THE UNDETERRED JOURNEY FOR THE MISSING  IN SRI LANKA – MANGALA SAMARAWEERA

Mangala Samaraweera.-04/03/2018

We are fortunate to witness this moment when the Government led by President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe has given life to an important promise made to the people of this nation. The Office on Missing Persons Act was passed in August 2016 and on 27 February, a seven-member commission was announced to lead its activities and investigations starting immediately.

Mother’s Front

My commitment to the struggle of the missing, goes back as long as my journey in politics. I recall a time in the 80s when cases of large scale disappearances were at alarming rates. The decision to devote myself to politics was driven by my concern with these atrocities that occurred around my hometown, and a strong desire to bring justice to those families suffering as a result of this. It may be the greatest irony that during those times I was inspired by the words of many individuals who championed the cause, including our former president Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse. He spoke fervently about our responsibility to find these missing people and to prevent such outrages from occurring in the future. I was struck by his moving words and his dedication to the cause and so began our journey for justice. In 1990 it was Mr. Rajapakse and I who were co-conveners of the Mother’s Front movement. This was a movement against missing children of the South and had a significant impact in setting the discourse surrounding this sensitive topic. Today, I am dismayed by the sentiments that he vociferously articulates, to tear apart initiatives that seek to alleviate the pain of innocent mothers of this country.

30 years of violence 

The journey thus far has been long and by no means easy. A history of 30 years of violence is witness to the absolute necessity for the OMP today, perhaps even more crucial than it has been ever before. We have suffered through many conflicts from the time of the JVP insurrections in the 70s and 80s to the post-war violence just a few years ago. In these trying times, when the numbers of the missing have been steadily rising, few walked with us to see this journey to completion. The voices that spoke so passionately against these crimes suddenly started changing their tone. These same voices began switching camps so unexpectedly that lately many of the attacks on the OMP have been directed from Mr. Rajapakse himself. If the question of the missing still remains high on the agenda with the reported numbers of the missing rising each day, the question remains why it is no longer a cause worth fighting for.

Rajapaksa manipulations 

The answer is sad and simple. Self-serving policies and party politics have taken precedence over the suffering families of those gone missing over the past 30 years. For Mr. Rajapakse in 1989, this cause was worth getting arrested for at the airport while he carried documents with information regarding the missing to the UNHRC in Geneva, and today the same movement has been portrayed by this camp as an attack on our war heroes. The discourse has been distorted and manipulated for political gain, becoming a tool in the hands of power hungry individuals. Misconceptions have been drawn out to confuse the public and the victims of this have been none other than the affected families who have had no means to redress their loss. But make no mistake, this journey will not be ended by the selfish actions of these self-serving individuals.

What is OMP

The OMP does not aim to benefit only one community and does not threaten another. It is merely a truth-seeking mechanism. It aims to investigate and find out the truth about those identified as “missing” or who have disappeared during conflict. According to the international Committee of the Red Cross, over 16,000 individuals have gone missing during the civil war. Of them, 5100 belonged to the armed forces. These are the very same individuals who fought against the terror that the LTTE created. We as a nation, have a responsibility to find the truth about where they are, and to bring an end to the agony faced by their families and loved ones.

The OMP mandate cuts across all ethnic and religious boundaries. It seeks to investigate persons missing in connection with the conflict of the North and East and its aftermath. This includes those of all ethnicities; including the armed forces and police who have been identified as “missing in action”. It will investigate into those gone missing during political unrest or civil disturbances in the south as well as victims of enforced disappearances island wide. The mandate of the OMP ensures that it will carry out searching and tracing of missing persons, clarifying the circumstances in which such persons went missing and their fate, making recommendations to relevant authorities in order to reduce incidents of missing and disappeared persons, and identifying proper avenues of redress available to the families of the missing persons and informing them of the same.

Despite its role as an investigative body, the OMP is not a law-enforcement or judicial body such as a court of law, and the Act clearly states that “the findings of the OMP shall not give rise to any criminal or civil liability.” The myths that have been spread about the OMP claiming that it is a witch hunt to prosecute our war heroes is a lie. The OMP cannot prosecute perpetrators of violence. These rumors are political manipulations to deter the fair and just actions taken by the government towards peace and reconciliation. It is merely an office set up to address grievances of the families and friends of those gone missing during conflicts and to ensure fair treatment for them in the future. The OMP gives the chance for renewed faith and hope for those who have lost their families and friends. It is not limited to an area or ethnicity but promises dignity and prosperity for all. These steps will prevent isolating and radicalizing aggrieved communities and avoid new forms of terrorism that can shake the peace and stability of our nation.

OMP is ready to engage with all groups

In 2015 the coalition government vowed to develop a culture of consensual politics. The OMP took into strong consideration the recommendations made by the general public and civil society groups. Families of the affected voiced their concerns and ideas on the best ways to improve the OMP bill. Today their voices have been heard. Accordingly, the OMP is ready to engage with all groups, irrespective of their ethnicity, religion, or geographic location in order to get their valued input and information. The decision to do so was demanded by the people.

At the UNHRC in 2015 I stated that our political change was bringing an end to short-sighted policies and a triumphalist approach to the end of the war. The OMP is the primary example for this promise. This independent body is set to continue its investigations despite changing government interests. It is an autonomous, transparent commission acting independently to any political biases or affiliations.
This multi ethnic island is one step away from lasting peace and prosperity. We as citizens of this great country must take this step together. We have made it through the difficult times. We have endured adversity in all its forms and we are here today looking forward to a better future.

Dhammika Perera: An economist par excellence though not trained formally as an economist

Business leader Dhammika Perera addresses the Colombo School of Business and Management in its series on an evening with a corporate leader recently at the Shangri-La Hotel, Colombo - Pic by Upul Abayasekara

 Monday, 5 March 2018


Humans who forget that they are wired as economists Dhammika Perera, businessman, entrepreneur, wealth-creator and many more, admits humbly that he has never been formally trained as an economist. But, that is an under-assessment, since there is an economist living in every species.

