Yahapalanaya and silence of international community

By J. Natasha Gooneratne-February 13, 2018, 8:42 pm 

Vociferous to Silent:

Does the international community’s silence during the rule of Yahapalanya mean Sri Lanka is finally on the ‘right’ path, or that we’re finally doing what we’re told to do.

From 2009 to 2014, Sri Lanka was so heavily featured in international news and foreign government feeds that it was impossible to ignore. From the US led resolution, submitted to the UNHRC, to opinions on how the former government leaders should be tried in international courts (one American journalist even explained how the former Defense Secretary could be taken out of Sri Lanka and be tried in a US court in order to remove impediments toward Yahapalanaya rule), to unsubstantiated claims about corruption, the international community seemed to only want to take out the Rajapaksa-led government, whether they had proof or not of what they were writing about.

It was during this time that many analysts in Sri Lanka and around the world began questioning if there was something greater at play. Within the UN, certain states indicated that they feared that the Human Rights Council was being used as a ‘trigger mechanism’ against Sri Lanka. That is to say, a weapon used by more powerful countries to exert pressure on smaller developing countries such as ours. Former Ambassador to the UN, Tamara Kunanayakam, had warned that there was a concentrated effort to achieve a system change in Sri Lanka, and that it had nothing to do with the protection of human rights. Even those far removed from multilateral affairs commented that it seemed like what was trying to be achieved in Sri Lanka was ‘regime change’; to put in place a more west-centric government that would not be so difficult to control as the former president was often seen by Western powers. Of course this could all be considered mere conspiracy theories, and to a great extent during that period, it was considered as such. But three years down from the reign of the Yahapalana Government there are some interesting facts to note.

What the West says, regardless of its inaccuracy, goes

When John Kerry, the then US Secretary of State, declared in 2016 that the war in Sri Lanka was fought against the Tamils, Minister Mangala Samaraweera, who was standing beside him did nothing in his capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs to correct him; to remind the Secretary that the internal conflict in Sri Lanka was between the state and armed group known as the LTTE, who the US themselves had labeled as ‘terrorists’. To add to Minster Samaraweera’s list of erroneous conduct, Sri Lanka became a co-sponsor of the said resolution – which even likeminded country delegates have noted was an imprudent and unnecessary move. During the same visit, Secretary Kerry further remarked that the US would send their own advisors on commerce and trade matters to assist the UNP-led government. It would therefore make perfect sense for Minister Samaraweera to be given over the finance portfolio, considering that everything that required to be done by the Americans in terms of the UNHRC resolution was done while he headed the foreign ministry.

International Community’s double standards

A quick Google search will show anyone the level of international media exchange during the presidential tenure of Mahinda Rajapaksa. Details such as the success of the rehabilitation efforts or how civilians who were fleeing the conflict who came into government run camps left with improved health and nutritional levels, were not written on or published. Nor did they write about the success stories of rehabilitated ex-LTTE combatants. Instead, unsubstantiated claims were regularly published with a concerted effort by the western states to make Sri Lanka out as a constant war zone drenched in confusion and chaos. The allegations that were printed as truth are yet to be substantiated. However, the interesting factor, is that with the Yahapalanaya Government, even amidst the rising level of corruption with incidents such as the 11 billion bond scam or with the numerous human rights issues, or with the vilification of members of the former government, the international community remains silent. Furthermore, the current government’s haphazard volatility and infighting seems invisible to the once vociferous international media and community. It may seem that the West takes on the role of watchdog only with governments it can’t manipulate or control.

Doing as we’re told: the way forward for the Yahapalanaya Government

Within the short period of the UNP-led government’s rule, Sri Lanka’s development has been set back in countless spheres. While ministers opt to simply avoid important questions about the future of the country by berating about the former government, the population has become discerning enough within the last three years to clearly see the bluff. The recently completed election is a case in point.

Apart from the hundreds of allegations the UNP made about the former regime clearly amounting to nothing, the current government seems quite content to not address the numerous irreversible blunders and abuses it has carried out these last three years, turning its slogan of ‘good governance’ into a hypocritical caricature. So how then does Yahapalanaya continuously receive the seal of approval from powers outside of Sri Lanka?

There’s full access to literature, statements and reports by the US where they specifically state that they are agreeable to a UNP government because the party is accommodating to their own policies and requests. This is regardless of, if, it is beneficial to the country or not. The former government’s protectionist policies toward development and greater ties with China and Russia were fundamental warning signals to the US, not to mention India. The Rajapaksa-led government made a great many mistakes in focusing inward, often telling the international community to mind its own business. Not a good idea if countries like the US have a vested interest in the country you’re governing. If there still continues to be those who believe that the sheer pressure from the international community post-2009 had to do with the end of the internal conflict or how the country was run, they weren’t and are not still, reading between the lines. Pressure began to heighten as Chinese activity and loan concessions increased, as the World Bank and IMF’s hold on the country began to loosen.

The United States’ displeasure with a foreign government always comes down to their lack of control over that government. And in that sense, the Yahapalanaya government has been making all the right moves. If the US has indeed sent across political and financial advisors to assist the government as former Secretary of State Kerry implied they would, then those deliberations, are happening behind closed doors, devoid of transparency to the public. The repercussions would no doubt be felt too late down the line.

