The Constitution, the Judiciary, and Citizens

By Jayadeva Uyangoda-November 27, 2018, 9:16 pm 

My wife, like many of her fellow citizens these days, has become very interested in learning about our Constitution and its 19th Amendment. She even borrowed from me a copy of the Constitution to read. The other day, she forwarded to me a social media post that carried a quote from Abraham Lincoln. It read as follows: "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who would subvert the Constitution."

Meanwhile, a friend, who is in regular touch with the Tamil and Muslim political parties, told me: "You know, they (the minority parties) are extremely worried about the way in which President Sirisena is treating the Constitution. Minorities cannot fully trust politicians and their promises, whether they are in the UNP, SLFP or any other party. They can only trust the Constitution; therefore, for them it is the Supreme Law of the land. That is why they feel that the constitution should be held inviolable. "I agreed. "If the Constitution is abused so blatantly and interpreted so haphazardly by people in power, what is the state institution they can trust?" asked my friend to whom I answered: "Well, the Supreme Court is the last bastion of democracy for all citizens. If it fails, we all will fail, both the majority and the minorities."

Citizens as Third Party

Sri Lanka’s political crisis has now come before the courts –the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal – for arbitration. Each side engaged in the ongoing power struggle obviously expects the judiciary to rule in its favour.

Yet, there is a third party, a silent party, to this litigation that is not represented by counsel. That party are the citizens, ‘rightful masters’ of the executive, parliament and the judiciary, according to Articles 3 and 4 of the constitution, which will no doubt be cited in these cases quite fervently by the lawyers on behalf of their clients. Citizens can only expect that the judges are the counsel for the citizens and their rights, unsolicited defenders of their rights, freedom, democracy, and ultimately the democratic future of generations to come.

This unique role for Sri Lanka’s judiciary, as expected by citizens, has come into being under specific circumstances that have also provided the political context for the current constitutional controversy. The sudden removal of a sitting prime minister and appointment of a new one, and a week later, the dissolution of parliament by the head of the executive, by virtue of the authority given under general clauses of the constitution, and ignoring other substantive clauses that defined the ways in which the executive powers should really be exercised in concrete circumstances, created a massive constitutional confusion.

From Confusion to Havoc

This confusion soon led to a situation of havoc when some leading lawyers and a retired chief justice explained and justified the three actions of the President by arguing that some ‘loopholes’ in the 19th Amendment had opened the doors for such unilateral action on technical grounds.

Now, citizens who have earlier been told by legal scholars, such as former law professors, to view the country’s Constitution as the ‘supreme law of the land’ and hold it as embodying ‘a sacred covenant’ between the rulers and the ruled, were perplexed by this approach to the Constitution. Is a constitution to be understood in relation to its linguistic or technical loopholes, or on the basis of its normative foundations and core conceptual assumptions? What is so supreme or sacred about a constitution, which we learn in the secondary school to right with capital ‘C’, if it is interpreted with reference to its so-called loopholes? Obviously, this is an issue that will come before the judges for contemplation and determination in the days ahead.

Core Values

Now, delineating the normative foundations and core values of Sri Lanka’s present Constitution is also a task before the court given the conflicting approaches to the constitution pursued by different parties to the present controversy. Core values of a democratic constitution define not only powers of each organ of the state and individual who hold political power, but also limits of the scope as well as the exercise of constitutionally authorized power.

The absence of an intellectual tradition of constitutional values and constitutional morality in our country, unlike in the neighboring India, makes the task all the more difficult.

This in a way offers a historical opportunity for our Supreme Court to make use of the current constitutional litigations to at least lay down the basic principles of constitutionalism and constitutional morality that should govern the ruels and limits of the exercise of political power by those who hold it.

Two Approaches

There are two main approaches of constitutional interpretation in contention. The first, advanced on behalf of the head of the executive, is to interpret the clauses of the 19th Amendment as a minor tinkering the original 1978 Constitution as well as the 18th Amendment. This approach makes the argument that the 19th Amendment retains unaltered the basic framework of the executive presidential system, introduced by the 1978 original constitution and later enhanced by the 18th Amendment, and therefore the three actions by President Sirisena in late October and early November were well within the presidential powers he is entitled to.

This approach, in effect, seeks to bring back, and revalidate, the 18th Amendment, through the backdoor. That, of course, is also the objective of those who vehemently opposed the constitutional reforms brought about by the 19th amendment in 2015.

The other approach proposes the view that the 19th Amendment (a) substantially reduced the powers of the President as defined by the original 1978 constitution and enhanced by the 18th Amendment, and (b) created a Cabinet and a Parliament, free from arbitrary and unilateral control by the head of the executive.

In other words, the 19th Amendment is credited to having created a new balance of institutional power between the President, Prime Minister and Government, and Parliament, while retaining a limited range of transitional powers for the office of the President until his terms comes to an end. In this new balance of institutional power, presidential action in appointing a Prime Minister, removing a Prime Minister from office, and dissolving Parliament are not discretionary or absolute, but conditional to limits that are set out in the constitution itself.

Full Circle

As citizens, we do not know how the Court will respond to these two contending approaches to the present constitutional controversy. But citizens, as holders of sovereignty, have every right to expect that the Court’s determination will advance the interests of the country’s contemporary democratization process that began with a widely held political argument that Sri Lanka’s presidential system, introduced by the 1978 Constitution, should be either totally abolished, or substantially reformed.

Meanwhile, the enhancement of Presidential powers through the 18th Amendment was not the outcome of a popular demand on grounds of democratization. On the contrary, it was a wish fulfillment of one leader who happened to be the country’s President at the time. And it damaged Sri Lanka’s democracy, and citizens’ rights and freedoms, and democratic institutions, including the judiciary, in a manner that citizens still struggle to forget.

Now, Sri Lanka’s stakes for democratization have come full circle. Should the country see the dreaded 18th Amendment being brought back through the backdoor and watch how the gains of the democratic struggle, however limited they are, reversed once again because of the whims an fancies of another individual in power?

Citizens of Sri Lanka have a right to hope and pray that their judges, in this moment in which their democratic destiny is at the crossroads, will make the right decision.