Dhammika Perera An economist par excellence though not trained formally as an economist.docx by Thavam on Scribd

LG POLLS RESULT : REBUKE, NOT REPUDIATION SAYS DR SARA

Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu Pic: Lake House Media Library

4 March, 2018

The aftermath of the local government election has been fraught with political tension and the uncertainties of coalition politics.

Leading civil society activist and Secretary of the Consultative Task Force on Reconciliation mechanisms, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu says these confusions must not be allowed to overshadow the 2015 mandate for democratic and constitutional reforms.

“The country hasn’t given up on the reforms agenda-nor should the government,” Dr. Saravanamuttu said in an interview with the Sunday Observer.

The excerpts of the interview:

Q: After the recent local government election, the government functions seem to have come to a standstill. In this backdrop how do you engage with the government and push the reform agenda forward?

Yes, there is a sense of things having come to a standstill. The President appeared to be shopping around for another Prime Minister on the basis of the local government election results and as a consequence government seemed to be in limbo and lost in action. Governmental paralysis was self-inflicted - an encore to the backbiting that marked the government’s election campaign.

The need of the hour is for the key constituent elements of the government to agree on a plan of action for the remainder of the government’s term, announce it to the country and get on with implementing it. They cannot forget or be allowed to forget that the mandate for the reform agenda still stands. What they received from the country at large was a rebuke and not repudiation. The country has not given up on the reform agenda; nor should the government. The sharp, stinging rebuke was with regard to the lack of delivery on hopes raised, promises and commitments made and the woeful failure to communicate what was being done and why, as well as what was not done and why.

Q: Do you think it is better to wait till this cycle of political uncertainty is over to pick up where civil society left off in terms of reforms?

No. Civil society which defined and defended the reform agenda over decades and in the most inhospitable circumstances, cannot give up on it. I would argue that since we have ownership and a stake in it we must ensure that it is not abandoned but fulfilled if not in full, in as substantive a measure as possible. Allowing things to drift without a sense of purpose and direction will only compound the uncertainty. The country cannot be in limbo or await the inevitability of a new dispensation or return to the future. There is nothing inevitable about the results of future electoral contests, unless defeat is conceded in advance and resistance abandoned. Whatever the political balance of power, civil society committed to reform cannot rest. Democracy, as we have been warned time and time again, is ultimately protected and strengthened by the vigilance and vision of citizens.

Q: Some members of the civil society have begun criticizing the government openly for their delay in delivering on the promises of good governance. Is it correct to say that the civil society has completely lost hope ?

Given the role of sections of civil society in defining and defending the reform agenda, once a government came into office committed to that agenda, civil society would always have to engage with it both, critically and constructively. That continues to be the case and should be the case. There may well be those who have lost hope for the moment, but I am sure this is momentary and that once the disappointment recedes they will return to the fray. I do not think that all hope is lost. All of us need to recommit to what we believe to be important and valuable in making this country the best place for all of its peoples. And yes, we have and must criticize and constructively; likewise resist the trend of populist authoritarianism.

Q: The commissioners to the Office of Missing Persons were appointed this week by the President fulfilling one of the undertakings to the UNHCR. As the Secretary of the Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms, what is your take on this development? What are the other outstanding issues on the reconciliation front?

One of the mechanisms is the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) which has now taken over a year to be established. I welcome its establishment and hope that it will be given the space and resources to do its job. This is pivotal for reconciliation and unity - disappearances being one of the nastiest atrocities. It should be pointed out that the government promised three other mechanisms and these too were incorporated into Resolution 30/1 at the UN Human Rights Council, which the government co-sponsored.

The other mechanisms were an Office of Reparations, a Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission as well as an accountability mechanism comprising a special court and special counsel. Indeed, the attitude of the government has been in the main to capitulate to the gross distortion of the opposition that transitional justice is the process by which war heroes will be turned into war criminals. Furthermore, when the mechanisms were announced they were announced as a coherent package; they were not to be sequenced. Doing so does not make sense. Currently, it would seem that there is the possibility of an Office on Reparations.

A Truth Commission looks like a stretch and a special court way into the future if at all. This is a tragedy and I hope the government will have the courage and the imagination to take reconciliation as seriously and as sincerely as it warrants in the context of moving from a post-war Sri Lanka to a post-conflict Sri Lanka in which the roots of conflict, hurt, harm and hate are addressed.

Apart from the mechanisms, there is a lot the government can do. There are citizens of this country on the street demonstrating for over a year to get their land back; who want to know what happened to their loved ones and where they might be. There is the horrendous PTA which should be repealed and replaced. The military should be taken out of civilian life. Those that have not been charged should be released and those responsible for religious intolerance and violence should be dealt with firmly and swiftly under the law of the land without fear or favour. The pillar of transitional justice and reconciliation referred to as non-recurrence should be addressed through constitutional reform and a political settlement of the National Question.

Q: Do you think this government has failed civil society and those millions of people who backed the rainbow revolution? The next parliamentary election is less than 24 months away. Can they still make a difference?

In 2015, for the first time in our history, the two main parties of government went into government together, voluntarily. They won on a platform of reform and defeated an incumbent who was seeking an unprecedented third presidential term. If one was to summarize the political mood, I would say that accountability was the buzz word in the Presidential election and it meant south of Vavuniya accountability in the main for financial corruption and north of Vavuniya for egregious human rights violations. Much has to be done in respect of all of this. The tragedy of this government is that it has not communicated effectively what it has done and as a consequence fallen victim to the greater freedom it has provided for criticism and dissent - a not inconsiderable achievement given the era of white vans which, is fast being forgotten. The regime change of 2015 created the conditions for greater democracy and governance and peace and unity in this country. The government has not lived up to expectations. It has lost the moral high ground on corruption and risks losing international goodwill and the prospects for true reconciliation and unity with its tardiness on transitional justice and the reversal of the culture of impunity. Its wounds in the main are self-inflicted. It provides a salutary lesson that a reform agenda at an election may well be presented in broad brushstrokes, but that in government it needs consensus on much more and communication, above all else.