It’s true that we can steer clear of external control if we are economically independent, which is precisely why any technical expertise, agreements, conditional aid or advisors, connected to the US requires careful and transparent consideration. But the UNP’s archaic neo-liberal stance is moving the country in the complete opposite direction. It may be recalled that Minister Samaraweera, in his statement to the High-Level Segment of the 34th Session of the UN Human Rights Council last year stated that,

‘…MCC compact assistance from USA were announced recently, in recognition of the progress made in Sri Lanka in the last two years, and we await their formal approval in the coming months’

The Minister’s unbridled enthusiasm for MCC Compact, viewing it as a reward for a job well done, is precisely the sort of dangerous ignorance that will cripple Sri Lanka’s economic freedom further. Aid from the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is an extremely conditional aid programme, used to further open up economies such as ours to imports and foreign capital, creating a dangerous cycle of dependency that is nearly impossible to reverse. Perhaps it isn’t the Minister but those advising the Minister that need a re-education. If the policies of Mahinda Chinthanaya were viewed as protectionist, what the UNP is endeavoring toward is the complete opposite; national exposure - a sort of ball and chain crippling to which only the US has the key. These are of course not new methodologies employed by the US, numerous examples exist where it’s all been done before including Jamaica and the Philippines. Since the Cold War, a myriad of Global South-based NGOs and research agencies such as the South Centre and IBON have warned against developing country governments blindly going into agreements and technical advisory arrangements with countries such as the US, but here in Sri Lanka there still appears to be a self-imposed information impediment. We’re in a backward denial to clearly assess (or ask for help in assessing) the impacts of blind liberalization.

Finding our own path. Forging a new model.

The US’s foreign policy of backing the party that is most accommodating toward it, is the premise of external intervention. Don’t take this article’s word for it, read up on it, do your own research. How long this accommodationism can stand in Sri Lanka however is uncertain. As the public grows ever weary of the UNP’s inability to deliver on its word, and as squabbling increases between the SLFPer President with his strong socialist values and the neoliberal UNP, one imagines that the party may have to shift its policy of playing West-centric lap dog, and actually consider the development and betterment of the country.

While its understood that every party that has been in power in Sri Lanka has tried to be cooperative toward Western Interests, based on the norms of diplomacy and international cooperation, the UNP’s over eager disposition toward accommodation is dangerous to the country as a whole. Accommodationism may serve to leave you comfortably in power internationally unchecked; indeed, the messiness and stress of diplomatic battles and threats, as was the case during former president Rajapaksa’s tenure, is not something any government willingly wants to grapple with. But concessions on the diplomatic front should not result in compromise to national development, especially if one is making those concessions uninformed of long term ramifications. Ultra-liberalization is not the only model of development. There may have been a misplaced idea even as recent as a decade ago that it was, but history has taught us that it was more an ideological tool than a model. And that as a model, it sways hard toward the direction of failure. The former government, under the tutelage of Mahinda Rajapaksa, understood this. There was a forging toward our own model of development. This forging came, of course, at a diplomatic cost, with pressure mounting long before the end of the internal conflict.

With the recently concluded elections, it’s inevitable that a change in Sri Lankan governance is close at hand. International news websites are already publishing headlines that draw attention - not to the election per se - but the Rajapaksa name. and so it begins. From this stand point, Sri Lankans both at home and abroad need to be sharper and proficient within the discourse to read between the lines, going beyond the shortsightedness and name-calling of local party politics, in order to put on a far reaching global lens where we question and dig deeper to understand the place of Sri Lanka in the larger scheme of geo politics. This, regardless of our own party or politician biases. To be able to identify if we are being given external assistance to develop our own sustainable solutions, or, that assistance comes in only if we allow for externally-designed solutions to be put in place. And moreover, that we are able to tell the difference between the two.

MR cannot subvert Constitution based on LG polls outcome - Sampanthan

Disna Mudalige and Camelia Nathaniel-Tuesday, February 20, 2018

The Constitution and laws of this country cannot be subverted by claiming benefits of the Local Government elections to his advantage in the way that Mahinda Rajapaksa pleases, Opposition Leader R.Sampanthan said in Parliament yesterday.

The Opposition Leader was speaking at the Special Adjournment Debate on the current political situation in the country. Refering to the political campaigning of the LG elections,

Sampanthan said he was quite alarmed that very early in the campaign, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa in the course of an election rally said the election results would result in Tamil Eelam blooming.

“The reason he gave was that the new Constitution being framed might result in that happening. Ever since the 13th Amendment was enacted in 1987-88, there had been continued efforts on the parts of various Presidents and Governments to include the 13th Amendment in such a manner to bring about a political resolution acceptable to all the citizens of this country,”Sampanthan said. “Even when former President Mahinda Rajapaksa assumed office, if he recalls his speech he made at the inaugural meeting, he spoke of maximum devolution of power and appointed Expert Committees that came up with reports, including the Tissa Vitharana Committee that came up with their own report which took the Constitutional proposals much beyond the 13th Amendment. Having agreed at that time, now he says Eelam is likely to bloom if the people are not careful at the Local Government elections,” the Opoosition Leader said.

He said this misleading concept was planted in the minds of the innocent village people and they were told this is a referendum for Eelam.

“This is what was told to the people in the south in order to gain their votes in his favour, which is very unfortunate,” he said noting that the TNA in their manifesto talked of an undivided single country and no campaign in the North or East talked of any division of the country, but only spoke of a solution that is acceptable to the Tamil people,” Sampanthan said.

Sampanthan said the people have delivered a verdict and in the name of democracy, the people’s verdict should be respected.

“The Podujana Peramuna polled 44.69% of the votes cast at the elections. The UNP 32.61%, the UPFA 8.90% and the SLFP polled 4.48%. If one was to add the votes of the UNP, the UPFA and the SLFP it adds up to 45.99%. The JVP polled 4.32% and the ITAK polled 4.07%. If those two party’s polls were to be added too the combined votes of all these parties would add to 55.31%.”

“The vote the former President polled at the Presidential election in 2015 is more than what he has polled now,” Sampanthan said.

“There have been three elections in recent times, but in none of these elections has the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa been able to obtain over 50%. Therefore, there is nothing to get excited about,” adding that the Sri Lanka Podu Jana Peramuna had received just 44.69% in favour of Rajapaksa as opposed to 55.31% of polls against him,” Sampanthan added. 

