruna had been in contact with Aloysius since February 2015. There were a total of 176 calls between each other and 18 during the period of the COPE hearings. MP Appuhamy had taken and received 73 calls from mid-July 2016 to mid-June 2017 with a total of 23 calls during the period of COPE sittings. Minister Senesinghe who was appointed in the mid-way of the COPE investigations, had received and made 227 calls during the period July 4, 2015 to March 3, 2017.  

In any other civilized country, revelations of this magnitude would have seen resignations of the accused MPs from the COPE and from Parliament. Instead, the government MPs are now accusing the Attorney General of violating their Parliamentary Privileges.   

UNP MP Ashu Marasinghe was quoted as saying: “As a country which hails democracy, we are of the view that telephone conversations of MPs should not be tapped or publicized in such a manner as it is a breach of their privileges. The Speaker has also agreed to look into the breach of privileges.”   

Parliamentary privileges are part of law and not something that places parliamentarians above the law. Parliamentary privileges are meant to provide legal immunity from civil or criminal liability arising from statements made or actions taken, often within the grounds of Parliament, when carrying out their legislative duties. Whereas clandestine phone calls with Mr Aloysius, while his company was under investigation by COPE imply a greater deal of conflict of interest.  

Parliamentary privileges does not provide blanket immunity. For instance, in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, (on which, Sri Lankan Parliamentary traditions and privileges are modelled) parliamentary privileges are overseen by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which also has power to suspend (or even expel) members who are found to have breached rules.  

In fact, the Code of Conduct of Parliamentarians in Sri Lanka which was passed last year by the current government also states: 7 (f) “The Members shall declare any private interest or conflict of interests if any relating to their public duties and take necessary steps to resolve any conflict arising thereby in a way that the public interest is protected.” 

Had some COPE members acted in good faith, those like MP Rajakaruna ought to have recused himself from COPE in the first place, since he claims Mr Aloysius was his childhood friend, and many others could have revealed their phone conversations before Attorney General exposed them at the Bond Commission.  

In a more nuanced take on things, this is not something where naïve MPs being duped to receive and make phone calls with an individual who is under investigation.   

The Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) into the CB bond issue is a watermark of enhanced capabilities and the independence of Sri Lankan judiciary

The scandalous revelations should even be a good enough case for the President or the Speaker of Parliament to order an investigation to ascertain whether there had been a collusion between some members of the COPE and PTL -- though such a measure would definitely cause further estrangement between the two main constituent partners of the Yahapalana government.  
Rather than holding the faulty MPs responsible, some quarters of the government are trying to delegitimize the Attorney General’s Department. They have crooked bedfellows: Ex-president Mahinda Rajapaksa, who last week faulted the AG Department and claimed Sri Lanka has become a police state. That is rich coming from Mr. Rajapaksa who turned the Sri Lankan Police Service into a Medamulana Police and Sri Lanka’s judiciary to a Medamulana court. Mr Rajapaksa has reasons to worry about an assertive judiciary, because, that would mean an end to covert official protection against criminal liability of his past deeds.  

The biggest danger to the independence of the judiciary in this country has, throughout the history,been politicians themselves

The Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) into the CB bond issue is a watermark of enhanced capabilities and the independence of Sri Lankan judiciary -- though one would feel that a greater deal of freedom of action of the PCoI emanates from the President’s blessings. The competitive relationship between the SLFP and the UNP partners in the government also makes it hard to suppress the activities of the commission. Whatever its current limitations, the success of PCoI would set a precedent for the future and truly empower the judiciary.   

The biggest danger to the independence of the judiciary in this country has, throughout the history,been politicians themselves.   

If leaders can destroy institutions, they can also help empower them. The first step is to let independent institutions to exercise their constitutionally mandated independence. Second, they ought to be defended from retrograde influence and intimidation by the gutter. That could be from goons mobilized in exchange for a ‘buth packet’ and a bottle of booze. 

 
Follow @RangaJayasuriya 
on Twitter  

வவுனியா பள்ளிவாசல் கடைத்தொகுதியில் தீ : ஒற்றுமையாக வாழும் இனங்களுக்கு இடையில் வன்முறைகளை தூண்டும் விசமிகளின் செயற்பாடா ?