Reform cannot be effected without this in a functioning democracy. The Opposition cannot be allowed to get away with the gross distortions that have become its stock in trade and government leaders have to rise above deeply rooted and petty priorities. There has to be vision, and it has to be communicated. The greatest tragedy of this government would be measured in the loss of faith in the institutions of democracy on the part of the population as a whole. This would pave the way for populist authoritarianism, state capture and even fascism. It is a tragedy that the 20-40 demographic - the social media generation who took so active a part in the regime change of 2015 are now so despairing and even angry. They have to be won back; they cannot be taken for granted.

Q: Over the past three years, Sri Lanka went from leadership by an authoritarian strongman leader, to a return to democratic governance. Coalition politics has been a tricky road, and democracy has shown itself to be flawed - with unending protests and a lack of firm policy. Do you think this situation has made a section of the citizenry clamour for a return of the strongman politician, or given rise to the perception that democratic governance is weak governance?

Yes, a section of civil society may well be in agreement with this. However, democracy per se should not be blamed for protests and the lack of a firm policy. Protests are a democratic right; clear and cogent policy, an expectation of any government. The issue to me in this regard is that of command, control and communication. Any coalition government will have these problems but one that is committed to reform must overcome them or at least manage them in a way that does not undermine the overall strategic objective. Most important of all is communication. You cannot effect major reform in a democratic context without effective, constant and consistent communication of the whys and wherefores of policy, on what is being done and why certain things are not being done or taking time to be done.

It is also worth noting that democratic governance entails a concerted effort to transform the political culture away from its authoritarian orientation. Effective communication by the team that constitutes government can go far in effecting this change.

Q:Undoubtedly civil society pinned serious hopes on this Government and were true stakeholders in its victory in 2015. As a leading civil society representative, you were Secretary of the Consultations Task Force. But, in the end the CTF report was barely acknowledged and the Government now shows signs of growing increasingly uneasy about civil society’s voice in the affairs of governance. Under the circumstances, is there any regret on your part or on the part of other colleagues and fellow travellers, about that decision to engage?

The CTF report was not openly endorsed by the government because of our recommendation of a hybrid court with at least one international judge. This was based on the submissions made to us - over 7,300 of them. Underpinning this recommendation - one of over 40- is the lack of trust and confidence in the existing judiciary as far as sections of our citizens are concerned. The point was made to us that if the judiciary and the agents of law and order acted as they were supposed to, this issue would not arise.

We therefore recommended that the international element be phased out once trust and confidence in the local judiciary was restored. Government leaders unfortunately decided to pacify the right wing of the majority community. The attempt on the part of the government to placate the Opposition and even the delusional notion that by acting tough on this they could win some of these votes proved to be a gross miscalculation and at the sacrifice of the votes that brought it to power in 2015 as attested to in the local government elections. The government should have taken on the Opposition charge about turning war heroes into war criminals head on and shown this up to be the irresponsible and inflammatory falsehood that it is. With regard to the rest of your question let me speak for myself. I have no fellow travellers either.

Civil society actors who defined and defended the reform agenda in the most inhospitable circumstances have a duty to see that it is fulfilled. It may not be fulfilled in fullest measure and in the way one would like, but realizing it even in modest measure is surely a duty of reform minded civil society actors. While there may not be 100 % satisfaction with government, the overarching objective of reform requires that we continue to critically and constructively engage government - work with it as opposed to for it, to realize the common objective of reform. Government may not take criticism kindly and would often be irritated by it. They must realize though that this is part and parcel of democratic governance, however irritating.

Yes, things could have been and could be better. They certainly are when compared to the dynastic rule and state capture of the populist authoritarianism of yore. The challenge and the commitment are to make things better through realizing the mandate of 2015. 

A Classic Case Of ‘Missing The Bus’

By Shiranee Dissanayake –MARCH 5, 2018

Yes, the people have spoken loud and clear. And it is amply evident that the current government did not have the foggiest idea about how the Sri Lankan population felt about their three year rule. It was after the 10th of February that they were rudely awakened to the reality that people are no longer ready to tolerate governments that do not fulfill their promises. It is a matter of regret that it took three years and an election defeat for the “Yahapalana” (good governance) government to realize where they stood with the people of this country. 

It was with great expectations that the professionals, the educated elite and those who cared for their motherland banded together under the leadership of the late Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thero to spearhead the campaign against bribery, corruption, calculated murder and family rule that the previous regime was accused of. However, the recently concluded local government polls indicate that the people have lost faith in the regime that they empowered to rid the country of this menace that pervaded almost every sphere of activity in one form or another. Now the people have given their verdict which we hope has jolted the present regime out of their slumber bringing about the realization that their brand of “Yahapalanaya” has no appeal among the masses. It is an undisputed fact that the UNP, the SLFP and the SLPP are all blemished with accusations of bribery and corruption.

In the circumstances the third force, the JVP who claims to be unblemished in terms of bribery and corruption should have been the obvious alternate choice. But that too has been rejected to the extent that they have not been able to secure even one provincial council. Although they played a prominent role in exposing the wrong doers, and are not accused so far of corruption they have got blood on their hands for calculated murder, harassment of the people and damage to public property during the insurrection in the 1980s. This could well have gone against them. Still it is baffling that the people opted to back a party composed of the same corrupt individuals whom they rejected not so long ago on grounds of bribery, corruption, murder and big time robbery of the wealth and resources of this country.