The Choleric Age

By Grusha Andrews –FEBRUARY 19, 2018

“If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant” ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

The aftermath of the incident of Brigadier Priyanka Fernando, defense attaché at the Sri Lankan High Commission in the United Kingdom, gesticulating throat slash to pro-Elam protesters in front of the High Commission of Sri Lanka in the UK on the 4th of February 2018 has become a mirror to a potentially dangerous shift occurring in the psychological profile of the Sri Lankan society. This incident fuelled by anger, consternation, opportunism and quasi-patriotism memed in to ejaculations of wrath, particularly on social media.

Seventy years after independence one may argue that the emotional insignia of the nation is that it is easily provoked, readily retaliatory to the point of being choleric. Sri Lankan society appears to be largely divorced from reality, with little insight in to the impact of such incident on peace building, sustenance of peace and its oxygenating effect on uniting a divided Tamil diaspora. Even in the most personal recesses of reasoning, out in the places of work, in fora of intellectual discourse, in social media spaces, on the internet and with each other- it appears that Sri Lankans have truly entered the choleric age.

From president to peasants

The Fernando-Eelamist saga touched a spectrum of citizenry from an angry spewing president to professionals, politicians and peasants incensed with ‘patriotic-pyrexia’. Other notables were military personnel and alumni of D.S. Senanayake College, Colombo, and alma mater of Fernando. It is reliably reported that fuming president threatened the sacking of the Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs over the recalling of Fernando following the throat slit gesturing saga. Equally reactionary were the Tamil polity where the chief minister of Northern Province Wigneshwaran cried for a de-ban of the LTTE within Sri Lanka. The Fernando–Eelamist saga has only given a reference photograph to emblemize the choleric age. Fernando’s cocky smiled finger pointing image framed and adorned thousands of Facebook profiles igniting the controversy, assuming a life of its own. The larger discussion that this phenomenon opens is the lack of serious political and intellectual discourse among the people of Sri Lanka with a reported literacy rate of 92%, the highest in South Asia. It also sheds light to the anger that continues to mar the emotional ambience of a nation subjected to chronic violence, terrorism, loss and dispossession in an environment of war, suicide bombers, crony politicians, jingoistic politico-religious barterers, servile journalism and ethnic polarity on politics. The similarity of the reaction of the president and the peasant ring even louder alarm bells driving home the importance of healing the society of its endogenous anger. 

The psycho- forensic basis of the ‘throat slash’ gesture

The throat slash is a gesture made by moving one’s index finger, thumb or entire hand, held straight and with palm down, horizontally across one’s throat imitating the cutting of a person’s throat with a blade, indicating strong disapproval, extreme anger, or displeasure with others or with oneself. The actual act of cut throat can be homicidal, suicidal or accidental. Homicidal cut-throat is a well-recognized method of killings in settings of violence, honour killings and as a tool of war crimes. Emotionally driven murders are committed by mothers in newborns, intimate partners of heterosexual or homosexual relationships, etc. From a psycho-forensic point of view ideation, insinuation, gesticulation, implementation of a crime in the form of cut throat does not fall within the norms of ‘social’ conduct. Needless to say, the gesture, amounting to digital vitriol, provocative and menacing, certainly does not fall within the prescribed guidelines of diplomatic conduct by any measure.

Choleric opportunism

The passionate support that Brigadier Fernando received from politicians was vivid. The usual suspects such as Keheliya Rambukwella, Susil Premjayanth, Wimal Weerawansa , Udaya Gammanpila seized the moment. More disturbing perhaps was the hypocrisy of the middle aged aspirants of leadership of the UNP, namely Ruwan Wijewardene and Navin Dissanayake who came out of their liberal and genteel closets to expose their racist nakedness of being  soldiers of the choleric age. If any of these politicians were feigning wrath, the reality becomes even more complicated where the choleric age of racial politics will be compounded by ‘a dose of  deceit more than usual’. Semi-hilarious and totally worrying were the brush off remarks of the de facto leader of Sri Lanka Podujana Party and once a former president of the country , Mahinda Rajapaksa who tried his best to trivialize and add jocularity to this serious issue stating Fernando was “merely scratching his neck!”

Ruwan Wijewardene educated at St Thomas Preparatory School Colombo and University of Sussex UK has shown that dynastic political privilege of being the great grandson of D.S. Senanayake does not quite protect one from the tentacles so of racism. Navin Dissanayake educated at Royal College Colombo and University of Sussex UK, and a barrister no less, has shown the same political immaturity and ignorance about the political sensitivities of the Fernando fiasco. Understandably, it must be difficult for Dissanayake to be even minded about the issue, given that his father Gamini Dissanayake was assassinated by an LTTE suicide bomber in 1994. However a man who cannot leave aside profound, personal and harrowing tragedy to achieve statesmanship will have little hope of emerging as a national leader in the future. However the collective anger or, worse, its pretence by politicians trickling from president downwards shows that not only is there a present void in the deeper understanding of issues pertaining to a proactive foreign policy, peace building and racial cohesion, but there will be a greater void that may widen in the future which the aspirants of political leadership in the country will not have the maturity to fill. 

Read More

GIVE POST-ELECTION MESSAGE OF CARE TO MARGINALISED 

by Jehan Perera-February 19, 2018, 8:45 pm

Sri Lanka’s three-year journey with a national unity government, comprising the two major national political parties, is in doubt. The unity arrangement whereby the two traditional rivals shared power was always a contested one. Both parties felt they deserved better and each felt undermined by the other. They had different political visions, one more grounded, the other more cosmopolitan, and so deciding together was different. This was also the government’s strength, as it brought in a better balance, but decision-making was always slow. The local government election that they kept on postponing for more than two years has been the government’s undoing. When the government finally held those elections, the two main partners, the UNP and SLFP, turned against each other to give victory to the SLPP.