Sovereignty and some poetry

President Maithripala Sirisena has convinced himself that he has acted strictly within the powers vested in him. He does not see any absurdity, ambiguity or anomaly in replacing Ranil Wickremesinghe’s ‘crony’ plutarchy with Mahinda Rajapaksa’s family oligarchy

– Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

Tuesday, 27 November 2018

At his Sunday meeting with foreign correspondents, President Sirisena did not play any trump cards. It appears that he has either put all his cards on the table or has run out of trumps.
He will not reappoint Ranil Wickremesinghe. He has wiped the slate clean with Mahinda Rajapaksa. He has concluded that the former President is a forward-thinking type in comparison to Ranil, whom he has likened to a privileged Pinocchio with a duplicitous nose as drawn out as the bond commission report.

He has convinced himself that he has acted strictly within the powers vested in him. He does not see any absurdity, ambiguity or anomaly in replacing Ranil’s ‘crony’ plutarchy with Mahinda’s family oligarchy.

President Sirisena will not reappoint Ranil Wickremesinghe. He has wiped the slate clean with Mahinda Rajapaksa. He has concluded that the former President is a forward-thinking type in comparison to Ranil, whom he has likened to a privileged Pinocchio with a duplicitous nose as drawn out as the bond commission report

This insistence by President Sirisena on his monopoly of truth and authority is what Hitler’s crown jurist Carl Schmitt defined as ‘Sovereign exceptionalism.’ Sirisena may not know it. But he is relying on the same thought process used by all Fascists known in history.

Modern constitutional law subscribing to the concept of sovereignty in ‘We the people’ does not acknowledge a single bearer of sovereign authority.

Schmidt in his tract ‘Political Theology’ argues that ‘there can be no functioning legal order without a sovereign authority’ – the same argument that neo fascists such as Wimal Weerawansa, Vasudeva Nanayakkara and Dinesh Gunewardene make in their call for a centralised presidency. We must not blame Mahinda Rajapaksa. He did not either vote for or advocate the 19th Amendment. That man has principles and disciples who pounce on them!

The pro-fascist jurist Carl Schmitt in his ‘Political Theology’ asserts that a “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception”. That is precisely the warped logic relied on by the High Priest of the Kelaniya Temple and the ‘Podi Hamuduruwo’ of Hunupitiya Gangaramaya when they heartily endorsed Sirisena’s new choice of a Prime Minister. To them ‘sovereignty’ is not the collective will of the people but of decision and domination – the personal privilege of the ruler.

Restoring the premiership of the privileged Pinocchio is not our concern. But we must read the signs of these dark times unerringly.

It was fascinating to watch Dinesh Gunawardena delivering his homily on why a minority should make up a majority in the standing committee planning the business of the House. These atrocious perversions in Parliament were made by serious politicians who know what they are talking about.

Watching the perfidy of Dinesh Gunewardene, though painful held out some hope for the future.

Such forays into political madness have their limitations. The Marxist philosopher Adorno writing in exile described the early days of Hitler’s rise. In his ‘Minima Moralia: Reflections of Damaged Life,’ he says, “No one who observed the first month of national socialism could fail to perceive the moment of mortal sadness, of half knowing surrender to perdition that accompanied the manipulated intoxication, the torch light processions and drum beating.”

Do those words not sound familiar to us in Sri Lanka in the tail-end of year 2018? Do we not experience a sadness in intoxication, experiencing a catastrophe when we were hoping to celebrate democratic renewal and death when we hoped to feel the birth pangs of a society governed by the rule of law?

Let us take stock of the situation.

This insistence by President Sirisena on his monopoly of truth and authority is what Hitler’s crown jurist Carl Schmitt defined as ‘Sovereign exceptionalism.’ Sirisena may not know it. But he is relying on the same thought process used by all Fascists known in history

Someone has precipitated a parliamentary crisis. What happens then?

Corrupt and inefficient politicians are denounced. The threat of anarchy and disorder has to be met with decisive historic action by the patriotic leadership. Breakdown of public order, inflation, economic decline and national interest demands a strong government to save the country. This is not the text of a filing by a Colombo-based foreign correspondent who attended last Sunday’s press briefing by President Sirisena.

It is a rough synopsis of page 382 of the book ‘Fascism – Past, Present and Future’ by Historian Walter Laquer. He reminds us that Fascism is always a movement of protest and discontent. But we must ask, ‘Who is protesting and whose discontent are they voicing?’

Fascism has many shades and many names. People are attracted to Fascism or some shade of it for a variety of reasons. But there is one principal factor that precipitates the descent in to the horror of fascism – it is a manifestation of a moral and a cultural crisis in which traditional values, religious as well as humanist no longer act as restraints and as guarantees of political decency. Fascism arises when democracy develops a delirium.

Hitler came to power by undermining a democratic constitution. The first article of that democratic constitution stated simply with no adornment that power of the state proceeds from the people.

After Hitler became Chancellor, the German playwright Bertolt Brecht wrote a fabulously ferocious poem about what happened to the power that proceeded from the people. It makes great reading today.

---

Poem by Bertolt Brecht

From the People proceeds

the power of the State.

But where does it proceed to?

Yes, where is it proceeding to?

There’s some place it’s

proceeding to.

The policeman proceeds through the

station gate.

But where does he proceed to?

Look, there’s the whole lot on the march.

But where are they marching to?

Yes, where are they marching to?

There’s some place they are marching to.

They wheel through the gate and under the arch.

But where are they wheeling to?

The power of the State turns right about.

Something is in the air.

What can be in the air?

There’s something in the air.

The power of the State

gives a piercing shout

And yells: Get moving there!

But moving why and where?

It yells: Get moving there!

Sri Lanka: All eyes on Supreme Court again

Should the President and Parliament fail to find a solution, the ball may go back to the Supreme Court.

• N SATHIYA MOORTHY-NOV 26 2018

The continuing constitutional impasse in Sri Lanka, as is becoming increasingly clear, owes to the entrenched positions of individual political parties and the predictable behaviour of their respective leaderships. With the result, each one of them is playing to buy time from the other, until possibly the Supreme Court steps in again, when the pending challenge to President Maithripala Sirisena’s dissolution of Parliament comes up for hearing on 7 December.

The parliamentary sessions during the current interregnum owes to three-Judge Bench of the court, headed by Chief Justice Nalin Perera, granting an interim stay of the President’s Gazette notification on the dissolution of the House. With the court not clarifying if the House could transact any substantive business as Budget-presentation, debate and vote, or trust/no-trust motion and vote, it was left to Speaker Karu Jayasuriya to decide on the mode and method of business transaction, since.