The recent voting in the local government polls, points to the fact that the people’s priority was not to elect a member from their area with the leadership qualities, honesty and commitment to uplift and develop the village. Rather it was a show of solidarity towards former president Mahinda Rajapaksa. This resulted in a state of uncertainty and instability in the government for over a week as there was a bid to take over power by the SLPP on account of their local government victory.

However, after much quibbling, nit-picking and wrangling among the UNP, SLFP and the SLPP the President has finally realized that the only option open, is for the existing government to continue as all other options put forward by the different parties have been invalidated legally and constitutionally. So Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe continues as Prime Minister and the “Yahapalana” government continues to rule.

The SLPP’s dream of chasing the PM out and installing Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister has fallen flat on its face. The over-confidence of the “Yahapalana” government that they have the support of the people even though they have not kept their promises has fallen by the wayside. The people themselves who believed that Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe will be overthrown and Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa will be installed in his place have now realized that they have achieved nothing for themselves by this exercise and literally fallen into the ditch. Therefore, considering the current state of play in the political and public arenas, it is clear that this is a classic case of “missing the bus” by all relevant parties concerned.

Meanwhile if one analyzes the current state of politics, the welfare of the people who are currently undergoing immense hardships seems to be the last thing on their minds. The energies of the SLPP are concentrated on furthering their selfish agendas of capturing power before the term of the current regime is over. It is evident that failed party politics still reigns supreme in their minds and salvaging the country from the abyss it is currently in, is nowhere on their agenda.

Read More

Cascading regime change

Sanjana Hattotuwa-March 3, 2018, 7:24 pm 

Paul Krugman’s column in the New York Times last week galvanised a number of conversations I have recently had with journalists and others based in the US around the state of democracy, in their country, post-Trump.

My Democrat American interlocutors are despondent, but also realise the many Americas that reside within the United States is not a phenomenon understood by most including those in power, and resulted in those who felt under-served and marginalised revolting against a visible political firmament associated with and perceived to be favourable towards those of colour. A predominantly white America – poor, hopeless, jobless – who felt their socio-economic conditions, not getting any better and scarcely talked about, trumped (no pun intended) at the Presidential vote confidence in and campaigns anchored towhat was first projected as a post-racial America, which even towards the end of Obama’s two terms in office was a risible fallacy. A majority, it turns out, struck back at the triumphant audacity of hope for a minority, just eight years before. The conversation invariably sought to draw parallels between Sri Lanka today, three years after or into the Sirisena Presidency, and the US. The interest was in how by anchoring policies towards the historically marginalised, a larger majority, worried about their ownplace and future could be undervalued, to the detriment of political reform over the longer-term.

There are no easy parallels of course, but Krugman’s column featured a political term and theory: cascading regime change. Many in the US suggested to me that faced with an incumbent President and political architecture in Capitol Hill few felt strong enough to tackle head on, socio-political interest and activism centred around causes championed by smaller, more local communities. This extends to movements that obliquely taken on socio-political issues polity does not meaningfully address, or politicians are guilty of perpetuating. Overwhelming. The unprecedented support for and courageous revelations as part of the #metoo movement, Oprah’s rousing Your Time’s Up speechat the Golden Globes as well as more recently, the We call BS movement after the speech by Emma Gonzalez in memory of those who died in the mass shooting in Florida are all examples of this, in the US.

#metoo is now a global phenomenon, and faced with depressing political leaders and repressive governments, communities are voting with irrepressible hashtags, retweets, status messages, parades, gatherings and writings on wall, online, media and street. Cascading regime change explains this phenomenon, where interest in mainstream politics is seemingly overshadowed by participation in alternative political, social movements anchored to single issues, championed by influential people not in mainstream politics, or galvanised by the mass-telling or recounting of personal stories, wherein erstwhile victims become powerful agents of change. Krugman sees this as a positive trend in the US today, with so many movements taking on what the White House today stands opposed to, or is an outrageous supporter of. The term and theory can be applied elsewhere.

In Sri Lanka, we do not have a comparable interest in civic movements because civics isn’t really part of our social fabric. The local government election in February, and elections in general, are the primary means through which Sri Lankans exercise their approval or lack thereof of government policies. But even here, there is a discernible change around issues are kept alive and sometimes even brought to the fore. Despite many in polity seeking to undervalue or drown inconvenient truths – ranging from corruption in the present government to accountability for crimes committed by the previous regime – social media keeps the issues alive. These wild and varied conversations are sometimes fuelled, openly or secretly, by those in power or who seek to regain political authority. These self-serving narratives aside, more organic, persistent conversations bemoan the lack of progress, identify suspects, name culprits, shame politicians, peg values to deals, reveal the details of corruption, ridicule half-hearted efforts to address graft and question the bona fides of government to really take-on various crimes committed, after 2015 and before. Before the local government poll, the discontent with government was palpable even from a cursory glance at social media’s froth. Deeper within and beyond those vocal on social media, the discontent was being further fermented by socio-political forces anchored to the government’s inability to reach out to, engage and address the fears of the South. We then had a cascade of discontent – those in the South felt alienated by a government that couldn’t communicate its policies and held in contempt those who elected it. Those in the North felt let down by the trust placed in government to address their existential concerns. Promises were reneged, the South was ignored, and in this verdant vacuum, expedient politics took root. All entirely unsurprising, and forewarned even.

