At the apex of decision making

Thursday, December 6, 2018

The hallowed halls of Hulftsdorp will be where the fate of Sri Lanka’s most complex constitutional crisis is decided in the coming weeks, if not days, as major political parties map out strategies and counter strategies in their bid to gain control of government.

The battleground has now decisively shifted from unruly scenes in Parliament, the home of the legislature, to the courts of law, the home of the judiciary. Meanwhile, the executive continues to engage with different political parties but a quick resolution of the impasse appears as evasive as ever.

The current situation developed after President Maithripala Sirisena decided to remove Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister, swearing in Mahinda Rajapaksa to that office on October 26. This has precipitated a series of events such as the prorogation of Parliament, its subsequent dissolution by the President, the opposition challenging the dissolution in the Supreme Court and the court granting an interim order against it.

As a result, Parliament continued its sessions where several votes of no confidence were adopted against the new government and new Prime Minister. After a few unruly sessions where there were fisticuffs in the chamber, the government decided to boycott sittings, a practice it has maintained since then.

A vote was also adopted curtailing expenses to the office of the Prime Minister. The government contends that the votes adopted against it are not valid as proper parliamentary procedures have not been adopted. It is against such a backdrop the battle shifted to Hulftsdorp.

Premiership issue

Late last week, speculation was rife that President Sirisena was close to formulating a solution out of the current deadlock. That was after the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) wrote to the President stating it would support a return to the status quo that existed prior to October 26, where the United National Front (UNF) held the premiership.

“We will also support the appointment of a nominee of the UNF who in the opinion of Your Excellency is able to command the confidence of parliament as Prime Minister,” the party told the President, prior to discussions with him. This was in response to assertions being made by the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) that the UNF and its main constituent, the United National Party (UNP) too lacked majority support to form a government.

“The inability of the MP who was appointed as the Prime Minister, to prove that Parliament has confidence in him as Prime Minister and the votes of No Confidence passed against him pertaining to his claim to be the Prime Minister have created a controversy in the country as to whether the country is without a Prime Minister, a Cabinet and a lawfully constituted government for more than a month”, the TNA noted in its letter to the President.

In the ensuing talks with the TNA late last week, President Sirisena informed the party that Parliament should adopt a motion requesting him to appoint a new Prime Minister in view of the fact that incumbent Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa does not currently seem to have a majority in Parliament.
President Sirisena also met Speaker Karu Jayasuriya where he assured Jayasuriya that he would meet with UNF representatives as well to seek a resolution of the crisis. The meeting with the UNF leaders was initially scheduled to be held last Sunday but was then postponed to Monday.

Call for general election

Meanwhile, also on Sunday, issuing a statement as Prime Minister, Rajapaksa renewed his call for a general election. In the lengthy statement which cited historical instances where Parliament had been dissolved without the concurrence of the Prime Minister in other countries, Rajapaksa argued that a general election was the only means by which stability could be restored.

“The only way to restore stability to a destabilized democracy will be through a general election. According to our Constitution, sovereignty is vested in the people and not in Parliament. The manner in which the people exercise their sovereignty is through the franchise. I invite all those who respect democracy to give careful thought to these matters,” he said.

However, by the time the President met with the UNP on Monday, the circumstances had changed drastically following a ruling from the Court of Appeal which inquired into the Quo Warranto petition submitted by the collective opposition, challenging the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers and other ministers continuing to hold office when votes of no confidence had been passed against them in Parliament.

While not making a final determination on the issue, the Court of Appeal bench comprising of President of the Court of Appeal Justice Preethi Padman Soorasena and Justice Arjuna Obeysekera granted restraining orders against the Prime Minister and other ministers from functioning in those capacities. Further hearing has been fixed for December 12 when the respondent ministers have been noticed to appear in court.

Rajapaksa’s response to the Court of Appeal’s decision was prompt. He declared that he disagreed with it and an appeal was lodged in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. It was evident that even though a final determination had not been made, the court’s decision to issue a restraining order came as somewhat of a surprise to the government.

Held against such a backdrop, President Sirisena’s discussions with the UNF were not fruitful. The President maintained that he would not be appointing Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister even if all 225 Members of Parliament endorsed it. The UNF delegation maintained that its nominee for the premiership was Wickremesinghe and no one else and the talks remained deadlocked on that issue.

Current crisis

President Sirisena was to re-iterate his assertion that Wickremesinghe would not be reappointed as Prime Minister at the convention of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) on Tuesday evening. In his speech, the President was optimistic that the current crisis would be resolved within a week. Earlier that day, he had met with secretaries of all ministries to instruct them to ensure that ministries functioned without disruption, in view of the restraining order issued against all ministers.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court which is hearing the fundamental rights petitions challenging the dissolution of Parliament resumed hearings on Tuesday, with a seven-judge bench. The hearings will continue today and tomorrow. The interim order against the dissolution is effective only until tomorrow, unless further extended by the Supreme Court.

While recent political developments constitute a crisis, the government previously functioned, albeit with a new Prime Minister and a new Cabinet. With the Court of Appeal decision to issue a restraining order, effective government has been reduced to the President who has enabling constitutional provisions that empower him to take over the functions of ministries. This is what will occur now.

It is clear from the current imbroglio that the prevailing state of affairs cannot be sustained over a period of time and a resolution to the constitutional crisis needs to be expedited. However, with the matter being canvassed in several different courts by many interested parties, it is difficult for politicians or their parties themselves to evolve a workable solution.

Any resolution must await answers to the legal issues raised, not only because they are relevant in the current predicament the country finds itself in but also because it will become a landmark for the conduct of future Presidents and governments as well. The only silver lining in all this, as noted in these columns previously, is that dissent, by and large has been democratic and expressed in the appropriate manner, rather than being destructive- save for a few shameful days in Parliament.