It is here that the ‘Treasury Bench’ represented by Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and the other side identified with his predecessor Ranil Wickremesinghe are divided over the rules of procedure to be adopted. Given that the Supreme Court has not placed any restrictions on the Speaker, the Rajapaksa team argues that he should consult them as the ‘Government’ of the day in deciding on the daily agenda of the House, as has been the tradition.

According to them, this alleged violation of procedure by Speaker Jayasuriya, which alone is to blame for the unruly scenes when the House met on two separate days to vote on the no-trust motion against the Rajapaksa Government. Pending the court’s interim stay, they had told newsmen that only a Speaker-chaired party leaders’ meeting could decide on the timing of the no-trust debate and vote. In context, they also recall how Speaker Jayasuriya had held back by months’ debate and vote on no-trust motions against Ministers Ravi Karunanayake, Rajitha Senaratne and even Prime Minister Wickremesinghe.

As they quiz: “How come the Speaker accepts a no-trust motion against the Rajapaksa Government immediately after presentation, calls for a vote in just ten minutes — and on both occasions?” It is another matter none in the Rajapaksa camp has declared that they could defeat a no-trust vote if the Speaker followed the ‘procedures’, as declared by them. The fact remains that despite the Wickremesinghe team claiming to have the support of 122 or at times 128 members voting in favour of the no-trust motion against the Rajapaksa dispensation, none of them is able to declare that they themselves have the requisite 113-member backing for returning to power.

Differing preferences

Despite whatever they may say for the record, the Wickremesinghe-led UNP was not so sure of winning fresh parliamentary elections until Sirisena did them a favour by his twin constitutional crises. The first one involved the replacement of Wickremesinghe with Rajapaksa as Prime Minister. A fortnight later, he followed up on it with another dead-locked situation of ‘dissolving Parliament,’ which has since been stayed by the Supreme Court.

Though the UNP’s stars have lit up slightly more after the presidential actions, it remains to be seen if such sympathy would translate into a high number of ‘additional votes’ adding to the existing rank of ‘traditional UNP votes.’ In the present circumstances, the UNP would prefer twin polls to the presidency and Parliament, as they see Sirisena as having lost whatever charm he might have had for the voters, and two no ‘known Rajapaksa’ is qualified to contest the election. Where one of them as former Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa is qualified, he is disinterested in contesting the presidential polls.

Against the UNP, Rajapaksa preferred early polls, going by his steady 45 percent vote-share, and would have been comfortable as ‘interim/acting’ Prime Minister, which is what he is at present. Despite Speaker Jayasuriya declaring the passage of the no-trust motion against Rajapaksa on two different occasions, President Sirisena has refused to accept them. Without saying as much to the Opposition interlocutors, Sirisena seems wanting to wait until after the 7 December Supreme Court hearing before taking a stand. In the interim, he is said to be not unwilling to accept as Prime Minister any UNP leader other than Wickremesinghe.

Then, there are the decisive votes of the 15-member Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and the six-strong Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP). Together, they are opposed to Rajapaksa’s return. At one point, the TNA gave the impression that they preferred politics/policies to personalities, and was willing to support whoever gave the Tamils the best bargain in the form of a political solution to the ethnic issue.

Now, the JVP has reiterated its position it would oppose a Government headed by both Rajapaksa and the UNP (starting with Ranil, not excluding other leaders of the party). The TNA remains ambiguous at it just now, but then the Diaspora-driven sections of the Tamil social media has questioned the reason and justification for party MP, M.A. Sumanthiran, to move the no-trust motion against Rajapaksa in the place of an UNP counterpart, that too when they did not have the gumption to move any on ‘Tamil issues’ through the three-plus years of Wickremesinghe rule.

It is unclear if the JVP could be persuaded to back a non-Wickremesinghe, non-Rajapaksa Government, but if remains firm, it could imply that the party was favouring fresh elections like the latter. The TNA was a divided house, so to say, until the Sirisena-Rajapaksa team wooed one MP from the original total of 16, to join the Government as a junior minister. This however does not mean that all 15 will remain united, as could have been assumed on earlier occasions — especially if they were sure that Rajapaksa would not return to power, and they would not have to answer their constituents’ questions on ‘war crimes’ attending on the Rajapaksa presidency in the past.

Court holds the key

Should the President and Parliament fail to find a solution, the ball may go back to the Supreme Court, where a Rajapaksa spokesman had said last week, that they would seek a five-Judge Bench to hear the all-important constitutional case. The court may/may not clarify the intent behind granting interim stay to the President’s dissolution order. The order is different from the interim stay for the Election Commission not to proceed with fresh parliamentary polls, scheduled then for 5 January.

In the absence of precedents to the contrary, the top court may be asked to pass verdicts on the ‘sacking’ of Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, and then the ‘dissolution of Parliament.’ Before that it would have to hear all parties, including the President, the political stake-holders to the crisis, the petitioners, and possibly the Speaker, too. In a way, theirs would be a landmark verdict in the Sri Lankan context, a precedent, a reference-point and more. It could possibly do for the Executive Presidency, what political promises of ‘curtailment’ did not do, but then that question is still open, at least as of now.

Honourable Justices of the Supreme Court: It’s not a slogan Make Sri Lanka sane again

“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”~Friedrich Nietzsche

2018-11-28

The dissolution of Parliament is once again being challenged before a Fuller Bench. This writer believes in and dedicated to the rule of law and unmitigated justice. The writer also has utmost reverence to those magnificent men and women who preside over the fate and destinies of many a man and woman, many an organization and many a company.

• The Supreme Court cannot see things as they outwardly appear, it needs to go further into the interior
• The infamous dissolution will again be before the Supreme Court which will consist of seven judges
• the Accommodation of one party should not be viewed by the other as a sign of weakness
• If the Supreme Court decides against, he must most politely and humbly accede to the decision

Those who sit in eventual judgment on a case firstly look at the facts of a case and secondly the law that applies to those what was revealed as facts before them. Most Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court, more often than not, have almost always delivered their judgments on the right side justice and on the right side of righteousness. Now the infamous dissolution of Parliament will again be argued for and against before the Supreme Court which will consist of seven, instead of the original three.
The Attorney General (AG), the Chief Law Officer of the Executive asked for a fuller bench, and he got it.