2017-11-20

வவுனியா நகர பள்ளிவாசல் பகுதியில் அமைந்துள்ள கடைத்தொகுதியில் இன்று அதிகாலை 1.20 மணியளவில் எற்பட்ட தீ விபத்தில் இரு கடைகள் எரிந்து நாசமாகியுள்ளதுடன், இரு கடைகள் பகுதியளவில் எரிந்து சேதமாகியுள்ளது.

வவுனியா நகரபள்ளிவாசல் அமைந்துள்ள பகுதியில் சுமார் 14 கடைகள் அமைந்துள்ள கடைத்தொகுதியில் இன்று அதிகாலை திடீரென தீ பரவியதையடுத்து பள்ளிவாசல் ஊடாக தீ அணைப்பு பிரிவினருக்கும் பொலிஸாருக்கும் அறிவிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

தகவல் கிடைத்து சம்பவ இடத்திற்கு விரைந்த பொலிஸாரும், தீ அணைப்பு பிரிவனரும் பொது மக்களின் உதவியோடு பற்றி எரிந்த தீயை கட்டுப்பாட்டிற்குள் கொண்டு வந்துள்ளனர்.

பற்றி எரிந்த தீயை கட்டுப்பாட்டிற்குள் கொண்டு வந்தாலும் இரு கடைகள் முழுமையாக எரிந்து நாசமாகியுள்ளதுடன் இரு கடைகள் பகுதியளவில் எரிந்து சேதமடைந்துள்ளன.

குறித்த கடைப்பகுதியில் வெடிச்சத்தம் கேட்டதாகவும் அதனைத் தொடர்ந்தே கடைகள் தீப்பித்து எரிந்ததாகவும், தீப் பிடித்ததும்  இருவர் தப்பியோடியதைக் கண்டதாகவும்  அப்பகுதியில் பயணித்தோர் தெரிவிக்கின்றனர்.

திட்டமிட்ட ரீதியில் இக் கடைகள் மீது  தாக்குதல் நடத்தப்பட்டுள்ளதாகவும், விசமிகளின் செயற்பாட்டால் ஒற்றுமையாக வாழும் வவுனியாவில் இனங்களுக்கு இடையில் வன்முறைகளை தூண்டும் வகையில் இச்செயற்பாடு அமைந்துள்ளதாகவும் வவுனியா பள்ளிவாசல் நிர்வாகம் தெரிவிக்கின்றது.

சம்பவ இடத்திற்கு வன்னி மாவட்ட பாராளுமன்ற உறுப்பினர் கே.கே.மஸ்தான் வருகை தந்து நிலமையை பார்வையிட்டதுடன் இது தொடர்பில் விசாரணைகளை துரிதப்படுத்துமாறும் பொலிஸாருக்கு அறிவுறுத்தியுள்ளார்.

Government needs to close the space for hate speech

By Jehan Perera-November 20, 2017, 9:12 pm 

The government took decisive action to put the lid on escalating inter ethnic violence between Sinhalese and Muslims in Gintota over the weekend which led to damage to a large number of homes, businesses and buildings estimated to be close to a hundred. The government actions included sending in police battalions, the police paramilitary Special Task Force and anti-riot squad and the military and a visit to the area by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. As a result a conflagration on the scale of the Aluthgama riots of 2014 in the neighboring Kalutara district did not materialize. It might have, if the government had not acted sooner and showed publicly that it had no sympathy with those who attacked others. The arrest of 19 trouble makers, many of whom had come from outside, and the declaration of a curfew, ensured that the violence was suppressed. However, the Muslim community which had to bear the brunt of the violence continues to live in a state of unease.

Religious differences had little or nothing to do with the clash which was between two identity groups making it more akin to an ethnic conflict, rather than a clash of religions. The immediate cause of the conflict was reportedly a relatively minor incident. There was a road accident involving a motorcyclist from one community and a three-wheel passenger from another community. The parties had dealt with their trauma in a reasonable manner, going to the hospital and arriving at a private settlement, with some financial compensation being part of the package. However, external forces had intervened thereafter to escalate the conflict. The fact that an event of this nature which is not uncommon on Sri Lanka’s crowded roads could have escalated so fast is a cause for concern and reveals underlying tensions within the country.

