Two more Navy personnel arrested

Camelia Nathaniel-Saturday, December 15, 2018

 

The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) had arrested two more Navy personnel in connection with the abduction of the 11 youth in 2008 and 2009. They were taken into custody based on investigations conducted on telephone conversations, Police media Spokesman SP Ruwan Gunasekara said.

The two arrested Navy personnel are Petty Officer Imbulana Liyanage Upul Chaminda and Leading Seaman Sanjeewa Senanayake.

Petty Officer Imbulana Liyanage Upul Chaminda is being charged under four counts of having demanded ransom from the relatives of the abducted youth in order to avoid killing them, having obtained a ransom of Rs. 500,000 from the wife of an abducted person in the Kadahapola area, threatening a relative of an abducted person with weapons and extorting Rs. 500,000 from him in the Thambalagamuwa area and the killing of the 11 youths.

Petty Officer Upul Chaminda is also known as an alias ‘Annachchi,’the Police Media Spokesman said.

Meanwhile, Leading Seaman Sanjeewa Senanayake is charged on the grounds of having aided and abetted in the abduction, illegal detention, demanding ransom and killing of the 11 youths.
The CID had produced the two suspects before the Fort Magistrate’s Court yesterday (14) and they are also scheduled to be produced for an identification parade.

With regard to the abduction of the 11 youths in 2008, 2009, former Lieutenant Commander of the Sri Lanka Navy, Chandana Prasad Hettiarachchi, alias ‘Navy Sampath,’ is currently in remand custody. Further, Chief of Defence Staff Admiral Ravindra Wijegunaratne was also arrested and remanded for a week before being granted bail over aiding Lieutenant Commander Chandana Hettiarachchi to evade arrest and escape. 

FMM CONDEMNS THE ABHORRENT BEHAVIOR IN FRONT OF LAKE HOUSE – FREE MEDIA MOVEMENT

Image: A UNP member of the Dehiowita Pradeshiya Sabha Sujith Chandana  was caught on tape assaulting.

Media Release /2018 December 15.

The Free Media Movement vehemently condemns the behavior of the group gathered in front of Lake House and considers this behavior as a threaten to the media Institution. The Free Media Movement also calls for those responsible to carry out proper investigations into the incident and take swift action to justify the law.

This incident took place after the Supreme Court’s’ ruling on December 13^th that the dissolution of Parliament was unconstitutional. The tense situation in the country with regard to democracy and media freedom has been ended after the verdict on October 26, yet the expectations of the society haven’t been fulfilled. The Free Media Movement is of the view that similar developments in the country will further undermine the hopes of democratic co-operation in this backdrop. Similarly, the conduct of persons belonging to any political group is a threat to democracy and media freedom. The Free Media Movement call on those responsible to take legal action and make investigations against such threatening behavior against Lake House.

C. Dodawatta

Convener

Congratulations JVP, TNA, SLMC & ACMC!

By Ameer Ali –DECEMBER 14, 2018

Dr. Ameer Ali

The Supreme Court has given its unanimous judicial verdict (only verdict that counts) on the unconstitutionality of President Sirisena’s move to sack an elected Prime Minister and dissolve the parliament before its constitutionally allowed term of office. The fact that he is still not willing to concede defeat and even contemplating, according to some sources, on a possible referendum to call for general elections, not only shows his egoistic arrogance, but also indirectly, contempt of court.  There is every ground for his impeachment by the legislature but we hope that Buddhist compassion will ultimately prevail and pardon his stupidity if he quietly withdraws and remains virtually a ceremonious head for the rest of his term. 

However, there is one group of politicians who deserve to be congratulated for their principled stand in this disgraceful political saga, in spite of all financial, ministerial and other temptations, as admitted by the President himself in an interview, offered at least to some of them by SLFP and SLPP. Of this group, those belong to the JVP, TNA, SLMC and ACMC deserve to be congratulated even though the last two of the four are notoriously known for switching sides in return for the right price. TNA on the other hand, is staunchly committed for the welfare of the Tamil community, and so far its members have not sold themselves out for ministerial positions and personal benefits.  JVP is totally of a different category, a political party, progressive in policies, exemplarily patriotic, moulded from a revolutionary background and is beyond ethnic parochialism.  At this crucial point of time, when Sri Lanka was on the brink of losing its democratic heritage, these four stuck together and prevented that from happening. Had one or two of them opted to side with MR and MS the game would have been over long ago.

Reactions to the judicial verdict ranges from jubilation to disappointment and anger. Already one can hear frustrated voices crying that TNA has agreed on a pact with UNP for federalism and division of the country.  Obviously, these voices are another malicious and dangerous campaign to turn the current turmoil into another ethnic convulsion. The writings of certain comprador intellectuals and journalists are full of this malice and poison. Right from mid-1950s, the country’s political history is replete with such inter-ethnic eruptions whenever political parties were driven to a corner. It is the patriotic duty of Sri Lanka’s civil society and peace lovers to repulse this trend through counter campaign.