Shortly after the local government elections, civil society activists from several districts around the country took part in a meeting organized by the National Peace Council. What was encouraging was that these civic leaders were not disheartened but prepared to continue with their work for inter ethnic harmony, national reconciliation and economic development. They did not see the election result as directly negating their work. They saw the government’s poor electoral performance as a result of its failure to honour the mandate it had received in 2015 for good governance, anti-corruption, strong state institutions, economic development and inter-ethnic justice and reconciliation.

Among the reasons identified for the election debacle was the government’s failure to put a stop to corruption and to take action against those with allegations of corruption. The denial by each side of the corruption of their own was seen as a trap from which the country needed to extricate itself from but which the government had failed to do. Another reason given was the failure to address the problems of the poorer sections of the people even while striving to cater to international expectations. An example given was the ban on asbestos sheeting which is used as roofing material by those with limited incomes, the reduction of the fertilizer subsidy and the replacement of the free school uniform by a voucher system. From the north came the observation that the failure to reduce the military presence symbolized the slowness of change and the possibility of a relapse into another era of impunity.

HOPE CONTINUES

A lot of hope was pinned on the relationship between President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. This hope must continue. Though they are very different in many respects they both promised to be committed to good governance and to inter-ethnic reconciliation. It was in the battle against corruption that they both failed unable to shed the past, deal with the past and put a stop to the excesses of the present. But to their credit during the three years that they stood at the helm, the government ruled with a light hand. This has been a tremendous relief to the people who have experienced the chilling fear of governmental impunity with many governments of the past. With the loss of fear came labour strikes, doctors strikes, students strikes virtually every day, which spilled onto the roads and undermined the respect for those in government.

The local government elections that stand is the immediate cause of the current political crisis epitomized the best and worst of the government. In postponing the elections for various reasons, the government showed that it did not really want to battle for the hearts and minds of the people. There was the alienation of those who take decisions from the top-down, who seek to reach a modern society while the reality of people’s lives is lost sight of. The government did not have a message of local development that inspired the voters. On the other hand, the elections were the most peaceful and free in decades. The electoral system, with its mixed first past the post and proportional representation and the 25 percent women’s quota represented the modernity to which the country needs to aspire.

Today the Election Commission is struggling with the technical complexities of the new electoral system. As in any new system there are teething problems. But there is no doubt that the Election Commission is being left free to find the answers independent of political interference. During the election period the police behaved with independence and arrested ruling party politicians and supporters as well as those from the opposition if they violated the election laws. All this happened because the country had a government that ruled with a light hand. In the not so distant past, ruling politicians used to sit in the chairs of the Officers -in-Charge of police stations and give them orders. There is a need to appreciate the freedom that those who dissent can enjoy, including media freedom to be severely critical of the government. There is no sense of menace in the air. These positives are invisible, unlike the roads and infrastructure that are visible, but are no less real.

CONTINUING NEED

The existence of the national unity government has also held the hope that the country would be able to tackle the most formidable problem of the past that has divided its multi-ethnic and multi- religious population. Foremost amongst these is the need to find a power sharing solution to the ethnic conflict, for which the country has been searching from the time of SWRD Bandaranaike in the 1950s, and even before, from the time of GG Ponnambalam in the 1930s. With President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe at the helm there was (and still must remain) the hope of a political solution that is fair by all. The ideal would be for them to continue to work together. It has been pointed out that if they contested the local government elections together, rather than separately, their combined vote would have been greater than that of the SLPP.

At the present time there are reports of negotiations taking place at the highest levels of the polity to resolve the conflict that has torn into the very heart of the government. The question is whether the solution that emerges will be one that keeps the mandate that the government received from the people in 2015 alive. There is a need for reconciliation to take place within the government itself as manifested in the reports that President Sirisena intended to replace Prime Minister Wickremesinghe due to pressures on him from within the ranks of his party. There is a need on the part of the leaders of the government who now appear to be at loggerheads to remember why they were elected to power and to keep the promises they made at that time.

The government’s ability to move forward on controversial issues of reconciliation may well be crippled. The SLPP, led by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, which outperformed the ruling parties, has been hostile to the government’s reconciliation process as dividing the country and sacrificing it to foreign forces. Prior to the election, and for the past three years, the country was making slow progress in dealing with issues concerning the previous three decades of war and the larger ethnic conflict. The government needs to recommence the reconciliation process, starting with those aspects on which there is a general consensus in society. These include strengthening state institutions, tackling the problem of corruption and showing greater care for the marginalized in society, whether for reasons of ethnicity or poverty.

Govt. and opposition MPs received cash from Mendis distilleries - Ranjan claims

2018-02-19

Documents pertaining to payments made by Mendis Distilleries owned by Arjun Aloysious to a set of MPs from government and opposition has been recovered and are being held by President Maithripala Sirisena,Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake said yesterday.

Mr Ramanayake told journalists that Aloysious had made payments to the MPs in cheques.

" There would be a huge controversy in the country if the names of these MPs are revealed" he said.

The MP said the choice made by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to appoint Arjun Mahendran for the Central Bank Governor's post was wrong. Prime Minister Wickremesinghe made a wrong choice but he cannot be blamed for the bond scam as he was not involved in it. (Yohan Perera)

Still no answers for families of the disappeared reaching one year of roadside protest

19Feb 2018

Tamil families of the disappeared have seen out almost a year protesting on the roadsides of various towns, in search of answers about their disappeared family members.

The protest at Kilinochchi, the most prominent of the protests, will reach its one year mark tomorrow, February 20th.

Photographs from families of the disappeared protest at Mullaitivu.