On December 7, 2018, the AG has to buttress his case for dissolution of Parliament. Definitions and intentions of the framers of the Constitution and its Chapters, Articles and Clauses, their validity in relation to the current impasse of governance and the political turmoil, the very act of dissolution as was demonstrated so vividly and in no unambiguous terms by some political ruffians who have been elected to Parliament, will all be argued before a fuller Bench of the Supreme Court. One couldn’t ask for a fairer resolution of the current crisis.

But one must be wiser. One must be more patient and even more accommodating. But that accommodation of one party should not be viewed by the other as a sign of weakness. There is space for accommodation. In politics, everything is possible. But there is no cure for pathological greed. Being avaricious is an intrinsic character of all beings. Humans are not spared of that quality. Yet society, in its evolution from the days of the Neanderthal, cave dweller of the prehistoric era, has developed both internal and external safeguards for the greater good of greater numbers against the grisly consequences of such avarice.
Rajapaksas, the former First Family (albeit their claim as the current one too), their close cohorts, some Parliamentarians who were elected in the 2015 August General Election and the majority of the media organizations in the country were all on a nauseatingly high ego-trip. Wresting the Premiership from the legitimate and rightfully elected owner of that position has given them some breathing room and they seem to be choking in their own breaths and sighs.

Having been in power for more than two decades and their proximity to the obscene luxuries and corrupt and powerful drawing rooms of more corrupt powerful politicos, shedding of that magic from their daily life is exceedingly hard; their natural tendencies to treat their constituents as serfs of that magical potion of power and their regular visits to their paramours have been made irregular and more difficult.

These negative effects of defeat at elections have driven them insane. That insanity was so demonstrably manifest in Parliament.

Insanity is a rotten symptom of a more dangerous ailment. Some of these Parliamentarians who behaved as if they were nearing their Armageddon of their political careers, truly made a sheer mockery of Parliamentary Traditions.

Left unto themselves, they must be utterly obnoxious men and women. What was granted to them, in most conventional and layman-terms, was uncommon and illegitimate. Whether it is also illegal and unconstitutional will be subject to the judicial decision of the seven-bench Supreme Court that will sit on December 7. Fraudulent and dishonest acts will have very adverse and nasty consequences, for both sides of any controversy.

The controversy of the dissolution of Parliament has totally gripped the country, its economy, its socio-political life and its Legislature. The resultant inactivity on the part of our government servants has surpassed their regular lethargy and complacency. During these days, they are glued to a television screen when Parliament is on the session.

Conversation is, sometimes exclusively, about who is jumping and who is not and from which side to which depends on the political allegiance of those who engage in such idol conversation. Insanity has set in among all those who are wishfully waiting for the reemergence of an era of corruption and family-rule. The sanity of regular men and women in our society is still intact.


Yet, that of our politicians of the Rajapaksa-clan is very much questionable. With their intelligence-upstairs ‘to let’, a behaviour denoting a severe malignancy of some sort and countenance of that behaviour by their so-called leader are all part and parcel of symptoms which are much lesser in strength than the disease. The disease is much more incurable and more impenetrable even for an expert surgeon.

What has happened to our levels of intelligence? What has eaten into our skin that could prevent such demonic conduct, especially on the part of our political leaders?

People see the outer reaction and make their initial judgment. I’m sure such judgments are rarely wrong and seldom disputed. Distortion of what could be visible to the naked eye, such as saying that it’s Coca-Cola mixed with water that was thrown at Jayawickrama Perera was pathetic. If such dishonest and dishonourable conduct and utterances are really believed by those who committed the original sin, what another word one could describe such inhuman behaviour other than insane?

The common man has already made his judgment. He has arrived at a non-nuanced verdict. Devoid of late-night analysis and Monday morning-quarterbacking, the regular common man does not see any shades of uncertainty. He sees insanity as insanity; he sees right as right and wrong as wrong; no doubts and no second-guessing.

But the Supreme Court of the land cannot see things as they outwardly appear; they need to go further into the interior, penetrate the outer skin and go into the bone and marrow of arguments for and against and then decide whether the dissolution of Parliament on November 9, 2018, is Constitutional or not.

It has already suspended that dissolution and given time till December 7 to both parties to the decision to present arguments for their respective positions. Decisions of the Supreme Court are final. There are no appeals from the Supreme Court. There is no Crown above the Supreme Court. It is therefore supreme in every sense of the word.

The country is eagerly awaiting the verdict. It may be that one part of the controversy is the Chief executive of our country, President Maithripala Sirisena. But both the Supreme Court and Maithripala Sirisena must realize that it is not Maithripala Sirisena the private individual whose decision is at stake; it is the ruling of the President of this country and it is his ruling, the President’s ruling that is at stake.

Some Parliamentarians who behaved as if they were nearing their Armageddon of their political careers, truly made a sheer mockery of Parliamentary Traditions

The burden of leadership is so great that only those who dare to carry it without any favour or fervour could carry it to the end. Occupying that lonely abode of leadership should not be treated as a prize won after a competition. It is the weight that people place on him or her because they themselves cannot carry it. Such challenges and harsh burdens are indeed an enormous privilege.

Such privileges should be treated as such- privileges and challenges. Greatness has summoned Maithripala Sirisena, the President. If the Supreme Court decides against his decree to dissolve Parliament, he must most politely and humbly accede to the decision and leave the matter at the hands of the Legislature.

If the Legislature takes the decision, even under the most difficult and unbelievable circumstances, that decision needs to be carried out without favour or fervour.

Therein resides the gravity of the Supreme Court. Annals of our court system have not seen a decision of such magnitude and scope, a decision of such weight and burden and a decision of such historic consequence and legacy. The Justices will be remembered for the decision they render on the dissolution of Parliament. This decision will be their legacy. The decision to make Sri Lanka sane again is one of supreme consequence.

The writer can be contacted at vishwamithra1984@gmail.com

Perceptions Not Facts Driving The Public Discourse

By Neville Ladduwahetty-November 27, 2018, 9:15 pm 

What is starkly evident from the views expressed in the print media and talk shows by commentators of various hues is the divergence between perception and facts relating to the current political situation in the country. The comments given below relate only to the working of a Presidential system of Government as reflected in the 1978 Constitution and its Amendments. The reason for doing so is because the current political situation in Sri Lanka has to be addressed from this perspective and none other.