Once again, the two minority groups, Tamils and Muslims, must have realised by now, at least from the events leading to the judicial verdict that their community’s future in this country is inextricably tied with the progressive elements from the Sinhalese majority.  I have maintained this position throughout my writings. Although the UNP should be thankful for the support it received from the four groups, the party should not misread that support as permanent. Even the MR-MS opposition for that matter, if it is prepared to relinquish its ethno-chauvinism, clannish structure and cronyism and become genuinely patriotic and a-ethnic – a big ask – minority support including that of JVP should be forthcoming.   

Read More

MEDIA ORGANISATIONS SILENT ON POLICE INVESTIGATION AGAINST ACTIVISTS SPEAKING FOR JUSTICE

15/12/2018

 Lanka media organisations so far failed to defend the freedom of expression rights of three prominent rights activists who are being investigated by the police for speaking up against the constitutional coup staged by president Sirisena on 26th October 2018. The coup has now been defeated by the majority vote in the parliament, two Supreme Court decisions and vibrant civil society groups.

A news report on the incident follows:

Ratnapriya, Wiyangoda, Wijesuriya quizzed by SIU

The Police Special Investigation Unit (SIU) today recorded statements from three members of the ‘Purawesi Balaya’ organization in connection with a statement made by its representative Saman Ratnapriya recently.

Police said Saman Ratnapriya, Gamini Wiyangoda and Prof. Sarath Wijesuriya were questioned for nearly three hours following a complaint lodged by Pivithuru Hela Urumaya General Secretary Upul Nishantha saying that Mr. Ratnapriya had made a statement at a media briefing which was liable to cause a clash and a threat to national security.

The investigations were launched under the directions of IGP Pujith Jayasundara.

The three members of the ‘Purawesi Balaya’ were summoned for further investigations on December 17.

The Pinguttara of our politics

Saturday, 15 December 2018

Tale of Pinguttara

There is an interesting piece in the LankaEnews of 13 December that refers to President Maithripala Sirisena as a ‘Pinguttara.’ I like to pick up that idea and develop on that. ‘Pinguttara,’ is a term that is ascribed to somebody unlucky and unable to enjoy even the good luck that comes his way.

Those of you who know the Ummaga Jatakaaya will remember the story about how a Taxila Guru in Mithila, India, gave his beautiful daughter in marriage to his best pupil. However, the lad was intensely unhappy and spurned her at every turn. On the way to Mithila, when his wife climbed up a fig tree in order to assuage her hunger, the newly0wed lad put thorns round the tree and left her there – deserting the scene.

Ranil Wickremesinghe, the UNF and civil society leaders, came together to put him aloft on a rising surf. An inbuilt, ill-fated Pinguttara misfortune tossed him out of it

King Videha of Mithila saw this unfortunate incident and rescued the young woman, naming her Udumbara. Sometime later, Udumbara saw Pinguttara doing a menial job, mending a road. The lad looked helplessly at her and smiled at her good fortune.

This is the fate of Pinguttaras: they do not realise and seize their own opportunities but are ready to associate with the fortunes of others. A similar comparison is found in Gutilla Kavya where the following verse is penned considering the misfortune that befell Devadatta who had been Buddha’s follower but who betrayed the Buddha. Something like Judas in the story of Christ:

Staying in the same abode [as the Noble One]

Listening to his alluring sermons

Unshakling samsarik dukka

Alas! How Devdat ne’er reached Moksha!


The U-turn act

Gamaralalage Maithripala Sirisena stole his way out of the house of Mahinda and entered the abode of Ranil and his party. Had he stayed put with the UNF, he could have gone down to history as partnering the Yahapalanaya movement designed to rescue the island from an appalling regime characterised by a singular disregard for the law, by public theft and by brutal murder. That was the promised revolution for which 6.25 million people voted him as President.

After a mere three years, however, Sirisena felt like breaking away from his new abode of light, spurning Ranil Wickremesinghe, his Prime Minister, for no expressed reason, and showing total disregard for the islandwide UNPers that rallied round to vote for him and for good governance.

And alas! Where does he go? Backward to Mahinda and the UPFA crew that had spat at him during election days. Mahinda Rajapaksa, S.B. Dissanayake, Wimal Weerawansa, Susil Premjayanth and others of that ilk did the spitting, ejecting venomous saliva. Videos are going all over social media showing that. Sirisena’s own attacks on Mahinda are also circulating.


Mahinda’s motive

It has always been clear to any but the undiscerning that Mahinda’s efforts, now doubled and trebled, is to save his family and others from court convictions that are impending. Mahinda’s men offer no new program before the people if they come to power. Nor have they apologised for their past disgraceful misdemeanours in public life. In short, President Sirisena has allied with the corrupt and the lawless; with those facing serious grave court action. This is the diametrical opposite position to his Yahapalanaya election oath.

Like a Pinguttara, Maithripala Sirisena has, for no earthly or rational reason, done a 360 U-turn. It is just the fated misfortune of Pinguttaras, which probably his astrological chart may reveal. Like the lad at Mithila, President Sirisena just had to do it. Like a character in Greek drama he began inexorably heading the way to the unfortunate point that he now stands on. The whole island is discarding him. World leaders are scorning him. When such an outcome comes out of one’s own act of volition and against all odds, that is simply being Pinguttara.