Despite the end of the war nearly a decade ago, there is a continuing negative relationship between the ethnic communities and one which is not spoken about publicly, that needs to be carefully dealt with. According to reports from within the community living in the Gintota area the motor accident was given a communal interpretation when it could have been taken differently, as another regular occurrence that could have happened anywhere. Motor traffic incidents are a common occurrence in all parts of the country. It is not infrequent that in the aftermath of a motor accident, especially where closely knit communities live, and where the victim is from the community, the motor vehicle driver and the vehicle are subjected to violence even if the victim and perpetrator are of the same ethnicity. This has led many persons who are involved in such accidents fleeing the site of the accident even to the nearest police station to protect themselves.

CONSTRUCTIVE ACTIONS

In this particular incident, however, the parties involved in the accident had settled the problem between themselves. But the larger communal tensions within the communities got into play. The initial follow up was between youth of the two communities in the aftermath of a sports event. One group of youth had chided and spoken defiantly to another group from the other community. The initial violence was between the youth of the two communities who took offense at the attitudes of the other. A house was attacked by a group of youths. The matter should have been settled at that level by the community leaders, and if that failed by the local police. But this did not happen because external forces got involved. There are different accounts of who these might be, with organized extremist groups being the suspects, but with also questions being asked about the law enforcement authorities themselves. As rumours have a way of getting multiplied, it would be constructive if the government were to conduct an independent inquiry into this incident. Prime Minister Wickremesinghe has called for an official report, from the Inspector General of Police, on the violence that erupted in Gintota and its surrounding areas over the weekend.

There are extremists on all sides of Sri Lanka’s continuing ethnic divides who are waiting to act as guardians of their community’s interests. This is true of members of all communities and they act with most energy in the areas in which they are a majority. It is therefore important that there should be constant awareness and interaction programmes organized by the government, civil society and by religious institutions, to promote inter-ethnic and inter-religious understanding and togetherness. The government in particular needs to activate its network of district religious committees, recently established under the Ministry of National Integration and Reconciliation. The challenge would be to link them to civil society groups that could energise them and take them to the community level to engage in local level conflict mitigation work.

Values of pluralism

There also needs to be education programmes on the values of pluralism so that those who are a majority in any part of the country do not think that they are entitled to have special rights as individuals over those who are not in a majority. The government also needs to give attention to educating those in the security forces that they are not expected to take sides in any inter-community conflict, but they are there to ensure that the law is followed and implemented, and to deal firmly with any and all who break the law. The manner in which the government took swift action in the case of the Gintota violence at th highest levels and the security forces acted on those orders show that the lesson of the 2014 Aluthgama riots have been learnt and will not be repeated.

As this government is one that is not based on ethnic nationalism and is also a combination of the two major political parties, it is more representative of the mainstream polity. It is also more acceptable to the ethnic and religious minorities. There is a general acceptance that this government is genuinely liberal where people’s freedoms are concerned. However, the downside to freedom and opening of space to voice opinions and to criticize is that this space is being exploited by those who do not accept a liberal and pluralist view of society. This can be seen on the social media which is filled with hate speech. There is a strong anti Muslim discourse that claims that they have links with international terror groups, are increasing their population too fast and surreptitiously introducing birth control drugs to unsuspecting Sinhalese men, women and children.

A new feature on the social media, which is running without any control, is the naming and shaming of Buddhist monks who join inter-religious groups that seek to promote reconciliation and amity at the community level. Civil society groups have reported finding it harder to get Buddhist monks to join because they fear being targeted by nationalist purveyors of hate speech. So far the government has not acted against those who engage in hate speech on political platforms and on social media. The government has so far not taken legal action against groups and individuals who are purveyors of hate speech, nor do most government leaders engage in systematic debate and counter-messaging campaigns to promote an ethos of pluralism in the country.

A major criticism of the government that comes from all sides of the political spectrum, though for different reasons, is that the government is indecisive and not strong. Unfavorable comparisons are made in this regard with the former government. On this occasion, the government is reported to be collecting material relating to social media that spreads hate. During his visit to Gintota, the Prime Minister had called for action to be taken against anyone causing violence and unrest. As a two-party government it is difficult for the government to come to quick decisions especially on controversial issues. This creates a dangerous space that those who wish to destabilize the polity can utilize and which needs to be closed. It is necessary for the government to start acting more decisively against those who engage in violence and voice extreme nationalist opinions in an inflammatory manner which provokes others to inter-ethnic or inter-religious violence.