The tendency to judge current events from the perspective of a Parliamentary System that prevailed under the 1972 Constitution manifests itself every now and then. For instance, a common perception is that the 19th Amendment has transformed a Presidential system into a Parliamentary system because certain powers of the President were curtailed. The fact, however, is that although certain powers of the President were curtailed, its extent did not impact on the core principles of the separation of powers and its related inalienability. Consequently, the Presidential system remains intact.

PRESIDENT of the REPUBLIC

The concept of the Head of the Executive being responsible to the National State Assembly was first introduced in Article 91 in the 1972 Constitution. This Article states: "The President shall be responsible to the National State Assembly for the due execution and performance…" Both Articles 42 of the 1978 Constitution and Article 33A of the 19th Amendment also similarly state: "The President shall be responsible to Parliament for the due exercise and performance…"

The Supreme Court conveying its opinion on the 19th Amendment stated:

"In fact, Mr. Sumanthiran contended that Article 42 is identical to the provision in the 1st Republican Constitution of 1972, which stated in Article 91 that ‘ the President shall be responsible to the National State Assembly for the due execution and performance of the powers and functions of his office under the Constitution…" "Thus the position of the President vis-à-vis the legislature, in which the President is responsible to the legislature, was introduced by the 1978 Constitution." (S.D. No. 04/2015).

While the proposition that "the President is responsible to the legislature" is appropriate within the framework a Parliamentary system, it is constitutionally flawed to incorporate such a proposition within a Presidential system the foundation of which is the separation of powers. The reason being that a President under a Parliamentary system (1972 Constitution) was a citizen who is "nominated by the Prime Minister for the Office" (Article 25) and NOT one elected either by Parliament or by the People. Therefore, the only body such a "nominated" President should be responsible to has to be the National State Assembly that is responsible for exercising the sovereignty of the People and as the "the supreme instrument of State power of the Republic", COLLECTIVELY exercises the legislative power of the People, the executive power of the People and the judicial power of the People.

This is in sharp contrast to a President who is directly elected by the People on whom the People have conferred their sovereign executive power as stated in the 1978 Constitution. This power starts with the sovereignty of the People as stated in Article 3 (below) of the 1978 Constitution.

Article 3 states: "In the Republic of Sri Lanka sovereignty is in the People and is inalienable. Sovereignty includes the powers of government, fundamental rights and the franchise".

Article 4 states" "The sovereignty of the People shall be exercised and enjoyed in the following manner:

(a) "the legislative power of the People shall be exercised by Parliament, consisting of elected representatives of the People and by the People at a Referendum"

(b) "the executive power of the People, including the defence of Sri Lanka, shall be exercised by the President of the Republic elected by the People"

It is clearly evident from the foregoing that both the 1978 Constitution and the 19th Amendment embody provisions of a Presidential system. Therefore, since powers under such a system are separate and inalienable, a President as the Head of one organ of government responsible for the exercise of executive powers of the People cannot be responsible to another organ of government – the legislature. Consequently, any attempt to blindly incorporate provisions from one to the other without recognizing the context in which each operates, should be unacceptable. Therefore, Article 42 in the 1978 Constitution and Article 33A in the 19th Amendment should be repealed for constitutional correctness.

CABINET of MINISTERS

Article 42(2) of the 19th Amendment states: "The Cabinet of Ministers shall be collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament" and Article 42(3) states: "the President shall be a member of the Cabinet of Ministers and shall be the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers."

If as per Article 4(b) of the 1978 Constitution, the executive power of the People is exercised by the President and the President is NOT required to be "responsible" or "answerable" to anyone other than the People based on the material presented above, how can the Cabinet with the President as its Head be "responsible and answerable to Parliament"?

In the particular context of Sri Lanka the Cabinet is made up of Members of Parliament. They do not sever their connections with Parliament. Consequently, Members of the Cabinet have no direct link with the People in respect of executive functions. They "derive the authority from the President or exercise the Executive power vested in the President as a delegate of the President" (S.D. No. 04/2015) to help and assist the President to fulfil his commitments to the People. Therefore, if the President is not satisfied with the "direction and control of the Government", he is entitled to "at any time change the assignment of subjects and functions and the composition of the Cabinet of Ministers…" (Article 43(3) of the 19th Amendment and Article 44(3) of the 1978 Constitution). This makes the undue recognition given to the Prime Minister regarding the selection of Cabinet Ministers overrated.

The impact of these provisions is that when the President and the majority in Parliament are from the same political party, the Executive and the Legislature are in harmony and the beneficiaries are the People. On the other hand, if the President is from one political party and the majority in Parliament represents a different political party the system could become unworkable to the point of a complete gridlock as it is presently in Sri Lanka. This is no different to a Republican President in the USA having to deal with a Democratic majority in Congress.

Such challenges are an inherent feature of the system. If General Elections are held for the express purpose of forging majorities in Parliament every time there is political misalignment between the President and Parliament the system would be discredited. Therefore, it is imperative that compromises are made by all concerned to make the Presidential system work because of its overall merits and its appropriateness to the contextual particularities of Sri Lanka.

DISSOLUTION of PARLIAMENT

Parliament was dissolved under provisions of Article 33 (2) (c) on November 9, 2018. This action was seen as unconstitutional by some critics, who object to the view that Article 33 (2) (c) is a stand-alone Article, and does not take into consideration related Articles such as revised Article 70(1).

The 19th Amendment repealed the provision for the President to "summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament" within one year of a General Election unless a request is made by Parliament to the President (Article 70 (1) of the 1978 Constitution) and substituted it with the following: "The President may by Proclamation, "summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament": Provided that the President shall not dissolve Parliament until the expiration of a period of not less than four years and six months…unless Parliament requests the President to do so by resolution passed by not less than two-thirds…".