Supreme Court verdict

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a historic verdict that would have the effect of casting President Sirisena and his provocateur, Mahinda Rajapaksa, into the political dustbin. To Mahinda, himself, it would be hard to get over the shame although dancing in the nude is not something these two haven’t done.

Our Pinguttara man is confronting a dark era of personal shame. This has happened from the position of a phase in his life where he could have taken his fortune on the tide. Ranil Wickremesinghe, the UNF and civil society leaders came together to put him aloft on a rising surf. An inbuilt, ill-fated Pinguttara misfortune tossed him out of it.


Comparison

What a crowd of politicos constitute Sirisena’s company now! Readers know their profiles and don’t need reminders from me. In comparison, what a flank of leaders he associated for three years in the UNF, engaged in a program that was putting the country back to law and order and an economy set to take off:

Ranil Wickremesinghe, Sajith Premadasa, Dr. Harsha de Silva, Eran Wickramaratne, Jayampathi Wickremaratne, Mangala Samaraweera, Ravi Karunanayake, Thalatha Athukorala, Ajith Perera – just to randomly name a few. These individuals are not perfect models, to be sure. On the other hand, they are educated and mature, learned persons of good background who don’t carry any baggage of criminal charges on their heads.

The Joint Opposition tried to demonise Ranil Wickremasinghe – a basically decent, learned and cultured persona – associating the latter with the so-called bond scam. The truth, however, is that the commission investigating the incident did not find Ranil or any UNP minister guilty of bad dealing. The Ravi Karunanayake issue did not relate directly to the bond deal but to something else.

This bond incident is all that the JO can shout about overlooking their chronic record of serial misdemeanour. Besides, the money stated as “loss” is not lost as it is frozen in bank accounts. This case hasn’t yet gone to court and it is only the court that can legally apportion guilt. A forensic financial investigation will have to be completed and, in terms of that, it is not necessary that the same conclusion that may be given.


Bizarre

Getting into a position of making one disastrous judgment after another in violation of the Constitution and driving one’s country into anarchy and its people into despair, can, perhaps, be seen as symptomatic of President Maithripala’s plight. It had been so bizarre that someone has filed action to have the President checked for insanity. How well does that situation sit on Maithripala Sirisena’s conscience?

The lad of Mithila faced such a turn in his fate when he opted out of a life with the beautiful lass (sriya kanthaawa) and found comfort in being a road labourer. The wife, later, married into the royal family and the lad of Mithula seemed to look in resigned admiration at her opposite fortune.

The unfortunate possible end would be worse for Maithripala since the gang of political humbugs, cheats and knaves that contrived to get the President to turn his mind are going to abandon him. He will probably still have a leader of Ranil’s extraordinary calibre to shelve him and clothe him with a modicum of decency.


Forgive

That is my own hope for President Maithripala Sirisena’s future political trajectory; and it is a hope based on gratitude for his immeasurable role in ousting the old regime and ushering in a regime that is ( or rather, was) on the job of Yahapalanaya.

Buddhism teaches us all to extend our arms and hearts of compassionate to all living beings. If one learns to think of the good deeds of men, then Maithripala Sirisena deserves forgiveness and a secure retirement. The Pinguttara model explains the deterministic inner drive that beckoned him to an unfortunate reversal.
(The writer can be reached via sjturaus@optusnet.com.au.)

A Karmic Ruling: President overruled, Mahinda resigns and Ranil returns

Rajan Philips-December 15, 2018, 8:56 pm

The Supreme Court picked a Thursday to deliver its long anticipated ruling after seven weeks of Fridays that saw the government of the country stumble from one level of illegality to another. The Court ruled unanimously that the dissolution of parliament by the President is unconstitutional and illegal – that the President’s proclamation to that effect is "null, void ab initio and without force or effect in law." The after effects have been swift and smooth. Mahinda Rajapksa resigned yesterday after another judicial setback on Friday when a divisional bench of three judges unanimously refused to stay the Quo Warranto hearing in the Court of Appeal, while allowing (with one of the three Judges dissenting) the appeal against it to proceed for hearing in mid-January. Rather than continuing as PM in a legal limbo and facing public wrath for an impending government breakdown, the former President chose to relinquish his demoted and controversially appointed position as Prime Minister. His technically illegal government also stood down.

Today at 10:00 AM, Ranil Wickremesinghe will be re-sworn in as Prime Minister. A hugely humiliated President Sirisena finally climbed down from his imagined plenitude of powers and has reportedly agreed to re-appoint Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister. Constitutional normalcy has been restored after seven weeks and weekends of confusion and turmoil. It would be quite a while before political normalcy could be restored, and even longer before the shaky economy is brought to even keel. Much will depend on how Ranil Wickremesinghe and ‘his’ new government will pan out over the next several weeks and months. But before we gaze into the ‘new future’ with Ranil Wickremesinghe, we must pause to celebrate the seven Judges of the Supreme Court and their unanimous ruling, but for whom no new future would have become possible.