US URGES RESPONSIBLE AND QUICK END TO SRI LANKA CRISIS

Image: US Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Alaina Teplitz .

New Ambassador says global trust, confidence and reputation of SL at stake with political impasse causing serious socio-economic consequences.
Points to bigger challenge of how to deal with the aftermath of this crisis.
Admits crisis has impacted bilateral opportunities; finalising Millennium Challenge Corporation’s $ 500 m grant support “paused” .
Expresses hope for a legitimate Government via transparent and democratic process.
Clarifies that US is being transparent about its hopes for SL as partner and friend; is not interfering in internal affairs.
Assures of not preventing polls, will respect if crisis is ultimately resolved through elections.
Commends civil society and private sector for speaking out against crisis.

By Nisthar Cassim.-05/12/2018

Stressing that it has no favourites in the contest, the United States this week urged Sri Lankan leaders to resolve the political crisis responsibly and promptly, as it has far reaching socio-economic consequences, apart from damaging global confidence and trust.

“As a friend and partner, we have urged Sri Lanka and its leaders to move promptly to resolve the political crisis in a transparent and democratic way,” newly-appointed US Ambassador to Sri Lanka Alaina Teplitz told the Daily FT, in her first interview with the media.

“We have no dog in this fight. We do not have favourites in this political contest. We are looking at an outcome that respects constitutional processes and transparency and produce a legitimate government,” added Teplitz.

Teplitz took office less than a week after President Maithripala Sirisena appointed MP Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister, removing then-sitting Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and thereby igniting an unprecedented political crisis.

After presenting her credentials to President Sirisena, in recent weeks, Teplitz has met with representatives of all political parties, though not yet formally with either Wickremesinghe or Rajapaksa. She said that during the meetings, she shared frank and candid views and also listened to the concerns of political parties figuring in the crisis.

“We have urged that the people’s elected representatives be allowed to resolve this within the framework of the Constitution. We have called on the political leadership and President Sirisena to responsibly resolve this crisis, so that it is clear there is a legitimate, constitutionally mandated Government running the country, and democratic institutions are fully respected,” emphasised Ambassador Teplitz during the interview.

“Sri Lanka must, and has the opportunity to, restore the political reputation of the nation, which is very important going forward. Challenging politics can diminish that reputation,” she pointed out.
“There are some damaging economic consequences from this crisis.I think there is some damage caused to Sri Lanka’s political and democratic institutions.

We do not have favourites in this political contest. We are looking at an outcome that respects constitutional processes and transparency and produces a legitimate Government

These are things we are concerned about as a partner and friend of Sri Lanka,” she added, noting that the full dimension of the crisis wasn’t clear initially, but of late the country has seen credit ratings downgraded, increased pressure on the currency and Bond rates, and private sector concerns of the fiscal situation have become apparent as well.

Teplitz, who is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service with the rank of Minister Counsellor, and previously served as the US Ambassador to Nepal, pointed out that the political instability sends a risk message to investors, and hence restoring political stability was crucial.

“What is more challenging is, how do you deal with the aftermath of this crisis.It is important to remember that even if it is resolved, there is going to be a period required to restore confidence and trust among Sri Lanka’sdevelopment partners, existing and potential investors,” Ambassador Teplitz emphasised.

Given the serious socio-economic consequences, Teplitz welcomed the growing concerns expressed by civil society and private sector. “I have seen that a number of industry groups including Chambers of Commerce and Industry had come out and said ‘please resolve the political crisis’ as it is harming the business and economy and future opportunities. Political leaders should take the concerns of civil society and businesses onboard and understand that the crisis has impacted well beyond the political realm,” she pointed out.

As the Sri Lankan political crisis is of serious concern, the US has “paused” finalising the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) initiative with Sri Lanka, thereby putting $ 500 million of grant assistance at stake.

“We have paused it as MCC is based on the foundation of respect for the rule of law and good governance. We are waiting to see how the crisis is resolved before we could resume our negotiations and go forward. So there is definitely an impact from the crisis on some of our bilateral opportunities,” Ambassador Teplitz admitted.

However she remained optimistic and hopeful of resolution of the current political impasse. “We are hoping that this crisis is short-lived and something that we can turnaround quickly. We have to do our due diligence to ensure that we make these agreements under the right conditions and expectations, and that we’ve got full faith in one another as partners,” Teplitz added.

Whilst acknowledging that President Sirisena’s dissolution move is being contested in Court, Ambassador Teplitz said the US does not prejudge the outcome but noted: “We are prepared to work with any Government that emerges from this legitimate, transparent and democratic process. Our concern is our friendship with the legitimate Government, broadly speaking,but also with the people, and we are able to move ahead in areas of concern, which includes strengthening the democratic institutions,” she added.

The Ambassador also responded to post-crisis criticism that the US is meddling with internal affairs and also preventing the holding of an election.

“I don’t believe that being transparent about our hopes and aspirations for our partner and friend Sri Lana is interference. Certainly Sri Lanka’s leaders can take our leaf, take our opinions and hopes on board due to our longstanding relationship and many mutual interests.So that is hardly interfering in the sovereign activities of Sri Lanka as a country,” she explained.

“We are also not preventing anybody from having elections. If an election is how this crisis would be ultimately resolved, we support the democratic process being observed and respect it,” Ambassador Teplitz added.
FT

NCM: or, how one flew over the cuckoo’s nest!