Krugman makes the point that cascading regime change isn’t always a force for the good, or a marker of progress. January 2015 marked an occasion where the theory captured how, despite all the State machinery abused and at their disposal coupled with hundreds of millions at the very least spent on campaigning, the Rajapaksa regime lost in a way no one could have predicted. It is likely to happen again. The local government election galvanised a population who were passive till then, and through the exercise of their franchise, expressed their frustration with the inability of government to deliver much of what they had promised. The vote mirrors vibrant, open and critical social media discourse around issues like garbage collection, the cost of living, the price of essential goods, the cost of public transportation, the dilapidated condition of public services, the award of tenders, the purchase of luxury SUVs for politicians and other issues not directly anchored to a specific policy of or individual in government but reflective of its record and public acceptance as a whole. In fact, the term and phrase ‘regime change’ is not alien to Sri Lanka. Its application has almost always been to raise fears around the legitimate operation of electoral democracy or, after an illiberal government has been voted out of power, to demonise the socio-political forces that championed change, often as agents of Western governments or their intelligence services. Krugman’s thesis is more nuanced and can help explain, from here on till 2020, why this government may well continue its haemorrhaging of votes.

A public, disenchanted with politics as it stands, who voted their disapproval in February, have been confronted not by humble, meaningful course correction, but a confounded farrago of egotism, parochialism and imbecility by those holding the highest political offices in the country. It is likely that the angry chatter on social media will grow, engineered in part by those who want disenchantment with the current political dispensation to grow, and in larger part by those just fed up with politics as it is. The known evil and disappointment, the majority’s electoral equation may well be, is better than the voting in of heady promise only to be frustrated more.

And this is something those in government would do well to be cognisant of. The litmus test of policies is no longer just at the ballot. It is through the strategic, sustained harvesting of public opinion over social media, and also through active probing of public sentiment through a range of polling and investigative tools. Simply put, a government attentive to public sentiment can also shape it proactively and to its benefit. Whether this government can or will is another question, and one I personally have only ever answered in the negative.

WHEN THINGS FALL APART

4 March, 2018

Political events that followed the local government election of February 10 as well as last week’s mini cabinet reshuffle have re-energized Sri Lanka’s public discussions on changing the dynamics of current politics. Regular media reporting of actual events as well as the never ending speculation about possible twists and turns in politics, no doubt sharpened the intensity of public debate.
Yet, there have also been many instances where the line of demarcation between fact and fiction, and authenticity and fakeness, of the news had got blurred. The relentless enthusiasm of some of the media to see an instant political change with drama and spectacle, soon after the election results came to be known, also created an unprecedented degree of confusion all around. It was remarkable that the enthusiasm for a sudden change at the highest level of the government was shared by sections of the citizenry as well as the country’s President. President Maihripala Sirisena seemed to have thought, quite correctly, that some kind of decisive intervention was necessary to revive the capacity of the coalition regime to govern, let alone fulfil its largely forgotten mandate.


A change at the top?

The first move for a quick response came from President Sirisena himself. He seemed to have thought that a change in the post of the Prime Minister was the most suitable and effective first step, a kind of surgical act, for restructuring the government. That was also a course of action he had indirectly indicated during the local government election campaign. There were also unconfirmed reports that the President retracted a move to prorogue Parliament, after wiser counsel prevailed at a crucial moment. Little did President Sirisena seem to realize that there were constitutional as well as political constraints to such a drastic and unilateral course of action.

Thus, President Sirisena had to manage an unusual dilemma. He had committed himself to a radical sort of restructuring of the government after the local government election. That was a key promise he made during the local government election campaign. But, when the process started rolling, what became dramatically clear was that reconfiguring power relations within the coalition regime was easier said than done. Amidst much confusion, three things contributed to a state of haziness and disquiet in the political scene. The first was that there was no clarity about the constitutional possibilities according to which the President could have unilaterally carried out a major re-structuring of the government. The second was the doubt whether the President had adequate political strength and an electoral power base to effectively tilt the balance of power within the coalition away from the UNP. The third was the concern whether the President could politically manage such governmental restructuring within the rules of the game that govern coalition politics.

Power struggle?

At the end, and after a series of informal mediation, a potentially explosive crisis was averted. Yet, a serious problem remains unaddressed. The two main partners of the present coalition government do not seem to have found a framework of accommodation and reconciliation or a will to reinvent their coalition in any meaningful manner.

All signs indicate that President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe will go their own ways, pursuing their own agendas, goals, and even new allies. The reason is quite obvious. They are locked in a struggle for restructuring the balance of power between the two centres of power within the ruling coalition. In simple terms, it is a power struggle that had remained dormant for some time, and come to the surface sometime late last year. It has now erupted in full force.

The presence of two centres of power within the coalition government and its contribution to the present state of affairs warrants a little elaboration.

The 19th Amendment actually formalized what had existed de facto since the conclusion of the Presidential election of January 2015. The immediate aftermath of the election saw the emergence of two centres of power within the new coalition government around two individuals, President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe. The conceptual foundation of the 19th Amendment is a constitutional diarchy, although the framers of the Amendment have not so far used that terminology.

 It is actually a dual diarchy consisting of the Executive and the Legislature on one hand, and the President and the Prime Minister on the other. The idea of two centers of power – a bi-centric constitutional scheme -- was a response to the executive-led mono-centric framework of government created by the 1978 Constitution and subsequently enhanced by the 18th Amendment.

For two years, it appeared that the bi-centric framework of government seemed to work reasonably well. There were positive initial indications that the executive and legislative branches of the government were cooperating in advancing the government mandate of January 2015. At the same time, there were also indications that fissures were slowly developing, raising doubts about the political unity of the two coalition partners. These fissures were precipitated by the contradictions evolved within the so-called unity government that was established under the 19th Amendment. The unity government brought two traditional political ‘enemies’–the UNP and the SLFP- into a formal coalition, one led by the President and other by the Prime Minister.