The Ruling

The implications of the Supreme Court ruling are many. The unanimous ruling is proof that the judiciary has finally come of age in its independence after all the political monkeying that it had been wrung through for decades on end. Contrary to politically inspired speculations about a divided court and an uncertain verdict, the seven judges have shown their collegial and judicial abilities to reach a unanimous conclusion through consensual reasoning on a very controversial matter. All seven judges were appointed by either Mahinda Rajapaksa or Maithripala Sirisena, but the judges have validated former US President Truman’s timeless insight that executive presidents might think that their judicial appointees will rule in their favour, but almost always it never happens that way. In fact, it should never happen that way.

The ruling is a rebuke of presidential overreach. It is not a victory for the UNP or its leader. It is a victory for constitutional democracy, where elections are held not at the time of any sovereign’s whimsical choosing but at times and intervals stipulated by the constitution. Previous Supreme Courts too easily concurred with constitutional amendments and interpretations to manipulate the timing of presidential elections and terms to suit sitting presidents. Until the 19th Amendment, the timing of parliamentary elections was simply left to the President without any restraint, except the first-year-after-election restriction. The 19th Amendment took away the President’s arbitrary power of dissolution. The President was ill-advised that a textual or translation loophole in the constitution allowed him to dissolve parliament any time he wanted to. He foolishly tried it and has now received a public caning from the custodians of the constitution.

By his arbitrary dissolution of parliament, Maithripala Sirisena unintentionally created the time and space for much debate and the coalescing of arguments in support of the Constitution and against the President’s breach of it. The articulations in the Court were only a part of the debate. There were plenty more outside the Courts in the broader society. Never before, have legal luminaries, academics, scholars and activists joined a constitutional debate from the outside in such large numbers and over so many weeks. They stand gratified and rewarded by the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling. Equally, those who spuriously argued in support of the dissolution, and others who irresponsibly advised the President who has been incapable of discerning good fruits from bad ones, stand isolated and disgraced for their intellectual dishonesty, thuggish threats and mischievous misinterpretations of the constitution.

The judgement delivered by Chief Justice HNJ Perera (with five Judges agreeing while Justice Sisira de Abrew provided his own reasoning for the same verdict) puts to rest many of the misconceptions about presidential powers under the constitution. They were really not misconceptions but artfully advanced political positions predicated on unrestrained presidential powers. Hopefully, the unanimous Court ruling will significantly delegitimize them even if it cannot totally eliminate them. The Attorney General and others supporting the dissolution raised two objections, one concerning the remedy that the petitioners against the dissolution were seeking, and the other questioning the jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate on a ‘political decision’ of the President. The Court gave copious reasons for dismissing these objections. The following are particularly instructive.

The Court found the submission on seeking remedy through impeachment "logically flawed … and a glaring non sequitur in the specific circumstances of these applications" for "the simple reason … that these applications challenge a dissolution of Parliament and a Member of a Parliament which is dissolved by the President without notice and literally overnight, cannot have recourse to Article 38 (2) because, at the time the applications are filed, no Parliament would exist in which a motion for impeachment can be brought. The Court also pointed that the submission is irrelevant to "the case of the Petitioners … who were and/or are not Members of the Eighth Parliament and, therefore, have no opportunity of bringing a motion for the impeachment of the President."

The Court was even more emphatic in rejecting the submission that "the dissolution of Parliament does not constitute "executive or administrative action" falling within the purview of Article 126 of the Constitution … and the suggestion inherent in the submission … that the President, in his capacity as the Head of State, has a species of inherent unrestricted omnipotent power which is akin to royal prerogative power held by a monarch".

The Court went on: "Since 1972, this country has known no monarch and this Court must reject any submission that carries with it a suggestion to the contrary. It is apt to refer to the decision in VISUVALINGAM vs. LIYANAGE [1983 1 SLR 203 at p.222] where Samarakoon CJ emphatically rejected the proposition advanced by Deputy Solicitor General that the President of Sri Lanka has "inherited the mantle of a Monarch"." (Note: This was the "Saturday Review" Fundamental Rights case that, thanks to the creative genius of the late S. Nadesan QC,led to a full bench hearing on the sacking and reappointment of the entire Court by President Jayewardene over the Sixth Amendment. The then CJ’s ruling was on the latter case. This writer was one of the petitioners in that case, a relatively young one at that time.)

In ruling that the recent dissolution of parliament is unconstitutional, the Court exhaustively addressed the different submissions on the various Articles of the Constitution that pertain to dissolution. As the Chief Justice noted, the ruling "accords with the duty cast on this Court to read and give effect to the provisions in the Constitution so as to uphold democracy, the Rule of Law and the separation of powers and ensure that no unqualified and unfettered powers are vested in any public authority." In the end, the Court addressed the tendentious justification for a General Election advanced as a pseudo-legal argument.

The Court could not have been clearer than in saying: "Giving effect to the franchise of the people is not achieved by the Court permitting a General Election held consequent to the dissolution of Parliament which has been effected contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. Such a General Election will be unlawfully held and its result will be open to question. A General Election will be valid only if it is lawfully held. Thus, a General Election held consequent to the dissolution of Parliament which has been done contrary to the provisions of the Constitution will not be a true exercise of the franchise of the people."