This substitution denies the President the discretionary powers he had as Head of State for four and half years and grants Parliament with a two third majority to request the dissolution of Parliament within six months or even less after a General Election. Since this amounts to a "transfer, relinquishment or removal of a power attributed to one organ of government to another organ or body (it) would be inconsistent with Article 3 read with Article 4 of the Constitution" (S.D. No. 04/2018). Furthermore, the opportunity for Parliament to exercise the right to request the dissolution of Parliament could be exploited by political formations to secure majorities in Parliament that are either supportive or otherwise of the political affiliations of the President, thereby exploiting constitutional constraints for political gain. More importantly, restraining the Executive from exercising his discretion to dissolve Parliament for four and a half years even if warranted by reasons of national security requires that provision is made elsewhere for the President to act independent of Parliament to ensure inalienability of the power of the Executive from the rest. Such a safety valve is provided in Article 33 (2) (c); a provision that was not incorporated in the 1978 Constitution and therefore is exclusive to the 19th Amendment. Clearly, Article 33(2) (c) exists because of the repeal of Article 70(1) in the 1978 Constitution.

CONCLUSION

The perception that the 19th Amendment transformed a Presidential system into a Parliamentary system and that the President is responsible to Parliament are two seriously flawed notions. The facts are that the Presidential system as embodied in the 1978 Constitution is very much intact, and since such a system is founded on the separation of powers that are inalienable, the President and the Cabinet cannot be required to be "responsible to Parliament".

The repeal of Article 70(1) in the 1978 Constitution that empowered the President to use his discretion to dissolve Parliament after its first year, and extend it for four and a half years made it necessary to incorporate it under Article 33(2) as 33(2)(c), thereby restoring his discretionary powers to meet exigencies such as break down of government and national security. This provision in the 19th Amendment must be seen as none other than from a constitutional necessity perspective, for the stability of the Sri Lanka State; a necessity that was recognized and granted to a "nominated" President without time limits in the 1972 Constitution.

Whatever the constitutional provisions it is the art of the possible that has to be forged through reasoned compromise by all concerned.

When we came abreast of the crevasse

UNP strongmen MPs Eran Wickramaratne, Mangala Samaraweera and Dr. Harsha de Silva

– Pic by Sameera Wijesinghe

Tuesday, 27 November 2018

Three UNP strongmen, MPs Eran Wickramaratne, Dr. Harsha de Silva and Mangala Samaraweera in a recent public statement declared that the “economy is at edge of “abyss”!
The sum total of their predicament is as follows:

• Political turmoil which has led to a credit rate downgrading;
• Challenging debt payments leading to higher interest rates;
• As Speaker has said Cabinet is dissolved Finance Minister cannot obtain money from consolidated fund;
• Wants the President to accept their decisions so that the budget can be passed;

Except the credit rate downgrading, Mangala Samaraweera and company are responsible for all others.

We are aware that the UNP was in complete control of the economic affairs of the Government till 26 October, continuously being at the helm, from 2015 January.

 We are aware that the UNP was in complete control of the economic affairs of the Government till 26 October, continuously being at the helm, from 2015 January. The current warning and the splash came in the wake of an announcement by Moody’s Investors Service stating that they have downgraded the GOSL foreign currency issuer and senior unsecured ratings to B2 from B1 and the Outlook from Negative to Stable. However, the CBSL which is established under the Monetary law Act to administer and regulate the monetary system of the country. Immediately following Moody’s statement, announced that Moody’s rating decision is unfounded. In absolute economic terms CBSL has confidently reassured the manageable position of the economy based on Active Liability Management initiatives already in place which were even endorsed at the recent review stage of the IMF’s Extended Fund Facility

The current warning and the splash came in the wake of an announcement by Moody’s Investors Service stating that they have downgraded the GOSL foreign currency issuer and senior unsecured ratings to B2 from B1 and the Outlook from Negative to Stable.

However, the CBSL which is established under the Monetary law Act to administer and regulate the monetary system of the country. Immediately following Moody’s statement, announced that Moody’s rating decision is unfounded. CBSL gave the following reasoning:

• There is no change in the macroeconomic policies;
• Steps are taken to maintain adequate reserve levels and to raise funds for debt repayments;
• Detailed out the possible swaps with friendly countries;
• Improved domestic financing systems ensuring better debt management. 

In absolute economic terms CBSL has confidently reassured the manageable position of the economy based on Active Liability Management initiatives already in place which were even endorsed at the recent review stage of the IMF’s Extended Fund Facility.

The country is faced with the dilemma of whom to believe on this issue, Mangala Samaraweera and company harbouring a grievance on account of their unexpected termination or the CBSL charged with the duty of securing economic and price stability and financial system stability of the country.

 According to its track record, the CBSL has NOT failed to date in fulfilling any of these wider objectives despite the slamming and tarnishing of its image by Mahendran who was appointed as its Governor at the insistence of Ranil Wickremesinghe, the then Minister in charge of the CBSL, who is now a fugitive evading arrest for an alleged financial crime committed during his tenure! With regard to the “political turmoil” leading to the so-called ‘instability’, we are constrained to state that this is an impasse created by Mangala Samaraweera and company itself

According to its track record, the CBSL has NOT failed to date in fulfilling any of these wider objectives despite the slamming and tarnishing of its image by Mahendran who was appointed as its Governor at the insistence of Ranil Wickremesinghe, the then Minister in charge of the CBSL, who is now a fugitive evading arrest for an alleged financial crime committed during his tenure!

With regard to the “political turmoil” leading to the so-called ‘instability’, we are constrained to state that this is an impasse created by Mangala Samaraweera and company itself. When the President of the country acting under the constitutional provisions appointed a new PM and a new Cabinet (the constitutionality of which is not challenged hitherto), instead of following the normal established Parliament procedure they started making a futile attempt to pre-empt a derogatory course of action by handing over a piece of paper purported to be a NCM against the Government and demanding an immediate voting on it against procedures laid down in the Standing Orders of Parliament. By their own action of amending the contents of that paper on a subsequent sitting of the Parliament (the purported NCM), it is now proved that they have taken a vote on a worthless paper.

From this it follows that the current imbroglio is the creation of the prosecutors themselves and if there is any economic abyss that the country is confronting it is also due to their own mishandling of the affairs during the period of their control.

We have to examine three things in this regard;


i. Whether the current situation is a political instability per se;

ii. Whether the rating agencies are accurate in their focus on the issue;

iii. The actual reason for the dismissed government to behave in this manner.


Political instability

One of the basic factors taken into consideration in this determination is the propensity for a regime change. The current scenario in the country is an issue pending before the Parliament. The people have given a mandate to all MPs to form a government of their choice according to the constitutional provisions. Any one or more political groups of this Parliament forming a government should not be considered as an unprecedented political typhoon or a tsunami. In fact the correct perception should be to regard this as yet another political formation among the duly elected members of a Parliament.