Failures

This ‘unity government’ was a coalition of the strangest kind. It brought together two sworn political enemies –the UNP and the SLFP – who had just fought the presidential election against each other. Yet, the coalition government initially did some magic. The passing of the 19th Amendment, with so many compromises and deletions to its initial draft, was no mean achievement. Both, President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe demonstrated that they could work together, make compromises and advance their reform mandate overcoming challenges that initially appeared formidable. However, when we now review the events of the last three years with the benefit of retrospective hindsight, we can see a cardinal failure on the part of both these leaders: their inability to sustain, nourish and protect the coalition within as well as outside the government.

That is a theme that requires a separate essay.

To return to what has been happening during the past week, the Cabinet reshuffle gave us some clues to what we are likely to be witnessing in the coming weeks and months.

Cabinet re-shuffle

The Cabinet re-shuffle can be seen as a tactical victory to the Prime Minister in his competitive engagement with the President. Contrary to the signals coming from the President and his SLFP colleagues, there was no significant change in the UNP’s Cabinet team. Through that nominal reshuffle, the Prime Minister also communicated the message that his response to the local government election outcome was very different from that of the President. He also made a very significant political point: the SLFP partners cannot alter the coalition government’s existing balance of power at will.

So, the fault lines of the coalition government continue to remain wide open. Estranged from each other, the two main partners of the coalition seem to be pursuing unilateral political agendas. The fact that provincial council, presidential and parliamentary elections are lined up in succession makes it easier for them to further drift apart. There is absolutely no way for them to return to the reform agenda of 2015 as a team. The idealism and romance of January 2015 is irretrievably lost. Stark political realities might also force the two parties to seek new allies, on the principle that the adversary of my adversary should be my friend.

This is where some sense of prudence has to be introduced to the thinking and action of both leaders of the government. They have to acknowledge a number of unpleasant truths. For example, (a) their actions have gravely harmed the coalition they are disunitedly leading; (b) their tactical alliances with forces opposed to the coalition’s mandate have led to a paralysis of major components of the government’s reform project; (c) both have suffered defeats at the local government election by not doing certain things on the fear that doing those things would cause electoral defeats, and (d) worse still, their shared failure is likely to pave the way for an unrepentant authoritarian political formation to return to power with popular backing.

While promoting reconciliation in the country, they should also seek reconciliation among themselves. Instead of paying lip service to the Lichchavi tradition of consensus governance by discussion, they should immediately work out a framework of consultative governance for the coalition they are leading not-so jointly. They should also learn how a coalition government of unlikely partners should survive another two years with some meaningful political and policy shifts. And finally, they should be aware of the enormous political risks to which they are pushing the country when they seek out new allies in their competitive bid to outmanoeuvre each other. 

The Rajapaksa Populism

The local government elections last month and their aftermath continue to have their reverberations. While some politicians and political analysts critical of the Rajapaksa camp find solace in the fact that the Rajapaksa-backed SLPP got less than 50% of the vote, I believe it was a significant victory for the former President-backed party, and one with serious consequences. The dangers are not so much about whether Mahinda Rajapaksa will make a comeback, or what is in store for the national elections ahead. Rather, it is about the Rajapaksas setting the agenda of politics and the Government.

Rise and fall

2018-03-05

The Rajapaksa regime’s rise in 2005 was on the verge of a heightened war, with the combination of nationalist mobilisation and militarisation. Even as they mobilised large segments of southern society for the war, they instituted populist measures for the rural communities; including electrification, road building and a state employment drive across villages. 
Having consolidated power through a war victory and populist measures, their neo-liberal ambitions got the better of them. The regime’s authoritarian tendency and a strong majority in parliament allowed President Rajapaksa to usurp more powers for a stronger executive presidency. The global economic conditions with the Western Economic Crisis of 2008, led to the large flow of global finance capital into the emerging markets, where Sri Lanka became a hot destination as a post-war stable emerging market. 
For all their public protests against neo-liberalism, the Rajapaksa regime, in effect, initiated a second wave of neo-liberalism in Sri Lanka. In a classic neo-liberal shift, their policies became centred on financialised urbanisation; including through a massive IMF Standby Agreement in 2009 for US$ 2.6 billion, the sale of billions of sovereign bonds even as they claimed to defend sovereignty, the promotion of the capital markets and the beautification of Colombo with slum demolitions. Power corrupts, but wealth corrupts absolutely. They became more centred in Colombo and looked abroad for the big money—they went for global financial markets and Chinese 
mega projects. 
With the regime’s hubris after defeating the LTTE, it neglected its rural constituencies and alienated the minorities. It backed anti-Muslim attacks to deflect the increasing economic discontent among sections of their social base; including the suburban classes and the rural constituencies. They ran the state institutions to the ground with manipulation and patronage networks. By early 2014, there were signs of social agitation, and they met with the defeat they never expected in January 2015.

"Despite the mounting popular support for MR’s return, it is not their return and their consolidation that I worry about the most. Their tremendous consolidation of power after 2009, was possible because of the nationalist and militarised drive for the war"

Populist revival

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government having come to power, entrenched themselves within Colombo and looked even deeper into the West for their fortunes. Trade liberalisation and an international financial centre became the main planks of economic policies that remained at the level of talking shops. Economic and investor forums in posh hotels in Colombo and abroad were their focus, ironically, when the world was moving in the opposite direction with increasing protectionism in trade and international criticism of financialised speculation 
and dispossession. 
There was little economic movement on the ground, even as the rural economy was being devastated by a prolonged drought. The bubble in Colombo remained in isolation, with high-pitched political gossip and tit for tat moves within the Government. They neither moved on a broad economic programme to reach the population nor mobilised politically on the promised reform agenda. 