MIND OVER MATTER: Are our leading politicos a sad bunch, or what! Or merely mad, bad and dangerous to know? It’s a matter of the mind… if you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter! – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

Thursday, 6 December 2018

I’m not a psychologist. Despite three years spent studying the subject and a diploma on my wall. Perhaps if I had invested the time, money, energy, effort, in a degree – I wouldn’t be at a loss these days. To understand the mentality and mindset of our mischief-making mandarins!

Oh, well. There are still some consolations to being an armchair shrink and amateur psychoanalyst. But one must admit that some patients (I should really say ‘clients’, even if they look and act more like ‘client-kings’) test one’s patience a tad more than other ‘kingly’ subjects.

So here, in the spirit of a little levity, is my personal take on the state of sanity in our nation-state today. Trust me: you don’t have to read this to understand how the mind works. And even after you do; you might as well essay that ‘the mind doesn’t work like that’. But it’s your loss.


Mad

The man who’s evidently the most nuts about our nation-state is our head of state. Although to hear him speak, one could convince oneself that he is mad about something – or someone else. In fact, he’s mad about the boy. That stripling lad, not quite unlike Marc Antony, who offered him – certainly no Julius Caesar – a crown. But there has been a rather noticeable rift in the lute of late. And everything that the presidential psyche focuses on these days is about that boy.

First, he talked about the lad’s proclivities on a public stage where his party – and the supporters of his favoured prime minister – had gathered in large numbers. There would have been a riot (against the prez, not either of his premiers) if the vulgar mob had actually been paying attention. But they let it pass. That, and the other dropped brick about their mad prez offering the mantle of prime minister to their political enemy’s no. 2 and 3 personages.

Then, he went on and on about the boy and his behaviour at a blue party confab. How he has no mores fit for our ancient civilisation or manners befitting our exalted political culture. Blah blah blah. As a psychologist – amateur, I admit – I listened to the silences in-between the tirade. To see or hear if I could discern the real casus belli.

And, here’s my theory. Prez wanted to be head of state, government, and cabinet a second time round. No surprise there. Far better politicos than he had been there, done that, bought the T-saatakaya. But boy was probably obstinate. Worse, most likely dismissive in that manner Royalists fake to appear more Olympian – or, well, Thomian. So prez, like Oliver Twist, asked the Supreme Court if he could please, sir, have more. But court said NO, five not six of the best for you!

It fits rather neatly into my theory, don’t you think?


Bad

Enter the king. And his client-kings, scions and sycophants. Or, as the poet expressed it so powerfully: “The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold / his cohorts all gleaming in purple and gold.”

While the prez’s countenance remained puce at the thought of the treatment meted out to him by the ‘butterfly brigade’, the wolf inveigled his former lieutenant turned adversary overnight some four years ago to pull a reverse stunt.

“Join me,” he probably growled hoarsely like some latter-day Darth Vader but clad in gleaming white rather than the customary drab black, “and we can rule the galaxy like… well, like father of the nation and son of the soil.”

(You’ve got to hand it to our would-be villains, to be up to date on space cowboy soap operas where the baddies have all the best lines.)

Sadly daddy fell for it. He bought the farm hook, line and sinker. Rejected by his alliance partner and snubbed by the Supreme Court, our prez firmly set his mind (that’s where the psychiatrist in me comes in) – and feet (I’m no podiatrist, but I try) – on treading the primrose path to dalliance.

And that’s most likely what set us on the high road to perdition. For the path to democratic-republican hell is paved with the ‘good intentions’ of do no-gooders and good no-doers.

(Note to the slow-on-the-uptake: The do no-gooders are self-evident – just think Vader in white with a red cravat-like thing round his neck… And the good no-doers? Well, if I have to tell you all about a boy, it’ll take away some of the fun – as the wolf said to the lamb!)


Dangerous to know

All of which led us to ten thousand types of thundering tarnation we’ve witnessed in our nation-state of late.

Let me paraphrase: perversely sacked a sitting prime minister, arbitrarily appointed another premier, waspishly prorogued parliament, unilaterally appointed new ministers, wickedly dissolved parliament, unpredictably called an election, unexpectedly reconvened parliament, inexplicably refused to accept the results of two floor tests in the august assembly named after a fall month, watched with trembling as his new boy’s hooligans trashed the House, wantonly seized portfolios and ministries, ad nauseam ad infinitum.

And since we’re doing Latin, let me add this… ‘non compos mentis’ (NCM) – a new acronym to provide interim relief for those driven round the bend by No-Confidence Motions!

And now, while the good sit and do nothing but twiddle their thumbs and tweet inanities on Twitter, the bad rally their troops on Facebook. And the ugliest mugs are possibly off in a corner playing Chinese checkers and planning that military coup, which most of us would do well to fear.

Fear? What’s that, you ask! You unwashed hordes who hallooed in the high street – that the Olympian was selling the family silver to Western nations – but omitted to mention that the mad, bad and dangerous to know were mortgaging ports and airports to foreign states farther afield?

I’m a shrink, for heaven’s sake… Not a savvy economist or savant columnist; so I wouldn’t know tuppence about the high cost of debt-trap diplomacy! Just leave that to the New York Times – or the South China Morning Post.