Related Articles: 

10 February 2018 : Mothers of the disappeared in Vavuniya condemn president's denial of secret detention camps

23 January 2018 : Mothers of the disappeared continue their protest in Vavuniya

14 January 2018 : Families of the disappeared continue protest in Vavuniya 324 days on

17 December 2017 : Sri Lanka’s mothers ask international community to help find their children – J S Tissainayagam

11 December 2017 : Families of disappeared protest across North-East on International Human Rights Day

Sri Lanka’s Gradual Return to ‘Normalcy’

Featured image courtesy IndiaTimes

DR. KALANA SENARATNE- 02/18/2018

The local government election of 10 February 2018 marked a triumphant return of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Though the polls were meant to elect representatives for local government bodies (the lowest tier of government), the sweeping victory of the brand new party he endorsed and gave his direct blessings to – the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) – has revived the possibility of Mr. Rajapaksa’s return to political leadership in the country, if not de jure at least de facto. Three years after losing power, Mr. Rajapaksa may still have reasons to believe that he is not just the most popular politician in the country at present, but probably the most popular politician in Sri Lanka’s post-independence history. For a majority of the Sinhala-Buddhist population which loves him, things are returning to the post-war ‘normalcy’ that their eyes were getting accustomed to, soon after the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May 2009.
###
The resounding victory of the SLPP appears to have shattered one of the greatest post-war political myths in the country: ‘Yahapalanaya’ (good-governance). At the time it was promoted in 2014/2015, ‘Yahapalanaya’ was a necessary myth which had a devastating impact on the then Rajapaksa-regime. Symbolizing all that was good and beautiful (as opposed to the bad and ugly), it was a term, a slogan, which enabled the anti-Rajapaksa forces to provide a clear and soothing alternative to the authoritarian mess that was the Rajapaksa-regime. With a common-candidate (Maithripala Sirisena) who seemed to reach the very heart of the Sinhala constituency and appeal widely as a friend of the minorities too, a good and benevolent government appeared to be a possibility to many. With the Rajapaksas defeated, so the argument and expectation went, a new country based on the (seemingly) pristine values of democracy, good governance and the rule of law was to be constructed: one which would swiftly eradicate corruption, re-establish democratic and independent institutions, protect the rights of citizens, and even bring about reconciliation between the majority Sinhala community and the Tamil minority.

The Yahapalana-regime quickly turned out to be an embarrassment, one which may have generated the greatest degree of frustration within the shortest period of time in recent Sri Lankan history. For one, it was incomprehensible how a different era and culture of politics and governance was possible with the same set of politicians who had hopeless records concerning the promotion of ‘good’ governance. Looking around, there weren’t many faces which could have commanded confidence; not in the camp of the United National Party (UNP), and not in the camp of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), members of which suddenly joined the new regime having lambasted and ridiculed Mr. Sirisena, during the Presidential and Parliamentary election-campaigns in 2015. And a regime which was elected on the promise of eradicating corruption was not only finding it unable (and even unwilling) to prosecute those alleged of serious corruption, but also found itself to be struck by one of the most devastating scandals: the infamous ‘Bond-scam’, which implicated numerous individuals, ranging from the Governor of the Central Bank to powerful ministers, including the Prime Minister.

There was also, from the very start, an unresolved question about the mandate received by the Yahapalana-regime (both in January and August, 2015). For the apologists of the Yahapalana-regime, the mandate seemed to be a clear and convincing one in favour of prosecuting the Rajapaksas (for alleged corruption), introducing an entirely new Constitution which, inter alia, abolished the Executive Presidency, promoted maximum devolution of powers to the Provinces (especially the North and East), and facilitated transitional justice (perhaps through the establishment of a special court to prosecute members of the armed forces, or even through a hybrid court which involved the participation of foreign judges). For the apologists of the defeated Rajapaksa-regime, there was no such mandate whatsoever. Both these views masked a more nuanced reality which many were unwilling to acknowledge.

From the Tamil people in the North, the mandate was always clear. It was for all that the Yahapalana-regime had promised and more. But the message that emanated from the Sinhalese, especially from those who voted for the Yahapalana-regime, was less clear. The Sinhalese, by and large, demanded only a modest reform-project. On the one hand, this project largely involved the need to address the problem of corruption; and even then, it had to be remembered that a popular view in the country was (and is) that while corruption needs to be significantly minimized, it is also an inevitable phenomenon – and if economic progress and development is secured, a certain degree of corruption wouldn’t matter too much. It’s a view that reflects a certain degree of reality, but also one which shows how badly rotten Sri Lankan politics is; a situation from which the country would not escape anytime in the near future. A view that has now solidified in the country is: that while certain actors of the Rajapaksa-regime were indeed corrupt, their work still produced results, seen and felt by the masses; whereas the current regime, while being equally corrupt, is utterly inefficient.

On the other hand, in constitutional-terms, the reform project that a majority of the Sinhalese aimed at was perhaps something akin to the 19th Amendment: i.e. the re-establishment of independent institutions and a reformation of the Executive Presidency. This was what was achieved by the new regime, in the form of the 19th Amendment; but importantly, with the help of the 2/3rds Rajapaksa-majority in Parliament. Nothing more has been possible since mid-2015, with the current constitutional reform process now in a state of comatose.

All this would sound terribly unfair to the Tamil population which may have expected some serious progress. However, it seems that it is this very regime (barring a handful of Sinhala politicians) which doubts its own ability to introduce far-reaching reform, while the two main parties in power have differences regarding key constitutional issues. Shouldering the weight of history which proves that radical reform is difficult with the Sinhala population, the regime got trapped in a game whereby they promised one thing to the international community and the Tamil population, and another to the Sinhala electorate. A regime which was less cocky, more honest, and willing to assess its chances realistically, realizing that serious reform needs to be convincingly championed and promoted from the President downwards, may have operated differently and perhaps achieved somewhat different results.