Sweet and Sour Return

The Judiciary has taken the country as far as it could out of an unnecessarily created constitutional storm. The rehabilitation work is left to the Executive and the Legislature. The return of Ranil Wickremesinghe has its sweet and sour flavours. It is sweet insofar as it restores constitutional normalcy that was unnecessarily ruptured on 26 October. It is also sour because it brings into painful relief all the baggage that Ranil Wickremesinghe and his select band of Ministers had gathered over the last three years, promising everything and achieving little. That the little that was achieved – restoring the independence of judiciary and dismantling the state and non-state machinery that went about kidnapping and killing personal enemies and political opponents from May 2009 to November 2014 – is also huge enough to justify Ranil Wickremesinghe returning as Prime Minister.

At the same time, Mr. Wickremesinghe has a responsibility to demonstrate and to ensure that this latest stint of his as PM will be qualitatively different and not at all disappointing unlike the phase that, thankfully for him, ended on October 26. Hopefully, Mr. Wickremesinghe is not thinking that he will restart from where he was in Galle, on October 26, before Sirisena was abandoned by his sanities. As is commonly acknowledged, Ranil Wickremesinghe must take more than a fair share of blame for driving Maithripala Sirisena go nuts. Out of office for the last seven weeks, Ranil Wickremesinghe has been promising in his usual carefree manner of speaking any and all of: (a) entertaining a resolution to dissolve parliament; (b) to abolish the executive presidency; and (c) to bring in a new constitution. What he has not been clear about is how he proposes to navigate any or all of this in the current parliament.

All eyes will be on the ‘new’ cabinet of ministers that RW and Sirisena will be creating come next week, or even today. What will be its size? Who and who will be in it? Will Ravi Karunanayake be back as Minister of Finance? Will the bunch of SLFPers who were in the ‘Rajapaksa cabinet’ just last week until the Court of Appeal threw them out, be back in the ‘Wickremesinghe cabinet’ next week? The blame will all be Mr. Wickremsinghe’s, if it were to transpire that the upshot of all the weeks of protests and campaigns for democracy is only to reward the PM’s disgraced chums with cabinet placements.

The TNA will have a hard time selling itself, let alone others, the proposition that it should continue to prop up a government that includes Ravi Karunanayake as Minister of Finance. The JVP is all ready to support a No Confidence Motion against Ranil Wickremesinghe, because, as it rightly argues, Wickremesinghe’s UNP and Sirisena’s SLFP have betrayed the people’s trust given to them twice in one year, in 2015. The JVP wants an election, and so do the Rajapaksa forces. The only condition is that an early election can only materialize if Parliament passes a resolution by two-thirds majority asking the President to dissolve parliament. That is the constitutional position as affirmed by seven judges of the Supreme Court.

The task before Mr. Wickremesinghe is not to pretend that he has a new mandate to govern on an idiosyncratic agenda of multiple free trade agreements and a million jobs (forget the farmers), but to formulate a minimum program to build on the political gains of the last seven weeks and the constitutional clarity provided by the Supreme Court. Since a two-thirds majority resolution is needed for an early general election that both the Rajapksas and the JVP want, it also creates the opportunity to piggyback on that majority – either a minimalist or a maximalist constitutional amendment.

At the minimum new electoral laws, and regulations for caretaker government during the election should be put in place. As a maximum, it wouldn’t hurt to reach for the pie-in-the-sky and try to have the Executive Presidency seriously modified. It would be foolish for the country to persist with it in its current form after the experience with Maithripala Sirisena. The JVP has an amendment for it, but doesn’t know how to get it done. It will require the support of both Mahinda Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe, just as much as their support is needed for an early election.

There is also a political advantage in openly exploring constitutional possibilities, in that it will force the Rajapaksa supporters to have their say in the open rather than spreading wild rumours in the social media that Ranil Wickremesinghe is somehow going to implement a federal constitution as payback for the TNA’s support of him. The simple truth is that no constitutional reform is feasible or will be durable if it doesn’t have the support of the MS-MR-RW troika. The TNA leader knows this more than anybody else, and that is what he has been trying to accomplish all this while. He can only keep trying harder.

Resilience in Sri Lanka

Featured image by Amalini De Sayrah

ASHRAF HEGAZY AND GARY MILANTE- 12/14/2018

The recent political crisis in Sri Lanka has gone largely unnoticed in the international press. Although it is a very serious matter for the 21.4 million Sri Lankans who currently have one, two or no government, it rarely rates an update on BBC or CNN (unless chili powder is being thrown or a protest turns violent). This is partly due to the sad reality that “if it bleeds it leads”. Indeed, we contend that it is because resilience is boring – when institutions work the way they should, they are mundane, bureaucratic, clerical, and tedious and they don’t grab attention the way that tweets, bullets and cars on fire do.

While we study fragility and state failure and these cases regularly make the news, we infrequently observe the opposite – headlines about societies making slow and steady progress on institutional reform, improving governance, building resilience, and embracing social change. Even here, we’re focusing on Sri Lanka because of the recent constitutional crisis; but we’d like to focus on the resilience we see in Sri Lanka, to demonstrate where progress has been made – that after a couple of decades of investment in governance, Sri Lankans are not back at “square one.” How Sri Lankans have responded to these events demonstrates the resilience that they have built into their systems of government and social norms.