Thanks and all the best, but your ‘fifty minutes’ of my ‘time on the couch’ (as much as the ‘fifteen minutes of fame’ of the good, bad and ugly shrunk above) are just about up.
(Journalist | Editor-at-large of LMD | Writer #SpeakingTruthToPower) 

The practical effect of imposing restrictions on dissolution of Parliament

By C. A. Chandraprema-December 4, 2018, 9:16 pm 

The rallying cry of the UNP, the JVP TNA and their allied political parties is that after the introduction of the 19th Amendment, Parliament cannot be dissolved under any circumstances until the lapse of four and a half years, and the only way it can be dissolved before that is for Parliament itself to pass a resolution by a two-thirds majority, making a request to that effect to the President. We have to bear in mind that the UNP-JVP-TNA argument is that Parliament cannot be dissolved under any circumstances – despite repeated defeats of the budget, despite repeated rejection of the statement of government policy and repeated passage of no-confidence motions against the government. In all such instances, only the government will stand dissolved and not Parliament. After each such event it is the President who will have to form new governments. Thus, even though drafters of the 19th Amendment claimed that their intention was to reduce the powers of the President, they have ended up making the President more powerful than he ever was under the original 1978 Constitution.

One has to keep in mind the fact that under the proportional representation system, it is only in 1989 and 2010 that any single political party or coalition has got a clear majority in Parliament. At all other Parliamentary elections in 2000, 2001, 2004 and 2015, the winning party did not receive a clear majority in Parliament. Even though the 2004 Parliamentary election was won by the party backed by the incumbent President, even then the UPFA failed to get a clear majority in Parliament. We saw much the same thing happening at the 2015 Parliamentary elections. Because of this factor, one has to provide for the possibility of a government losing a vote on the budget, a vote on the statement of government policy and losing a no confidence motion. It is now being argued that Parliament cannot be dissolved even if such events take place.

If an incumbent government loses a vote on the budget, a vote on the statement of government policy or a no-confidence motion, what that will mean is that the leader of the party that won the most number of seats in Parliament will no longer be eligible to hold the position of Prime Minister in that Parliament. What then is the President supposed to do? He can then call the leader of the political party that led the campaign to defeat the government in Parliament to form a new government. However, the political forces that came together to defeat the incumbent government may not necessarily unite to form a government. That is very real possibility in Sri Lanka even at present with the JVP saying that they will not support a government formed by the UNP and even the TNA making their support conditional - which means that there is the very real possibility that they may withdraw that support if they are not satisfied. When a government falls in such circumstances, since Parliament still cannot be dissolved, the President will have to cobble together a government with whoever is willing to join and continue till it is possible to dissolve Parliament and let the people decide.

President vested with enhanced powers

Throughout this process, the President will be the central figure around which everything revolves. Thus, contrary to the claims being made that the 19th Amendment reduced the powers of the executive presidency, what they have done in actual fact is to increase the power and importance of the Presidency by blocking the dissolution of Parliament. According to the elections schedule, parliamentary elections take place a few months after a presidential election and the likelihood is that it will be the President’s political party that gets the most number of seats in parliament as well. Thanks to this argument that Parliament cannot be dissolved, if the President loses public support and support within Parliament as well, it will still be he who is required to cobble together a government and continue in power!

We must remember what happened to Chandrika Kumaratunga in 2001. After a hung parliament was elected at the 2000 parliamentary election, within a few months, President Chandrika Kumaratunga lost the tenuous majority she had managed to muster in Parliament in 2001. Then she was forced to call a general election and her party lost and the UNP formed a Cabinet. But now as is being argued by the UNP-TNA-JVP combine, even if a situation like 2001 manifests itself, the President will still have a to cobble together a government from somewhere and continue. All of us who lived through the events of 2001 know that would have been an impossible demand to meet at that time.

Presidents tend to lose popular support very fast during their second term and there could be situations where as in 2001, nothing that a President does will induce parliamentarians to form a government with him or her for fear of the voter’s wrath. What happens then? This is why no one who has any commonsense will draft a constitution that makes it impossible to dissolve parliament. Dissolving Parliament and allowing the people to decide is the only way in which a political deadlock could be resolved. In 2001, CBK had no option but to dissolve parliament and to allow the people to decide and, that is what preserved democracy in this country. Under the provisions of the constitution before the 19th Amendment, parliament could resolve to dissolve itself with a simple majority. So if the incumbent President loses public support and the support of Parliament, the parliamentarians opposed to the President could pass a resolution requesting the President to dissolve parliament and call for fresh elections. Now after the 19th amendment, an unpopular President can carry on regardless because parliament cannot vote to dissolve itself without a two-thirds majority – an impossible target in practical terms. Thus Parliament has been weakened and the hand of the President strengthened infinitely.

There are other dangers too. Just picture the scenario that may take place after the next presidential election next year. A new president will be installed in power by December next year. A few months later, a parliamentary election will be held. Each of the newly appointed institutions will have four and a half years to five years in office. Both parties will enjoy security of tenure because the President will not be able to dissolve parliament without a two-thirds majority in parliament and Parliament will not be able to impeach the President without a two-thirds majority. In these circumstances, it is the President who will have the upper hand because he is the authority that appoints the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and in doing so he has unfettered discretionary power. He can appoint as Prime Minister anybody who ‘in his opinion’ is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament. Likewise, in appointing Ministers, Articles 43, 44 and 45 of the Constitution even after the 19th Amendment clearly Indicates that it is the President who has the final say in appointing and assigning subjects to Ministers, State Ministers and Deputy Ministers.

The subjective selection of the President is still paramount in making these appointments. At the present moment, due to Supreme Court rulings, the President also has the power to appoint as Ministers any of the 225 MPs in Parliament. When the President and Parliament both have 4 to 5 years of their tenure left, the President’s power will be at its peak. After the next Presidential elections in December 2019, and the Parliamentary elections that will follow in a few months, what the new President will get is in fact a harem of 225 MPs who he can use at will. So long as the President and parliament have four three, two, or even one full year of tenure left, he will be able to offer Ministries and other perks to attract MPs from any party to form a government. If the dissolution of Parliament before the lapse of four and a half years is not allowed, the political party system is going to be the main casualty. The political party will become merely a vehicle to get into Parliament. Once you are in parliament, you are a free agent deciding to sit in government or in opposition as your own needs and fancies guide you.