In a sense, nothing of the above should be too alarming. After all, one of the foundational reasons for much of what has happened to the present regime has to do with the indubitable fear that the regime has of a possible return of Mahinda Rajapaksa. The Yahapalana-regime, from its inception, has been a reactive regime. Unable to set the agenda and play the game on its own terms, the regime is possessed by the Rajapaksa spectre. As a result, the only thing the present regime has been able to do is to accuse the former regime of grievous misdeeds, and nothing else; a situation utterly despicable to the voting population. In addition, there is supreme incoherence at the hierarchy, with a President who at times shows that he is as clueless as an ordinary citizen in the street about what his own Cabinet is doing. Calling itself a ‘unity’ government, the regime – comprised mainly of the UNP and a few SLFP-backers of the President – is anything but united.
###
A fresh crisis of governance has emerged soon after the election, whereby there is uncertainty about the longevity of the present Yahapalaya-regime, with both the UNP and SLFP trying to form a government. It is a crisis precipitated due to the reaction of the President (as Professor Jayadeva Uyangoda has correctly pointed out), and also due to the pressure that seems to have been exerted on the President by a group of SLFP-Ministers in Cabinet. But, there are more serious reasons undergirding this crisis. Firstly, it is because the Yahapalana-regime (i.e. both the UNP and the SLFP) – apart from the SLPP – viewed this election as something more than a local government poll. Thus, the shock of defeat is palpable. Secondly, the crisis is a result of the deep and abiding lack of confidence the regime had, and has, about itself. Ever since the Rajapaksa team was able to show that they had massive numbers behind them at rallies (beginning with the famous Nugegoda-rally, with the momentum reaching a climax at the famous May-day rally at Galle-Face), the regime would have felt it was engaged in a difficult, even losing, battle. And the Yahapalana-regime, going by its performance since 2015, has every right to think so too. Thirdly, and related to the above, is the feeling harboured by the regime that the Sinhala-Buddhists are not entirely with them. And fourthly, the present crisis is also a result of the many glaring contradictions and antagonisms within the Yahapalana-regime; brought to the fore more clearly in recent times, especially during the election campaign. President Sirisena, in particular, took the lead in attacking the UNP, while Prime Minister Wickremasinghe was far more diplomatic in his approach towards preserving the coalition government.

In the above context, the current crisis was inevitable. However, this does not necessarily or automatically mean that there ought to be a change of government soon after a local government election. President Sirisena, in particular, has no right to demand the resignation of the Prime Minister (who is from the UNP); especially after being responsible, together with the likes of former President Chandrika Kumaratunga, for the near demolition of his own party, the SLFP. If the President had wanted to, he could have been more measured in his critique of the UNP, knowing that his party and the regime in general would be faring poorly at the election; an approach which would have been less problematic to him, in case he wanted to continue with the Yahapalana-regime after 10 February. But that’s not where things are right now.

The reasonable way forward would be to invite a party which can muster a majority to rule. This is what’s effectively envisaged under Article 48(2) of Chapter VIII of the Constitution (introduced by the 19th Amendment). In short, in a situation where the Prime Minister does not resign on his own volition, the Prime Minister can be changed if the Cabinet stands dissolved, and that in turn can happen only if Parliament, inter alia, passes a vote of no-confidence – for which a clear majority is required. Another lesson that emerges from this constitutional-crisis is that the 19th Amendment was a constitutional ‘deal’ aimed largely at consolidating the Yahapalana-regime’s power; but it should be reiterated that this wouldn’t have been possible without the support of the then Rajapaksa-majority in Parliament.

Whatever the ultimate result may turn out to be, it is also interesting to note that the present crisis also tests the strategic thinking of the Joint Opposition/SLPP. Consumed by the greed for snatching power, the SLPP stands to lose much if it rushes to quickly where angels would fear to tread. Its aims, going forward, would be to help the SLFP establish a government without joining it. But as Dr. Charitha Herath (from the SLPP-camp) has pointed out, it would be necessary for the SLPP to ensure that this newly established government is of a very short duration and that during the course of that government, the greater likelihood is that the opposition would be led by the UNP, and not the SLPP.
How these different challenges would be addressed by the respective parties will be seen in the days to come. What is certain, however, is that from now on, things will never be the same again for the Yahapalana-regime. Thus, any form of reconciliation between the President and the Prime Minister is only going to be perceived as a more hilarious façade, which would drive the people further away from the SLFP and the UNP.
###
Different people can draw different lessons from the results of the election concluded on 10 February. One of the more serious lessons that some might be unwilling to acknowledge is how patient a vast segment of the Sinhala electorate has been, over the past few years, in observing the ferocious campaign launched against the Rajapaksas and how willing and ready they have been to forgive and re-endorse Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa and his team – especially after having realized that the Yahapalana-project is just talk and no action. Had this not been the case, the new SLPP (a movement which was quite effectively organized by Mr. Basil Rajapaksa, who is one of the most vilified members of the Rajapaksa-family) wouldn’t have emerged victorious. Just as the people were ready to defeat Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2015, they are now ready to signal to the present regime that all’s not lost for the Rajapaksas either. It is a serious message that the present regime is unwilling to fathom.

Furthermore, and more damagingly, Sri Lanka has now reached a stage when ‘violence’ has the potential of becoming an ugly reality (especially in the South). Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka, in a recent intervention, suggests that the President has the monopoly over violence, clearly implying that the President may need to use force if the current crisis continues and the UNP doesn’t allow the President to form a different government. This is never advisable, and it may not even be a real possibility with President Sirisena. But, the overall result of the election appears to suggest that the point has been crossed when any action against the Rajapaksas – especially, against the former President and the former Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksa – will be accepted by their supporters with mere non-violent protest. From now on, it is almost impossible to challenge the Rajapaksas without risking a serious and even violent confrontation; as any action against them, however legitimate, would be seen as amounting to baseless revenge and nothing else. The clash, if it ever happens, would also have the strong blessings of the Sangha-community, which has generally been very supportive of Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa.