"The regime’s authoritarian tendency and a strong majority in parliament allowed President Rajapaksa to usurp more powers for a stronger executive presidency"

Despite defeats at the presidential election and then the parliamentary election of August 2015, the remnants of the Rajapaksa regime persevered. They worked with their constituencies and mobilised them at every opportunity. They reinvented themselves on the political plank of the new face of global politics; the authoritarian populism of Putin in Russia, Erdogan in Turkey,Modi in India, and Trump in the US. Such authoritarian populism, is the powerful new political model with increasing economic discontent and rising nationalist mobilisation around the world. It comes with racism, xenophobia, demagoguery and the face of a strongman; an aggressive leader claiming to be a problem solver. It is this version of populism that characterises the resurgence 
of Rajapaksa.

Difficult times ahead

Despite the mounting popular support for Rajapaksa’s return, it is not their return and their consolidation that I worry about the most. Their tremendous consolidation of power after 2009, was only possible because of the nationalist and militarised drive for the war. That is what wars do, and that is how wars are brutally won, through the mobilisation of state and society towards a single goal, which also comes with the risk of those leading such wars usurping power for themselves. 
The victorious President Rajapaksa in 2009, was a wounded president by 2015—no longer invincible and the glamour gone, he had to reinvent himself as the MP for Kurunegala. But we also know that those who are wounded can be more dangerous than those in power. They can go to any extent to come out of their corner. They cared little for democratic institutions during their reign and they won’t think twice about destroying them to return to power. It is such political devastation with the unleashing of chauvinist Sinhala Buddhist nationalism and attacks on democracy that can become the worrying trend. 

"The urgent priority for progressive forces and peoples movements is to invigorate the democratic ethos in the country and build inter-ethnic forums to arrest the polarisation"

In this context, there are extreme Tamil nationalist forces that are all too happy to return in kind with ethnic polarisation, as with the TNPF in the North and pro-LTTE sections of the Tamil diaspora. The nationalist extremes we know are objective friends, particularly in their march to power. 
During such times of crisis the political tendency can become a race to the bottom. Sections of the major parties, the UNP, the SLFP and the TNA, may pursue strategies of sounding more nationalist and socially conservative. But the reality is that they will not be able to beat the nationalists at their own game. If the Government and the various other political forces want to restrain the damage that can be unleashed by the Rajapaksas on their march to power, they have to change the terms of the game, and set the political agenda. 
A revamped economic programme with immediate gains for the rural economy should be the priority. From Sri Lanka’s political history we know that it is the rural constituencies that have swung elections and determined political trajectories. But that alone will not be enough, liberal democracies are most vulnerable when they are challenged by a reckless populist opponent. When the Government feels threatened, state power which is important for their stability should not be used for short-term political gains, but rather to strengthen democratic institutions. 
The urgent priority for progressive forces and peoples movements is to invigorate the democratic ethos in the country and build inter-ethnic forums to arrest the polarisation.

PM orders another inquiry into alleged police inaction in Ampara incident

Sun, Mar 4, 2018, 09:25 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.

Mar 04, Colombo: Sri Lanka's Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in his capacity as the Law & Order Minister has ordered another inquiry into the recent attacks on Muslim establishments in Ampara, as complaints of Police inaction have surfaced.

The Ministry of Law and Order in a statement said complaints have been received stating that there were evidence to suggest shortcomings when enforcing law and order in connection with the recent unfortunate incident in Ampara.

The Ministry said that complaints have been made that the B Report submitted to the Court on the incident by the Police is incomplete.

The law and order Ministry has instructed the Batticaloa DIG to conduct a complete investigation into the incident.

The Ministry states the Government will take measures to conduct an impartial and fair inquiry and also to build up public trust.

Measures have been taken to compensate the affected parties for those whose properties were damaged during the attacks. Plans have been made to pay compensation soon to renovate shops and mosques damaged in the incident.

The ministry also thanked the Maha Sanga and the Muslim clergy, who acted with responsibility to ensure peace during the period of tension, for their contribution to carry out the investigations.


The Ministry said that strict action will be taken against the perpetrators who instigated racial violence.

Ampara incidents: National unity, communal harmony at stake

Sunday, March 04, 2018

The anti-Muslim hate campaign which surfaced from around 2012 seems to be continuing unabated, erupting in different parts of the country at regular intervals.

Taking advantage of the democratic space created by the change in administration after January 2015, these hatemongers have manifested themselves in various new avatars such as Sinha Le, Mahason Balakaya and other motley groups spreading their evil message and creating insecurity among the Sinhalese community through a deadly cocktail of untruths, deception and deliberate misinterpretation.

Unfortunately, the Government for its part seems content on loosening the controls on free speech and democracy without taking adequate steps to prevent abuse of such freedoms. Hence the mischief makers are having a field day feeding the innocent public with baseless allegations designed to cause alarm among them and hatred against the minorities. This is true not only in the field of inter-communal relations but even in the political field where the Government’s unwillingness to communicate its achievements to the people as well as to counter-criticisms proved disastrous at the local council elections.

Last week’s incidents in Ampara where Muslim shops and a Muslim place of worship were attacked are worth examining to identify where things are going wrong. It begins with a drunken youth walking into an eatery called Cassim Hotel and ordering a rice-and-curry meal with meat curry. Upon being advised that the meat curry was over, he insisted that he be served with the meat that he so strongly desired.

This was followed by verbal and physical assaults on the cashier and the allegation that a fertility pill had been placed in the food. Almost on cue, a large mob had descended on the shop and thereafter went on an attacking spree where the eating house, other Muslim-owned shops in the vicinity and the mosque were damaged.

At first glance, the attack seems pre-planned and the argument in the hotel was only a pretext for the mob in waiting to move into action. How else can one explain such a crowd moving into action in the early hours of the morning when most people in rural Sri Lanka were in bed?

What is more disturbing is the action (inaction) of the Police when the riot erupted. There are allegations that despite the Police station being located in close proximity to the scene of the incident, the Police delayed in arriving. Apparently the Police were unable to quell the riot and reinforcements had to be rushed in from nearby Police stations and thereafter the STF too had to be summoned before some semblance of order could be brought about.