We have to bear in mind that serving as a Minister is not a case of leaving one’s political Party, it is a case of serving one’s country at the behest of the President who wields the sovereign people’s executive power! Or at least that is how it’s portrayed. We have already had a taste of this in the past. When Mahinda Rajapaksa became President in November 2005, he inherited a minority government in parliament. So he took some MPs from the UNP and cobbled together a government and went forward and the UNP was crying foul saying that he was destroying political party system in the country. What the 19th Amendment has done is to institutionalise that situation for all perpetuity. Due to the proportional representation system, the likelihood is that except in rare instances, the political party winning the election will not have a clear majority in Parliament or will have only a slim majority. It is at this stage that the entire Parliament becomes the President’s harem. In 1994, the PA which had 105 Members in Parliament formed a government. In 2001, the UNP which had 106 MPs and in 2004, the UPFA which had 105 MPs formed governments.

Today, however, in the event where no political party gets a clear majority in Parliament, the tendency will be for the President to take the initiative to start making ‘kottu rotti’ governments taking a little bit from here and a little bit from there. Since Parliament cannot be dissolved, the President may end up making ‘kotthu roti’ governments more than once. Providing there is at least a year of tenure left, there will be many MPs who will betray their voters and political parties to gain office which, if he remains subordinate to his party hierarchy, he may never gain in his lifetime. When it comes to the tail end of the tenure of Parliament and of the Presidency when it will no longer be possible to attract MPs with the lure of office, he will end up doing a solo lap with the Ministry Secretaries and no Cabinet.

Possibility of 113 man ministerial teams

Another issue that will arise if Parliament cannot be dissolved is that the MPs will have security of tenure and everyone will be extracting the maximum pound of flesh for their support of any government. When the stability of tenure of an MP increases, the stability of governments formed with the participation of such MPs decreases in direct proportion because MPs make all kinds of demands to extend their support to a government formed even by their own party. We have seen backbenchers ganging up to make demands under all governments. We have seen back bench MPs holding separate press conferences under all governments. It is not for nothing that the power of dissolution became an integral part of the Parliamentary tradition. The Parliamentary system cannot function without it. The possibility of dissolution and the prospect of having to face the people at an election is one of the key incentives to remain loyal to one’s political party and to continue to support it in Parliament.

This is why no country in the world that has a parliamentary form of government (except Norway, as the former President pointed out in his recent speech) has ever sought to prevent Parliament from being dissolved until the end of its tenure. Such a restriction does not empower Parliament – it empowers the person who is cast with the responsibility of forming governments and continuing till it is possible to hold an election. If the power of dissolution is removed for four and a half years, that will be an open invitation to the MPs elected to sell themselves to the highest bidder during that four and a half years. The bidder will of course always be the President. Even though the 19th Amendment purports to have reduced the powers of the president it has actually enhanced those powers by creating a situation where after a parliamentary election, the president can do anything he likes in Parliament disregarding all political party boundaries. Someone may say that blocks have been put in place to prevent the President from dissolving Parliament to prevent him from abusing that power. No president will dissolve Parliament without carefully considering matters, because if he dissolves Parliament and his party loses the ensuing Parliamentary election that will undermine his legitimacy and end his political career. The president himself is elected and the dissolution of Parliament will affect him and his political party as well.

So dissolution will in practice rarely be overused or abused. But when it comes to forming and dissolving cabinets, the president can do that as often as he likes with little or no consequences because the President as the head of the executive and Cabinet can continue to rule the country through the ministry secretaries despite frequent changes of ministers. We heard of such a one man show being run by President Premadasa. What the 19th Amendment has done in effect is to create the legal framework necessary to make the Premadasa style one man show the norm in Sri Lankan politics.

According to the provisions of the 19th Amendment, when a national government is formed, parliament can decide to appoint any number of ministers. A national government is defined as a government formed ‘between the largest political party in parliament and other parties’. It does not say how many political parties have to join a national government – it could be just the party that gets the most number of seats in Parliament plus one other party and together they can decide to appoint if necessary a total of 113 cabinet, state and deputy ministers. Thanks to the party system it was possible to have at least a few MPs who would function as backbenchers. But with it not being possible to dissolve Parliament despite repeated defeats of the budget, or repeated rejection of the statement of government policy and repeated passage of no confidence motions against the government, the tendency will be for the President to appoint all 113 MPs necessary to maintain a bare majority to some kind of office, to keep them happy and to minimize the possibility of defections.

All of the above in varying combinations will be the direct consequence of preventing the dissolution of Parliament until the lapse of four and a half years or the passage of a resolution requesting dissolution with a two-thirds majority.

Appointment Of PM: President Now Found ‘Contempt Of Parliament’

By Arun Kumaresan –DECEMBER 5, 2018

Arun Kumaresan – Air Vice Marshal (Ret’d)

“If we wish to preserve the Constitution in which we have sought to enshrine the principle of Government of the people, for the people and by the people, let us resolve not to be tardy in the recognition of the evils that lie across our path and which induce people to prefer Government for the people to Government by the people, nor to be weak in our initiative to remove them. That is the only way to serve the country. I know of no better’ ~ BR Ambedkar

October 26th 2018 will be recorded as an important date in the political history of Sri Lanka. It was the beginning of series of events that unfolded when the President of Sri Lanka acted unconstitutionally to sack a sitting Prime Minister, appointing a new Prime Minister (who even to date does not have command of the majority) and issuing a gazette to dissolve the Parliament. For any laymen the constitution is very clear and his actions could be termed as a well planned constitutional coup. All the above matters are right now in both the Supreme Court & the Court of Appeal.