Three signs of resilience in Sri Lanka

People build resilience in systems so that when they encounter stresses, the systems will survive the shocks and continue to produce the outcomes for which those systems were designed. There have been three recent tests of the Sri Lankan political system and a few signs of resilience that arguably didn’t exist twenty years ago:

Parliament’s Response to Dissolution Order: There are many countries in the world where a strong president could dismiss an unpopular prime minister and it might be accepted (sometimes without dispute, at other times at great cost). The fact that parliament rejected the president’s dismissal of the prime minister and appointment of a new PM/cabinet and used governance systems to address the dismissal is a sign of institutional resilience. Public support for parliament’s actions represents a significant confidence and trust in the institution of parliament as a check on executive power.

Rejection by the Supreme Court: Another case where the system has quietly “worked as intended” manifested through the Supreme Court’s suspension of the dissolution of Parliament on November 13 and continuing that suspension until a final verdict is issued. Finally, despite being under pressure, the court ultimately ruled against the president and reinforced the rule of law under the constitution. The increased confidence in the final decision by the court further demonstrates the popular support for institutional checks and balances.

Rejecting Bribes: Had lawmakers behaved differently, the no-confidence motion would have succeeded. Instead, allegations of bribery were brought to the surface, then national and international condemnation reversed any effort to push through the motion. Scholars who study corruption note that it is not the absence of bribery that is evidence of progress, but rather allegations of bribery by those who are confident enough to trust systems of governance – in this case, it was actually a sign of resilience that allegations of bribery surfaced, demonstrating trust in good governance.

These three signs of resilience, along with low levels of violence and some public political discourse are signs that Sri Lanka has developed at least some resilience to endure trials like the current constitutional crisis. This may not be satisfying to activists who would like to see Sri Lanka become the nation it can be immediately, but those who have studied such processes know that reform is a long haul and requires planning and much adaptation and course correction.

It Takes A Generation

It may seem easy for outsiders like us to take the long view and look at the big picture on institutional reform. We realize it is unsatisfying (and often frustrating) when outsiders remind those on the ground dealing with the day to day negotiations and setbacks that progress takes time. But it is also our responsibility as professionals who study and work on these types of processes to remind those involved that no country has undertaken reform processes, constitutional or otherwise, quickly or smoothly. Even in the best cases, institutional reform takes a generation; not to move from Somalia to Denmark, but to make a more realistic move, like the equivalent of transforming the quality of institutions from that of modern day Nepal or Madagascar to those of Thailand or Tunisia. During that time there are often stress tests on these systems and there can be setbacks; Sri Lanka is in the middle of a long process and the current events are such tests. As such, it is important to put progress into perspective. While the guiding star on such a process might be a new constitution or more representation in parliament, seemingly minor victories like those described above are more likely to occur day by day and indicate progress that can be especially appreciated from a comparative perspective.

Developing an Inclusive Political Culture

Sri Lanka stands at a defining moment. Continuing to rely on, and strengthen, a political system based on institutions and the rule of law will be critical to building the new Sri Lanka. However, the twin challenges of backsliding and institutional capture by anti-democratic forces still loom large. To face them effectively, elections will not be enough. What Sri Lankans can do now is to use the current crisis to nudge the political culture in a more inclusive direction, based on dialogue and the identification of minimal common denominators of the national interest.

Read more on the continued political crisis in Sri Lanka here.

Remaking Economy Under Ranil’s New Government!

By Hema Senanayake –DECEMBER 15, 2018

Hema Senanayake

 Wickremasinghe is going to be sworn in as Prime Minister tomorrow, that is, on the Sunday of December 16th, 2018. People of Sri Lanka defeated the political coup. Ranil successfully gave the leadership to defeat it. He had a vision for it. But unfortunately, since 2015, he has proved enough that he together with his chosen Cabinet has no vision in economic governance. People understood it, yet extended their unconditional support to Ranil in order to uphold the country’s constitution during the coup. This support should not be mistakenly understood as an endorsement of his economic program which was the worst under his purview since 2015.

Ranil should shed his arrogance and be ready to listen to others who talk about economics with greater sense. As Karl A. Menniger said that, “Listening is a magnetic and strange thing, a creative force. The friends who listen to us are the ones we move toward. When we are listened to, it creates us, makes us unfold and expand.” This is what we expect from Ranil’s new government sworn in tomorrow.        

The economy is a system. When any physical or natural system has come into existence and prevail there is a cause for it. When the cause ceases, the phenomena cease to exist. This is true for all-natural systems which are objects of scientific investigation. As a result, scientists find out certain laws that are associated with those systems. Similarly, the economy is a system which has been put in place by human imagination. Yet, it has its own laws of behavior. We cannot ignore those rules and move forward maneuvering the economy as per our wishful thinking. Such efforts definitely aggravate the unwelcome systemic behaviors. This has happened to many countries. 