All this also means, in the final analysis, that a critical and significant segment of the Sinhala population has hopes of correcting a ‘mistake’ they made in 2015. Instead of a puerile and vacillating leadership, they are almost yearning for a return to a strong hand at the helm: firm, decisive and unflinching. Instead of a hybrid-something that makes no sense, the demand would increasingly be for a leadership that can add meaning to their lives. For a population that has always wanted a strong and charismatic figure to lead it from its pitiful ‘developing nation’ state to something better, the promise of development and prosperity at the expense of greater rights and freedoms would be an attractive option.
###
Having reached the summit in search of a grand promise, the people have suddenly realized that there is nothing there. Instead what they find is a confused regime, unable to understand the gruesome reality that it has been comprehensively defeated at a local government election which was almost a national referendum of sorts. Continuing to hang on a stale hope of ushering in good-governance after three unsuccessful years with an unpopular leadership, the Yahapalana-regime can now be seen to be marching swiftly towards its inevitable death. If the same regime continues to rule it may not take too long to find – at the gates – a group, confident and vengeful, waiting to accept a corpse and attend to the customary practice of burying the dead. The end could still be a little less painful, if only those in power can think.

Reprieve for coalition

President Maithirpala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe - File photo

By Dharisha Bastians-Tuesday, 20 February 2018

President Maithripala Sirisena’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party announced it would remain in the ruling national unity coalition yesterday, ending a week of political uncertainty and abruptly ending its campaign to oust Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, although some members warned the ‘ceasefire’ was temporary.

After lengthy discussions with President Sirisena at the Presidential Secretariat last afternoon, the SLFP decided to remain in Government and agitate for major changes in the UNP-led Cabinet of Ministers. The SLFP was persuaded by the President to continue to the status quo, after Speaker Karu Jayasuriya brokered a peace deal between Sirisena and his Prime Minister at Paget Road on Sunday night (18 February), highly placed sources told Daily FT.  Despite soliciting the support of the Joint Opposition led by President Sirisena’s political arch enemy Mahinda Rajapaksa, the SLFP had been unable to muster the numbers to dismiss Premier Wickremesinghe constitutionally through a no-faith motion in Parliament, Daily FT learns.

But several SLFP members fired warning shots soon after the decision was announced, indicating that efforts to oust Wickremesinghe would continue.

“The UPFA/SLFP will remain together – there will be no defections. We demanded certain big changes in the Government, but these were not agreed to. We remain firm in our position that these changes must take place and we will explore legal ways of doing so,” SLFP Minister S. B. Dissanayake told reporters outside the Presidential Secretariat following the crucial meeting.

Dissanayake added that the UPFA had a majority in Parliament to topple the Government, but insisted that was a “second priority” with their main aim to strengthen President Sirisena’s position within the shaky coalition.

Deputy Minister and Deputy Speaker of Parliament Thilanga Sumathipala, also a UPFA member, who was allegedly involved in mustering enough MPs to form a single party Government led by the SLFP, told Parliament that the party would remain in the coalition until there was clarity on a legal question referred to the Supreme Court by the President, on how the national Government could continue if one major party pulled out of the ruling alliance. Sumathipala first floated the idea that the President had sought the opinion of the Supreme Court on the issue when he simultaneously announced the SLFP was quitting the Unity Government at 11PM on Sunday (18 February), sending shockwaves across the country. “The referral could take a few days, and the SLFP will remain in Government until then in order to ensure stability,” he noted.

However, in Parliament yesterday, Speaker Jayasuriya informed the House in response to a question raised by JO member Dinesh Gunawardena that he had got no official intimation that the UPFA was quitting the Government. Gunawardena quoted Sumathipala and said that if what the Deputy Minister said was true, the Cabinet of Ministers stood defunct.

However, Daily FT learns that Sumathipala had no authorisation from his party leadership to announce the UPFA/SLFP exit from the ruling coalition, since no decision had been reached on the matter till the meeting at the Presidential Secretariat last afternoon.

The crisis in the ruling coalition was precipitated by the stinging defeat of the two major parties at the hands of the fledgling, Rajapaksa-backed Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) at the 10 February Local Government elections. SLPP, or the “Pohottuwa”, won 241 out of 341 councils up for grabs in that contest. The SLFP, led by President Sirisena obtained only 13 percent of the vote, while the UNP also suffered a humiliating defeat, by winning only 32% of the vote share and 41 councils island-wide. Following the election results, the SLFP demanded the sacking of Premier Wickremesinghe, who is blamed for the Government’s poor showing at the polls, but hurdle after hurdle has temporarily suspended the campaign.

The UNP, which rallied behind its Prime Minister as the SLFP stepped up calls for his removal, agreed to a major cabinet reshuffle this week as a compromise measure. The Foreign Affairs, Highways, Justice, Law and Order portfolios and several others have been identified for the shuffle.

Opposition Leader slams MR for enflaming ethnic strife

By Skandha Gunasekara

Emphasising the need to find a lasting solution to the national problem, the Leader of the Opposition yesterday condemned former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, for inciting racial disharmony during the run-up to the recently concluded Local Government elections.

“During the early stage of their campaign, Mahinda Rajapaksa said that Tamil Eelam was blooming again. If you continue behaving the way you have, Eelam will bloom; it will bloom out of your own lotus bud,” Opposition Leader and leader of the TNA R Sampanthan said.

The Opposition Leader made these remarks while taking part in yesterday’s adjournment debate on the political crisis, which has arisen in the country as a consequence of the outcome of the Local Government elections, adding that “It is abhorrent to play the racial card.”

He then warned that such actions were detrimental to the reconciliation process.   “We want a solution in a united, undivided, indivisible and single country. We have made our position clear. It is wrong to instigate communal feelings against a single community while we are demanding a political solution,” Sampanthan said.

He then pointed out that the results of a local authority election had no impact on the constituency of the Parliament.

 “The team led by Mahinda Rajapaksa could not poll at least 50 percent in the last three elections including the recently ended local government elections. Parliament is not constituted on the basis of local government polls results. It is wrong to demand power in parliament on the basis of local government results.”

Meanwhile Chief Opposition Whip Anura Kumara Dissanayaka pointed out that the SLFP voters had shifted their allegiance away from its long-time base to a new faction, while going on to rebuke the President and the Prime Minister for safeguarding ‘thieves’.