Existence of violence, assassinations and harmful demonstrations, etc. are other reasons for attributing instability to the polity. There appears to be some kind of a concerted effort to purposely create such a scenario.

• Statements made by UNP politicians during the period the Parliament remained prorogued to the effect that there will be a bloodbath when the Parliament meets;
• Alleged carrying of knives into the floor of the House by two identified UNP MPs;
• The street demonstrations and fast unto death programs orchestrated now on stage.

Appear to be calculated steps towards this ulterior motive to portray the existence of a tense situation in the country.

There is no coup or any military interventions in the democratic functioning of the government. Hence it is inappropriate for any agency, organisation or a country to spectacle the current scenario as a political instability!


Moody’s role

Moody’s is another internationally-accepted rating organisation. It is one among the three big credit rating agencies, viz. Standard and Poor (S&P), Fitch Group and Moody’s. Their purpose is to rank the borrower’s credit worthiness using a standard rating scale. In the process they measure the investor loss in the event of default.

Their authenticity is derived from recognition by the SEC of USA. They are affiliated to NRSRO of USA., known as Nationally-Recognised Statistical Rating Organization. When a rating grading is given by an NRSRO agency the investors use that as a guide line to evaluate their risk factors and decide on the investment. Each rating agency has its own nomenclature for ratings. But according to Moody’s ratings B1 to B3 are judged as highly speculative and running a high credit risk. Their current downgrading is from B1 to B2.

This shows that even before the downgrading our rating was in the speculative, high risk range. The UNP which was controlling the economy should be held responsible both for their policies for the state of affairs before the downgrading and to their behavioural conduct contributing to create anarchy and a false sense of violence to provide the ground for Moody’s to further downgrade it.

It is also pertinent to refer to the operations of these credit agencies in the historical perspective to get a clear idea about the limitations of their applications in the rating exercises. Moody’s is an old established company with a history of over 100 years. They also had their downgrading at different times. E.g. In 1907, during a financial crisis Moody was forced to sell his business due to a shortage of capital. Their sovereign ratings too have come under severe criticisms. Several countries had to suffer heavy financial losses due to increased cost of borrowings as consequences to downgrading of the ratings in those countries. E.g. 1980 – Australia; 1990 – Canada and Japan; 1997 – Thailand.

More recently during the subprime mortgage crisis their role came under heavy attack. In 2007 they were engaged in a critical exercise of downgrading their own ratings. There were repeated downgrading of earlier rates due to their erroneous nature. Cost of borrowings went up due to the downgrading. This situation worsened in 2008 during the world financial crisis.

History also records instances where Moody’s was sued by the investors. In worst case scenarios Moody’s had to pay heavy settlement claims in litigations against them. It is reported that they have paid as settlement claims nearly $ 864 million in 2017!

There have been instances where the rating given by different rating agencies on the same borrower varying considerably. The case of Greece is an example. Because of these factors no investor will take the rating as the only guide line to determine their investments. If they can rely on independent authentic statistical data they would take such to consideration. The central banks and reserve banks are the best sources in this regard. They normally do not go shopping round the rating agencies demanding favourable rates. Hence the ratings given by agencies have to be taken with a pinch of salt beyond any attributed infallibility.

The banking industry in the country was a completely abandoned field during the past three years of the RW-managed government. In the first instance under the shoddy allocation of subjects of ministries, banks were taken out of the Ministry of Finance and were even subject to undue interferences in their operations. The worst affected were the State-owned banks. The infamous instruction by a Minister of Finance to State banks where they were dictated to make certain predetermined offers at the CBSL bond auctions now stand established at a Commission of Inquiry. The Government has resorted to commercial borrowings from several including local and foreign banks. In this exercise the State sector banks were virtually compelled to lend to SOEs under tremendous pressure exerted. There have been instances where the Government securitised those borrowings through namesake Treasury papers/comfort letters

Downgrading of some commercial banks

This is another blow that has flared up during the prevailing calamity. The banking industry in the country was a completely abandoned field during the past three years of the RW-managed government. In the first instance under the shoddy allocation of subjects of ministries, banks were taken out of the Ministry of Finance and were even subject to undue interferences in their operations. The worst affected were the State-owned banks.

The infamous instruction by a Minister of Finance to State banks where they were dictated to make certain predetermined offers at the CBSL bond auctions now stand established at a Commission of Inquiry. The Government has resorted to commercial borrowings from several including local and foreign banks. In this exercise the State sector banks were virtually compelled to lend to SOEs under tremendous pressure exerted. There have been instances where the Government securitised those borrowings through namesake Treasury papers/comfort letters.

It is in this background that Moody’s has announced their new downgraded credit rates in respect of a few banks. The adduced reasons are:

a.Increasing trend of Non-Performing Loans (NPL percentages)

b.Tightening of external financial conditions

c.Domestic political instability

These factors have contributed to


i. Capital outflows

ii. Increase of exchange rates

iii. Depletion of foreign currency reserves


These are a direct result of the economic bungling of the RW/UNP Government during the last three years. Unfavourable business climate and corruption activities that went on unabated have caused the banks to increase their NPL percentages. The actual figures show that the cumulative NPL percentage has risen to 3.6% from 2.8% between 2017 and 2018.

The international industry standards have been significantly increased thus bringing heavy pressure on the local banks to raise their reserve levels and asset portfolios.

The ever-changing economic policy strategies within short spells due to vacillating Government planning was the main cause for disturbed business climate in the country. The accelerated economic transformation envisaged under the Ranil Wickremesinghe Vision Plan for 2025 prepared on the guidance by Harvard University’s Centre for International Development was a mere stillbirth! It did not serve any purpose other than the satisfaction granted to the bilateral US agencies which were linked to the institutional network of the policy planning in this country.