The challenge in the area of economy is huge. Anybody or any economists for that matter who cannot explain as to why the richest countries have enormous debt (for example, Japan’s public debt amounts to 253% of GDP approximately) will never tell the new Cabinet as to how the economy be put in a winning trajectory. Read the next line carefully; I assure you that the new government will win the hearts and minds of the people by adequately explaining the macroeconomic reforms that you will bring immediately rather than microeconomic price reduction gambles. In fact, such macroeconomic reforms might help you to engage in limited price reduction gambles if any need arises politically.

What are the reforms you need to explain to the people? There are at least six of them.

1. Dramatic reduction of domestic component of public debt. How? So, I propose the limited use of Full Reserve Banking to deflate public-debt for a very specific time period, say three years or so. Details and the extend of the use of the principles of Full Reserve Banking can be worked out. Once, we worked out the details, I hope, we can convince the IMF and win their patronage for the plan because IMF has itself published a Working Paper on this subject. Implementation of this will never increase inflation and this has been confirmed by the IMF Working Paper. 

2. Reduction of tax burden. How? The above action would facilitate to reduce taxes.

3. Managing current account deficit positively. How? By amending the Monetary Law Act in order to introduce a new piece of legislation to facilitate the Central Bank to acquire a new policy tool (effective in short term) to contain the creation of what is known as “credit-money” in the system. This policy tool facilitate the implementation of the first proposal mentioned above.

Read More

Why Sri Lanka Risks Return to Violence

By Iain Marlow and Anusha Ondaatjie -December 13

 

Sri Lanka is in the throes of a political crisis that’s threatening to bring violence back to the South Asian island nation. A bitter standoff was sparked in October when the president fired the prime minister, suspended parliament and attempted to install a controversial ex-president as premier. It marks a return of political upheaval to the country of 21 million people that’s still in rehabilitation following a brutal 26-year civil war that ended in 2009.

1. Why was the prime minister fired?

President Maithripala Sirisena said he dismissed Ranil Wickremesinghe on Oct. 26 for failing to properly investigate a plot to assassinate him, one that he alleges involved a cabinet minister. But the president also accused Wickremesinghe of mismanaging the economy, and relations between the two had been strained for months. Sirisena attempted to appoint populist strongman Mahinda Rajapaksa as prime minister, claiming the move was within his constitutional rights. Wickremesinghe described his ousting as “blatantly illegal, unconstitutional, and opportunistic.”

2. What’s happened since?

Lawmakers voted twice to reject Sirisena’s bid to install Rajapaksa as prime minister, then froze spending by Rajapaksa’s office and ministerial salaries in an attempt to crimp the new government’s ability to implement policies. Tensions boiled over Nov. 15 when rival lawmakers exchanged blows in the middle of the parliamentary chamber. To settle the matter, Sirisena planned to dissolve parliament and call an election for Jan. 5. However, the Supreme Court has ruled the plan unconstitutional, putting pressure on the president to reinstall Wickremesinghe.

3. Why is Rajapaksa controversial?

As president from 2005 to 2015, he was implicated in human rights violations toward the end of the civil war. He also drew criticism for his close relationship with China and the ramping up of the country’s borrowings. Roughly 80 percent of government revenue now goes toward paying down debt. Nonetheless, Rajapaksa remains popular in part because many of the Sinhalese population (80 percent of Sri Lankans) were relieved to see a conclusion to the war and the regular bombings and assassinations it brought to the capital Colombo and the rest of the country.

4. What was the civil war about?

Sri Lanka has been weighed down by conflict since gaining independence from Britain in 1948. The Sinhalese sought to disenfranchise Tamil migrant workers from India -- Tamils make up 9.4 percent of the population -- and made Sinhala the official language. In 1972, the country’s name was changed from Ceylon to Sri Lanka and Buddhism was established as the main religion. Tamils are mostly Hindu. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or Tamil Tigers, was formed in 1976 and began to campaign for a Tamil homeland in the north and east. The civil war that followed killed up to 100,000 people, and both the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan military were accused of violations, including the use of child soldiers, before the war ended in 2009 with a government victory.

5. What’s happened since the war?

Economic growth initially took off, with Chinese loans funding infrastructure development even as western nations held back through concern about unresolved human rights violations. Extreme weather, from droughts to floods, has kept many Sri Lankans in poverty, but the country has moved to leverage strengths such as its location along key shipping lanes in the Indian Ocean, a growing services industry and its palm-fringed beaches and ancient temples. The tropical island was named as a top 2019 destination by Lonely Planet. Tourist arrivals -- mainly Chinese and Indians -- have gradually increased since the war, climbing 7 percent in 2017 to 1.3 million and contributing 4.5 percent of gross domestic product. The economy has faltered, though, with 2017 seeing the slowest pace of growth since 2001 and consumer prices surging the most in four years. In ousting Wickremesinghe, the president blamed him for poor management of the economy. The political crisis has led Moody’s Investors Service, Fitch Ratings and S&P Global Ratings to downgrade the island nation’s credit rating.

6. Why might the situation turn violent now?

Tensions are high, as illustrated by the brawl in parliament. There are also fears that Rajapaksa, who lost the 2015 election, will stoke religious and ethnic nationalism if he returns to power. Rajapaksa, whose administration largely refused to cooperate with investigations into human rights violations, “leveraged Buddhist nationalism” to win elections in 2018, political consultancy Eurasia Group said.