“The Local Government elections results showed the world that SLFP is no longer at Darley Road but at a new camp. The JVP could not reach our target but we achieved some success. The results also tell Ranil Wickremesinghe and Maithripala Sirisena not to dream of contesting for the President’s seat again. Neither would be able to muster the forces which brought them to power at the 08 January 2015 election. The country needs to end this power struggle,” said Dissanayaka.

He then pointed out that though the Government was to blame for their own defeat at the LG polls and that the results could not be considered a referendum.

“Some try to interpret this election results as a referendum. If anyone does so, then there is no clear-cut victor in this referendum, for none had polled more than 50 percent. The incumbent Government provided safe heaven to fraudsters and thieves. The Government acted in a manner against the mandate it received. The Prime Minister protected one set of thieves while the President protected another set of thieves. The Government failed to punish thieves and murderers. The Government delayed investigations. Therefore the people responded and voted to defeat them.”

BEHAVIOUR OF THE EXECUTIVE PRESIDENT IS UNACCEPTABLE AND HAS TO BE ABOLISHED. – SAMAN RATHNAPRIYA

mage: Saman Rathnapriya speaking at a Puravesi Balaya meeting.

Saman Rathnpriya.-19/02/2018

The behaviour of the Executive President has become a decisive reason to aggravate this political crisis. According to the election results, based on the 16.6% of votes obtained by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, headed by the President, is attempting to remove the PM from the United National Party (UNP), which obtained 32% of the vote. This is a unjustifiable attempt. It cannot be done according to law. At the same time, when considering the election results, this is not ethical. If so the President should first quit his post.

Although, the legislature has to be strengthened in a democratic country, it is clearly apparent from this crisis, how the Executive Presidency is posing a serious threat towards the existence of the legislature. Even in history, Presidents such as Mahinda Rajapaksa and J. R. Jayawardena used the power of the Executive Presidency and brought destruction to the country. Therefore, we are demanding that the Executive President abolish the Executive Presidency at least now.

When the Yahapalana Government came to power in January 2015, the foremost assurance that was given to the people was that the Executive Presidency will be abolished. The main slogan of the National Movement for a Just Society, which was set up by the Late Venerable Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera, who was the pioneer of this Government of good governance, was this.

The President and the PM have signed two agreements with civil organizations that they will abolish the Executive Presidency. However, even though it was possible to abolish some of the arbitrary powers of the Executive President, through the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, the Government was not able to completely abolish the post. The reason for not doing this was the strong objections from political parties such as the Sri Lanka Freedom Party and the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU).

 However, the UNP, which introduced the Executive Presidency to the country, as well as the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) are strongly in favour of abolishing the Executive Presidency.

(Edited version of a news story appeared in Ceylon Today.)

The Maharagama Saga: Is Democracy In Serious Trouble?

By Sankalpa Marasinghe – FEBRUARY 19, 2018

Sankalpa Marasinghe

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute discussion with the average voter” ~ Winston Churchill.

Churchill would have gleefully nodded his head followed by a puff of his cigar had he seen the results of the Maharagama electorate after the local government election on February 10, 2018.

Democracy is (supposedly) the supreme product of mankind in governing a civilized community, upholding justice, equality and freedom. It is the mode of governance by the people via elected representatives. What Churchill points out is that the annihilation of the system is due to the very component, the voter, whose knowledge and awareness of how the system functions are the keys to its success.

Known to be an electorate with a population mainly comprising the “educated” upper middle class and middle-class, Maharagama would be an ideal reference sample of how democracy works, one would have imagined. But, can anyone explain how a set of individuals who have no exposure or experience in politics and a majority of whom don’t even reside in Maharagama got elected by an overwhelming majority to the Maharagama Municipal Council?

If you follow the instruction of Churchill and engage in a five-minute discussion with a voter in Maharagama, who had voted for the, now famed, ‘motorcycle’, you will realize that they were unaware of whom they were voting for. In fact, they were not actually concerned about the very fact that their use of the franchise actually elects a person to the Maharagama Municipal Council which is supposed to serve their needs in next five years.

Reference 1

Local Authorities Elections Ordinance

8. General qualifications for membership.

Every person who is not disqualified as provided by section 9 shall be qualified at any time for election as a member of any local authority if—

(a) he was, on the date of the commencement of the preparation or revision of the parliamentary register for the time being in operation for any electoral district in which that electoral area or any part thereof is situated, qualified to have his name entered in that register; and

(b) he was, on the first day of June in the year of the commencement of the preparation or revision of that register, ordinarily resident in that electoral area.

So it is very clear that the aspirations in establishing democracy are lost and the people who are supposed to protect democracy have actually caused it to be destroyed.

But is it an isolated incident which should not be generalized or is it a phenomenon that is spreading around the world?

Example – 1

In the United States of America, people elected Donald Trump as President. Once a real-estate agent who became a business mogul, he was never a member of the Republican Party. In fact, his political career started with the run-up to becoming the Republican Party’s Presidential candidate. Known to be an arrogant, rude, racist and self-centred man with a very bad tongue, Trump became the leader of the most powerful country on this planet and through a democratically held election.

Has democracy really worked?

Example – 2

In an election to choose 4 members for the Sri Lanka Medical Council (SLMC) held among doctors who are registered with the SLMC, a group of candidates representing a trade union were elected. During the campaigning stage as well as the two-day election, doctors who voted were not concerned about the identity of the four candidates. In fact, on the two days of the election, busloads of doctors who were “persuaded” to travel from far were seen voting for candidates 1,2, 3 and 10. Many didn’t know whom those numbers represented even after voting. Seems as if they didn’t care.

There is a strange similarity between the voters of Maharagama and the voters at the SLMC election. On both occasions, the voter was not concerned about whom their franchise would elect. Their only concern was “defeating” a presumed “enemy” by voting for some symbolic representation. The end result in both instances didn’t fall much apart.

Read More