Current Tirade by President on appointing a PM; amplifies symptoms of ‘Lunacy’

At the meeting with UNF leaders on Dec 3rd – President Maithripala Sirisena has told UNF leaders that he won’t give the Premiership to Ranil Wickremesinghe even if all 225 MPs signed and made a request from him – MP Lakshman Kiriella .

Amplifying the above at the SLFP Central Committee meeting on Dec 4th – . Quote “Why did I say this? I have no personal issues with him and its not because we are from different parties. I say this because he is an alien to this country; his vision doesn’t belong in Sri Lanka. We have a rich history, a vibrant culture, traditions and religious principles, of many great sages but this man has not been influenced by any of these. So my decision is clearly a political one.”…Despite the perception that Wickremesinghe cared about the plight of the minorities, he brought in a number of acts that stripped away the rights given to Provincial Councils by the 13th amendment. Moreover he betrayed the Tamil people by not carrying out things that could have been easily done for them. He is a stubborn, far right neoliberal bent on destroying the country. I frustrated his attempts at dismantling the nation. Last three and a half years have been a difficult time for me. Fellow cabinet ministers know this”.

From SLFP Central Committee meeting on Dec 4th – Hitting out at the interim order issued by the Court of Appeal which prevented purported Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and his government from functioning in office, President Maithripala Sirisena likened the decision to a head monk of a village temple dictating terms to the chief prelate of a chapter…Sirisena said there were diverse opinions about the functioning of the judiciary. “Some say the judiciary is highly independent while some allege its conduct is partial. Nevertheless, I respect the judiciary.”

There are many such utterances in general to amplify the state of unstable mind of the President but the above suffice in the context of his act in “Contempt of Parliament”.

Prime Minister & the Parliament 

The sovereign power lies with the people, which are represented by the parliament. The function of the government is represented by the group which has the majority. Post Oct 26 , irrespective of all unconstitutional acts by the President & unethical ones of enticing members that happened with the absolute blessings of the President; majority still remains with the legal government that was subjected to & overthrown by a political coup. This majority has been proved again & again. The guideline to appoint a PM is well defined in the constitution as depicted below: 

42. (1) There shall be a Cabinet of Ministers charged with the direction and control of the Government of the Republic. (2) The Cabinet of Ministers shall be collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament. (3) The President shall be a member of the Cabinet of Ministers and shall be the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers. (4) The President shall appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament, who, in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament.

Read More

Sri Lanka's toppled PM requests President to act according to the constitution

Tue, Dec 4, 2018, 09:14 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.

Dec 04, Colombo: Sri Lanka's ousted Prime Minister and leader of the majority United National Party (UNP) Ranil Wickremesinghe today requested the President Maithripala Sirisena respect the sovereignty of the people and act according to the constitution.

"President can't decide this is what I want. It's a parliamentary government, parliament majority decides Prime Minister, Prime Minister determines ministers & they are all controlled by parliament," the ousted Premier said.

Speaking to Media at Temple Trees on Tuesday, the UNP Leader said his party is prepared to go for an election after establishing a legitimate government and that an election cannot be held while an illegal government is in power.

"We are not against an election. We cannot resist if all the parties are for an election. But our stance is to create a legitimate government before elections," he said.

He stressed that the Parliament is empowered to dissolve Parliament and the President receives that power only after the parliament passes four and a half years in its term. He asked the President not to be like Hitler.

"All we want is Constitution to be followed. This has been upheld in the recent decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. All of us in government has taken an oath to defend the Constitution. So we want them to defend the constitution and follow the constitution. Don't be like Hitler."

Wickremesinghe said some dictators in the past have used referendums and elections as a means of bypassing the Constitution. "We are not going to allow to bypass the Constitution," he added.

The UNP Leader said as far as elections are concerned two conditions should be met to facilitate the conduct of a General Election.

Wickremesinghe said first a lawful government must be formed according to the Constitution and all parties in Parliament must reach a consensus on the date of election.


"First it must be a lawful government. Only UNF and I can command that majority. Secondly, all the parties must agree. If all parties agree that there should be an election in 2019, then decide when the date should be," he said.

We Want A Home And Country Free Of Violence

WOMENS COALITION FOR DISASTER MANAGEMENT - EASTERN PROVINCE

on 12/04/2018

The 16 days of Activism Against Violence Against Women, begins on the 25th of November and ends on the 10th of December, on International Human Rights Day. These 16 days of activism was created to raise our voices to end violence against women and human rights violations. For more than 20 years women activists have been speaking out to end violence against women. November 30th is South Asian Women’s Day dedicated for peace, justice, human rights and democracy. We strongly state that, this continuous violence in the country leads to the destruction of social development and we are now living through a critical moment.

Pplsmov4jd@pplsmov4jd

“We demand that freedom from violence should be a fundamental right, and that the #ExecutivePresidency should be abolished” Women’s Coalition for Disaster Management. Women march in Batticaloa town calling for an end to violence, from the domestic to the parliament #LKI #couplk

13

12:21 AM - Nov 30, 2018

See Pplsmov4jd's other Tweets

Twitter Ads info and privacy

There has been much outrage about the current political and constitutional crisis in the country, which affects also women such as us; where Parliamentary Ministers and Members of Parliament have perpetrated violence; including attacking each other with knives and chili powder. We have seen many voices raised in shock against this behavior. At the same time, women and girls face worse violence in the home on the street, in the school, in the work place, as migrant workers, in the bus, on the way to the shop, every single day. We want to strongly highlight our everyday experiences in this context.