It is seen that Wickremesinghe has relied on former Sri Lankans like Arjuna Mahendran (Singapore), Razeen Sally (Singapore), Suri Ratnapala (Australia) as well as prominent foreign personalities in the economic field such as George Soros, Professor Ricardo Hausmann of Venezeula, Joseph Stiglitz (who came as the Chief Guest of the former Prime Minister’s 2023 Agenda for Economic Prosperity) for his vision to build Sri Lanka. The sudden change of government has therefore caused a serious disorientation in his activities as well as his commitments to the Western world. What we witness today as the response of his party to the changing political scenario appears to be due to this

Nevertheless the Vision 2025 cost us $ 3 million in addition to the $ 2.3 million spent by RW Government to establish a Central Program Management Unit in the Prime Ministers’ Office. The Cabinet Committee on Economic Management (CCEM) headed by RW and assisted by his Adviser Razeen Sally was found to be extremely ineffective and was disbanded by the President. This is the economic scenario that contributed to the stagnating domestic instability that ultimately precipitated the current stalemate leading to downgrading of ratings.

Mangala Samaraweera and company has to be reminded of the several utopian strategies which were in the RW vision pipeline like:

Wi-Fi syndrome;

Volkswagen episode

One million new jobs for local and foreign job seekers facilitated under trade agreements

Creation of a Singapore-style Tamasek model Investment fund to invest our EPF, NSB, Insurance and ETF fund monies;

Land alienations to foreign investors in lots exceeding 50,000 acres in extent;

Colombo Harbour and Trincomalee Harbour programs.

These are the factors that have apparently influenced the rating agencies to take into account under ‘domestic policy instability’ for rating purposes. The Ranil Wickremesinghe regime is directly responsible for the state of affairs and it is not a matter connected with the recent political changes.

In addition our attention is also drawn to the establishment of several institutions with and without foreign direct and indirect influences to manage the economic planning and development under the previous Government headed by Ranil Wickremesinghe, MP:

The Institute of Policy Studies, initially co-financed by the Dutch Government including other donors such as Canada, UK, Norway and several other US corporates , banks and equity funds;

Advocata Institute, launched at the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute as an independent public policy think tank working towards a free and prosperous Sri Lanka.

Millennium Challenge Corporation is a unit located within the Strategic Policy Development unit of the Prime Minister’s Office. The objective of this MCC is to influence the regulatory environment and rule of law in the south.

It is seen that Wickremesinghe has relied on former Sri Lankans like Arjuna Mahendran (Singapore), Razeen Sally (Singapore), Suri Ratnapala (Australia) as well as prominent foreign personalities in the economic field such as George Soros, Professor Ricardo Hausmann of Venezeula, Joseph Stiglitz (who came as the Chief Guest of the former Prime Minister’s 2023 Agenda for Economic Prosperity) for his vision to build Sri Lanka. The sudden change of government has therefore caused a serious disorientation in his activities as well as his commitments to the Western world. What we witness today as the response of his party to the changing political scenario appears to be due to this.

So if there is an abyss before us, all we can state is: “When we came abreast of the crevasse, we could see through it to the country beyond!”

Neoliberalism Vs The Nation & The State: The Real Culprits In Sri Lanka

By Vijithamuni Ranasinghe –NOVEMBER 27, 2018

In an article to Colombo Telegraph (20.11.2018), Dayan Jayatilleka has attempted to re-interpret the meaning of neoliberalism and exonerate several former Presidents from the responsibility of being champions of neoliberalism. While doing so, he has constructed an abstract contradiction (main fight in Sri Lanka) as between neoliberalism and the nation. It is not a sustainable proposition in the context of standard definitions of neoliberalism, facts relating to Sri Lanka’s politics or the relevant academic-policy discourse. 

Jayatilleka – whose controversial appointment to the diplomatic post in Moscow took place while President Sirisena was hatching the constitutional coup with Mahinda Rajapaksa against the incumbent government of Ranil Wickramasinghe – states that ‘Neoliberalism is not the capitalist market economy. Neoliberalism is not mere privatization –the crucial question being what is privatized and what is not. Neoliberalism is not the Open Economy. It is perfectly possible to practice an Open Economic policy, which is not neoliberal. This is what Presidents Premadasa and Rajapaksa did’ (Jayatilleka CT 20.11.2018). He further says Neoliberalism ‘cannot be understood as a checklist of economic policy measures such as privatization’ (CT 20.11.2018). 

To the readers who are familiar with neoliberalism through academic learning, deep reading and reflection, these comments come as a surprise because they go against the current wisdom –even at its simplest form- on the subject. Jayatilleka’s views have the potential to mislead, especially the younger generation, who are in the process of learning about the economy, nation, state and similar topics as part of studying political science, political economy, sociology, international relations and the like. Though the author states that neoliberalism cannot be understood as a checklist, most commentators including well-known academics in the international arena use such checklists when discussing the topic (see examples given later in this article).

The views described in Jayatilleka’s article require critical scrutiny by fair-minded Sri Lankans and others concerned about the economic and social development policies adopted by governments since 1977, their impact on the society and social relations plus the crises in the economy and polity evident today as a result of competing and contradictory power relations in the body politic.  Politicians and parties who held power in governments formed after 1977 by following neoliberalism while distorting it with state, party, ruling class and family interference – have brought about the economic crisis facing the nation today. 

When a former academic and a self styled political scientist distorts an important concept like neoliberalism that has implications for the economy, policy, politics and society, it is far more important to understand what neoliberalism is before considering who is more neoliberal? It is also useful to examine the effects of neoliberalism, associated economic policies and state behaviour over the last 40 years rather than to debate, which President was more neoliberal, based on a distorted interpretation of the principal concept/ideology. 

Most of us were not born yesterday.  People have memories to understand that all Presidents and governments since 1977 facilitated neoliberal economic policies as the founding principle and guide for economic development while curtailing welfare benefits enjoyed by the people under Westminster system of governments that was in place since Sri Lanka gained independence from colonial rule though different kind of dependencies – both internal and external – developed later on.  

What is neoliberalism?

According to Smith, Neoliberalism is an ‘ ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition. …. it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics’. She says that ‘neoliberalism is often characterized in terms of its belief in sustained economic growth as the means to achieve human progress, its confidence in free markets as the most-efficient allocation of resources, its emphasis on minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs, and its commitment to the freedom of trade and capital’(N. Smith: accessed on 22.11.2018).  

According to another source,  ‘Neoliberalism supports fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, privatization and greatly reduced government spending. Neoliberlism is often associated with laissez-faire economics, a policy that prescribes a minimal amount of government interference in the economic issues of individuals and society. It is usually characterized by its belief that continued economic growth will lead to human progress, its confidence in free markets and emphases on limited state interference’ (Investopedia)

Read More