All this suggests that the rioters were engaged in their unlawful acts for a considerable period of time. In such a situation it is rather surprising that the Police were only able to arrest five suspects to produce in court. Contrast this with the action of the Tambuttegama Police who were able to arrest 59 suspects at the scene of the riot.

When the Police produced the suspects in court, there were large crowds in support of the suspects and there have been reports of pressure on the victims to settle the cases. There are also allegations that a Parliamentarian too was involved in support of the suspects.

All these are disturbing reports and it is important that an independent investigation is conducted to ascertain the truth or otherwise of all these allegations.

This becomes all the more important because this incident has coincided with the United Nations Human Rights Council deliberations as well as the report released by Amnesty International which has highlighted the continuing attacks on Christians and Muslims. These attacks only serve to draw unfavourable attention on Sri Lanka, with the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) condemning the incidents and international news agencies too carrying negative reports of the incidents.

What is most baffling is that in a country like Sri Lanka which boasts of being a mature democracy having a highly literate and educated citizenry, the public can be railroaded into the most irrational course of action on the strength of stories that may fit into a collection of Grimm’s fairy tales. Medical experts have repeatedly confirmed that there are no pills available anywhere that make people barren but these falsehoods continue to be spread through social media which can cause panic amidst innocent and not so discerning members of the public.

In the interest of preserving national harmony and dispelling untruths the State authorities and medical organisations like the Government Medical Officers Association (GMOA) and the Sri Lanka Medical Association (SLMA) should publicly state the correct position on the so-called sterility pills without any further delay.

What is even more surprising is that politicians who hold news conferences at the drop of a hat on even insignificant matters if they stand to gain politically are maintaining a loud silence on the Ampara incidents. Strong condemnations on these incidents will serve the national interest better than some of the topics they wax eloquent on at these news conferences.

Another unhappy feature of the current troubled times is the role of the media which can play a constructive role to clarify matters propagated by the mischief mongers. Investigative articles can highlight the truth about these so-called fertility pills, the miscreants who are orchestrating these attacks against the Muslims and other related matters. They can also compel politicians to speak out on these ugly incidents by questioning them at public events when they are seeking to get ‘voice cuts’ for broadcast.

The Government for its part needs to take tangible steps to remove the germs of racial and religious hate from society and create an enabling environment for national unity and communal harmony, for which Sri Lanka was a proud practitioner in the not too distant past.

Taking action against lawbreakers after the event is only damage control at best and will not cure the disease of hate speech and the spreading of communal disharmony.

(javidyusuf@gmail.com)

Sirisenas gone blind ! Father is environment minister, daughter is environment disaster monster ! Whither SL ?

(Lanka-e-News - 04.March.2018, 3.45PM) It is the bed of a tank which is most fertile, and If a  tank is to be protected , the environs where there is valuable fertility should be safeguarded like life. That is why such a zone is demarcated as a reserve  zone , and even plucking a leaf in that zone is considered as a punishable offence ,leave alone the devastation caused to   it by president’s family.

While such  is the scrupulous protection that zone ought to be provided , Dudley Sirisena the brother of president Sirisena and the latter’s daughter Chathurika have deemed it right to build luxury hotels along the periphery of the Parakrama Samudraya tank detrimental to the environment   in spite of the fact,  Parakrama Samudraya tank  is considered as a great treasure of the country , and should therefore be carefully safeguarded .

What is rudely shocking is ,  Dudley built his hotel during the last regime, but Chathurika built her hotel ‘Thidas arana Lake’ after her president father was installed in office.

It is  by now an undeniable fact ,’his excellency’ the   ‘honor –rubble ’ minister of environment has only so far succeeded in  demonstrating day in and day out to the nation  he is not worth his salt . In keeping with his lop sided policies instead of  protecting the environment , he is allowing his family and daughter to treat  a monumental treasure of the country as a plaything.

After Lanka e news always first with the news and best with the views espousing the cause of truth , exposed the luxury hotel ‘Thidas Arana Lake’of Chaturika on the  2nd , we have received many more photographs of that hotel . Based on the aerial view of the hotel it is most clear Chahurika had built this hotel absolutely unlawfully.  Chathurika of course  is making money even by selling the elephants that come to drink water from the bank of the Dam.  These elephants which come into the vicinity of the hotel are having no protection at all nor is there any guarantee for their safety .The poor Tachyderms  are that unsafe.

What Is even more  interesting and intriguing is, while her father is talking loudly and proudly about his ‘mathata thitha’  attitude towards liquor, and is even crowing from roof tops against smoking , his own daughter is providing  free liquor to the drivers of buses who are transporting tourists to her hotel  following faithfully ‘mathata hitha’ policies diametrically opposed to her proud father’s much publicized ‘mathata thitha’ .

 Of course like  father who would sacrifice any national and patriotic interest at the altar of his selfish self interests , her overriding concern too is promotion of her own business compromising all national concerns.  

In a country like Sri Lanka where ten –twelve environmental organizations panic and  get perturbed , even if an offering is kicked , these same  organizations  remaining  deaf, dumb and blind to the irretrievable disaster that is being wreaked on the environment , as long as their pockets are adequately filled by Sirisenas , is most deplorable, despicable  and disgraceful.  

Previously in our news report it was revealed , the precious water that is meant for the cultivation of farmers of   ‘Parakrama Samudraya’,  instead of being saved are being wasted  by opening the sluice gates of Parakrama Samudraya , for the only reason  to rescue the hotel of Sirisena family from getting inundated.

Connected Report
‘Every precious drop of water from the sky shall be diverted to the sea to save Polonnaruwa hotels of Sirisenas ‘ -Parakrama Bahu the great 

---------------------------
by     (2018-03-04 21:45:43)