It has become absolutely clear that this kind of violence in the home and in our parliament is a manifestation of the ‘strong man’ power.

To ensure that this violent culture is brought to an end, we voted for change in 2015. And in 2016, we demanded that freedom from violence should be a fundamental right, and that the executive presidency should be abolished in the new constitution.

As citizens of this country we strongly state —

1. We will ALL take responsibility to end violence in the home and community
2. We will NOT vote for those who perpetuate violence in their homes or in any political structures
3. We want our new constitution that we have been asking for
4. We want democratic values and human rights ensured
5. And we strongly reject ‘strong man’ power and violence in our country or in our homes
6. We want a culture of equality and freedom from violence

“From the hearth to the political stage we don’t want a culture of authoritarian violence”

We need a home and a community free of violence.

Speaker summons Media Secretary, SLBC Chairman

Disna Mudalige-Camelia Nathaniel and Amali Mallawaarachchi-Thursday, December 6, 2018

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya summoned Mass Media Ministry Secretary Sunil Hettiarachchi and Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC) Chairman Dr Somaratne Dissanayake to Parliament yesterday.

The Speaker summoned them due to concerns raised in Parliament on the State media behaviour and particularly the sudden stoppage of live broadcast of Parliament proceedings by the SLBC.
During the meeting, the SLBC Chairman had made an apology and promised to resume live broadcasting of Parliament.

The Mass Media Ministry Secretary too has undertaken to give necessary instructions to the SLBC, SLRC, ITN and ANCL (Lake House) to be responsible and independent when reporting. UNP MP Dr Harsha de Silva drew to the Speaker’s attention that Parliament website still refers to MP Mahinda Rajapaksa as the PM, adding that this was a violation of the Court order. The Speaker replied that he has already instructed to correct it.

UNP MP Ajith P Perera raised a privilege matter in that regard at the commencement of the sittings.
MP Perera pointed out that the SLBC has violated the agreement that it had signed with Parliament and said this was unfair as Parliament had paid money to the SLBC for live broadcast of sittings.

The Speaker, agreeing with the MP, said the SLBC Chairman has acted in an arbitrary manner and three reminders were sent to him by the Parliament Secretary General. He added that action would be taken against the behaviour of the SLBC Chairman.

The MP further requested the Speaker’s attention to the behaviour of all state media after October 26, adding that some of them ignored the rulings of Parliament and carried defamatory stories.

UNP MP S M Marikkar pointed out that the ITN allocated half an hour from its prime time on Tuesday to provide live coverage to an ‘adhistana pooja’ near Independence Square, adding that this was a misuse of public property.

UNP MP Ravi Karunanayake said that a motion with regard to state media behaviour has been submitted to the Speaker and requested it be taken up in the House as early as possible.

UNP MP Kavinda Jayewardena pointed out that SLRC Chairman Sarath Kongahage is also an advisor to the President and therefore his appointment is questionable.

A truth truer than the truth

President Maithripala Sirisena’s speech at the Sugathadasa Stadium on Tuesday was a terrifying tantrum of rage, an accusatory expression of indignation; it contained traces of tears and a great deal of self-pity and it was revealing theatre of the absurd

  Thursday, 6 December 2018

We must not trust a man willing to die in glory but unwilling to live with truth and pride. Politicians who succeed in convincing themselves that the truth is identical with their self-interest turn out to be exceptionally good at being good liars. The best political liars are those who do not see reason and hence lie convincingly. Even when it becomes obvious that they are lying they insist that they are telling the truth and other party is guilty of untruth. When my son asked me if I had listened to the President’s speech at the Sugathadasa Stadium on Tuesday, my initial and laconic riposte was that I did not see the logic of taking blood pressure medication and listening to a man who in my humble opinion has not only decided to fly over the cuckoo’s nest but has now opted to remain in permanent orbit over the cuckoo nest.

Fate intervenes in funny ways. Before going to bed last night, I changed my mind. I listened to his long emotional outburst. It was a terrifying tantrum of rage. It was an accusatory expression of indignation. It contained traces of tears and a great deal of self-pity. It was revealing theatre of the absurd.

That he began his peroration with a reference to S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, the founder of the SLFP, was a cruel quirk of history.

Watching the event on a live video was spine chillingly startling.

There was the very learned, consummately cosmopolitan, tantalisingly tribal Social Anthropologist and politician Dr. Sarath Amunugama on the front row applauding the Phony Pericles of Polonnaruwa exploiting the hurriedly convened extraordinary national convention of the SLFP to explain his freakish, outlandish exercise of presumed presidential prerogatives since 26 October – the day he sacked Ranil and installed Mahinda as prime minster.

That was a real shame.

President Sirisena did not have the good fortune of either attending a university or listening to S.W.R.D Bandaranaike’s famous convocation address at Peradeniya in 1957 where he encapsulated the epochal transition from elite governance to democratic governance in the “age of the common man’ that is now cast in stone in our popular psyche, exploited in cynical disdain by parvenus who occupied the front row of the Tuesday’s event.

Dr. Sarath Amunugama, the mass media mandarin, applauding the ‘messiah’ promising never to make Ranil – the neo liberal ogre – prime minister at the SLFP circus not only attended the then ‘University of Ceylon’ but was a privileged participant in the Peradeniya event where Bandaranaike explained the Huxleyan paradox of the ‘thesis and antithesis ‘and the Solomonic synthesis he hoped to achieve though his Sri Lanka Freedom party.

One of SWRD’s observations made in 1957 is apposite to the discussion herein: “I feel that this age is not so much a new age but an age of transition between a state of society, a civilisation that is obviously decaying and dying and a new society, whatever it may be its final form, which will replace it. It is therefore essentially an age of transition, a formative age where a great responsibility rests upon all of us, of this generation to think clearly and correctly, in shaping that new civilisation, whatever it may be its final form.”

The SLFP founders advise in confronting the dynamics of social and political transition cries out to be translated in to simple Sinhala and explained to the knob head cum dimwit whom we mistakenly trusted on 8th January 2015 to deliver good governance.

There is no doubt that President Sirisena was addressing a rational audience. His preposterously monstrous perversions of facts did not result in wild cheering.  The lukewarm hurrahs and applause were limited to the front row and a few pockets of enthusiasts who were switched on and switched off with a mechanical precision.   It was an orchestrated obfuscation of obvious reality.  It was a microcosm of the make-believe world that Maithripala Sirisena finds himself trapped in today.

The speech was not fascist. It was not neo fascist either. It was breathtakingly proto fascist. Make no mistake. I am not suggesting that Ranil Wickremesinghe is better than Maithripala   Sirisena. They are both villains but of different shades and in different forms.

That said, we must in this current predicament, restore Ranil’s premiership even for a day for the express, immediate and salutary purpose of rubbing Maithripala’s snooty nose on the hard rock of public anger.

Maithripala Sirisena in his speech betrayed his deep insecurity in adhering to democratic process and procedure.

 He insisted that all executive action he has taken since 26th October are lawful and constitutional. Who says so? He says so. He cares for the country and the nation. Ranil does not. He alone responds to the people while Ranil pleads at the doorsteps of foreign embassies.

 That is more than adequate grounds to sack Ranil and install Mahinda on the Prime ministerial saddle.  He insisted that the same raison d'être that made him agree to be the common presidential candidate in opposition to Mahinda Rajapaksa on 21st November 2014 led him to make Mahinda the Prime minster on 26th October 2018!

What was really surprising to me was that Dr.Sarath Amunugama whose mastery and grasp  of Weberian ethics of political responsibility is beyond question was applauding the mundane inanities of Sirisena the president with such gusto and élan.

Now, that was a sorry spectacle that reminded the writer a passage by Theodore Adorno that exquisite critic of fascism in his brief observation on what he calls ‘Final Clarity’:

“The newspaper obituary for a businessman once read: ‘The breadth of his conscience competed with the goodness of his heart.’ The lapse committed by the mourners in the rarefied, elevated language called for at such times, the involuntary admission that the kind-hearted deceased was devoid of a conscience, expedites the funeral procession on the shortest path to the land of truth. When a man of advanced age becomes famous for being especially benign, one can presume that his life represented a series of scandals. He has gotten used to outrage. The broad conscience passes itself off as greatness of mind, which forgives everything, because it understands it all too well. A quid pro quo steps between one’s own guilt and that of others, which is resolved in favour of whoever got the best of the deal. After such a long life, one just can’t distinguish who did what to whom. In the abstract representation of universal injustice, every concrete responsibility collapse!”

Our eminent diplomat Jayantha Dhanapala who as a young undergraduate remembered SWRD’s philosophical musings at the Peradeniya convocation in 1957 quoted those words in 2013 when he himself delivered a convocation address at the same venue. How come one undergraduate of 1957 at Peradeniya remembers them while another undergraduate of 1957 applauds Sirisena’s ignorance of those same musings on societal transition? The philosopher Theodore Adorno has explained. I apologise to my readers for the digression. Imperative of confronting charlatanry demanded it. Sorry.

It is not that I admire Dr. Sarath Amunugama less. It is a contemporary imperative to remind him and others like him that rise of fascism and democratic decay is the results of such elite failure.

Maithripala Sirisena’s harangue is indicative of elite failure that can only result in reversing the one single achievement of the 8 January triumph of democratic renewal – the 19th Amendment.

Already the repeal of the 19th Amendment has become the platform of the ‘Pohottu’ Prime Minister now restrained by a court order.

Fascism is the major political innovation of the 20th century. The so-called neo liberalism now practiced by Putin in Russia in the 21st century and Pinochet in Chile in the eighties of the 20th century are only offshoots of the parent ideology that is advocated by Gotabaya Rajapaksa and now taken over by Maithripala Sirisena.

Maithripala’s horrendous harangue to his captive cadres was classic fascist rhetoric. As an ideology, fascism draws its legitimacy from a mythic core of an ancient superiority and an immediate resurgence of a populist nationalism.

In these dangerous times we must revisit history and learn from history. The purpose of history is to instruct on past folly that dissuades us from repeating earlier madness.

Fascism was born in Milan Italy on the quiet morning of Sunday 23 March in 1919. A little more than 100 persons of whom there were 11 war veterans, pretended left wingers (Vasu types), intellectuals, plus some sympathetic journalists formed a political coalition similar to our ‘Viyath Maga’ that declared war on those who championed socialism and opposed nationalism. Benito Mussolini called it Fasci di Combattimento, which means “fraternities of combat.”

Now Maithripala Sirisena has launched his fraternity of combat. He is combatting one ostensible enemy – one single man – Ranil Wickremesinghe. Should we be impressed with that hogwash?

Maithripala Sirisena is the best thing that happened to Ranil Wickremesinghe. I am all for reinstating Ranil Wickremesinghe for as long as it takes to rid the country of this current political obscenity.

The once upon a time Marxist, Trotskyite Revolutionary Socialist and present-day populist Vasudeva Nanayakkara has described the interim order of the Court of Appeal as one without a match or a parallel in the history of either Sri Lanka or the world.

That may well be true. It is doubtful whether any tribunal in modern democratic history has been called upon to determine whether an elected head of state is a jackal, a jackass or a hybrid of the two genres.