 Wickremesinghe had engaged with the international community and civil society groups as well as embracing a United Nations resolution that included justice mechanisms for truth and accountability over the civil war. There have also been allegations of bribery in a political climate Transparency International describes as “ripe for horse-trading.”

7. What about Sri Lanka’s international ties?

Wickremesinghe was re-balancing foreign relations toward India and Japan after Rajapaksa had shifted the country closer to China. While Rajapaksa was prime minister, Sri Lanka took those large Chinese loans to fund projects including the construction of a port and airport in remote southern Hambantota -- his own political constituency. The port lost money and was eventually sold to a state-owned Chinese firm in a debt-to-equity swap on a 99-year lease, while the eerily empty airport has no scheduled daily flights.

To contact the reporters on this story: Iain Marlow in New Delhi at imarlow1@bloomberg.net;Anusha Ondaatjie in Colombo at anushao@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Daniel Ten Kate at dtenkate@bloomberg.net, Grant Clark, Ruth Pollard

©2018 Bloomberg L.P.

The politics of a plot to kill Sri Lanka's president

FILE PHOTO: Sri Lanka's President Maithripala Sirisena speaks during a meeting with Foreign Correspondents Association at his residence in Colombo, Sri Lanka November 25, 2018. REUTERS/Dinuka Liyanawatte/File Photo

John Geddie, Shihar Aneez, Ranga Sirilal-DECEMBER 14, 2018

COLOMBO (Reuters) - A plot to kill the president, links to foreign intelligence, a rogue police officer and a missing sniper: the snippets of news emerging from Sri Lanka in recent weeks seem plucked from the pages of paperback fiction.

But the allegations have had real enough consequences for the island nation, contributing to upending its politics, undermining its currency and credit rating, and affecting relations with giant neighbour India.

President Maithripala Sirisena sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in October, just weeks after a little-known social activist alleged he had heard of a plot to assassinate the president from a police officer.

Reuters has learnt that investigators have not found any substantial evidence to back up the claim, although Sirisena said in a newspaper interview this month that the refusal of Wickremesinghe to take the plot seriously was the final straw leading to his dismissal.

A spokesman for Sirisena did not respond to Reuters’ requests for comment.

Sirisena said in the interview with Ceylon Today: “I was completely disappointed by the way things were moving.”

Referring to the assassination plot, he added: “They (the authorities) displayed utter lethargy.”

Wickremesinghe has said he never interfered with the investigations and kept Sirisena informed of their progress.

Sri Lanka has a long history of political assassinations in decades of civil war, making Sirisena’s allegations all the more explosive.

“It is hard to know what the truth is and many people are sceptical (of the plot),” said a senior Western diplomat in Sri Lanka’s capital Colombo. “It’s part of the politics,” he added.

What is clear is the drama has paralysed the island nation and left it without a functioning government for months.

The alleged plot first came to light on September 12, when self-styled anti-corruption activist and police informant Namal Kumara gathered a few local journalists and made a series of accusations against a senior police officer.

The most alarming of those claims was that the officer had told him about a plot to assassinate Sirisena using agents of the criminal underworld.

Kumara said he had deleted the recording of the conversation about the plot against Sirisena out of fear, but to back up his allegations he released recordings of other conversations with the deputy inspector general of police, Nalaka de Silva.

Ruwan Gunasekara, a police spokesman, said there was evidence in those recordings of a plot to kill another senior officer. But he added that in nearly three months of investigations, police had found “no substantial evidence” of an assassination threat to Sirisena beyond Kumara’s claims.

The comments, made to Reuters, have not been previously reported.

 

“NONSENSE”

On Saturday, police sent Kumara’s phone to Hong Kong to see if any deleted recordings could be recovered. De Silva remains in custody and could not be reached for comment.

Speaking via a video-call from a town in Sri Lanka’s eastern province, a relaxed, bare-chested Kumara told Reuters the police were now showing little interest in his story.

“The way they (investigators) take action is very poor. I’m ready to help them if they ask,” he said, adding that he had further information to reveal to authorities. He declined to elaborate.

From the outset, there were doubts over Kumara, who runs a private anti-corruption campaign group that he says is funded by himself and a few other activists.

“All what he said was nonsense,” Rajitha Senarathne, the cabinet spokesman in the former government of Wickremesinghe, told Reuters.

Even one of Sirisena’s closest aides acknowledged that Kumara may not be reliable.

“That informant may not be credible but you can’t just brush it (the plot) away,” Shiral Lakthilaka, the president’s coordinating secretary and adviser, told Reuters.

In an interview with foreign correspondents late last month, Sirisena alleged that former cabinet minister and army chief Sarath Fonseka may be involved in the plot. He also said a missing man described as a former Tamil militant sniper could be involved.

Slideshow (6 Images)

Gunasekara from Sri Lanka’s police told Reuters there was no investigation into Fonseka “at the moment” and that he “was not aware” of the incident involving the missing sniper. Fonseka has denied the allegations and called for Sirisena to be prosecuted.

INDIAN CONNECTION

Police have said they arrested an Indian national named Marsili Thomas in connection with the case on information provided by Kumara.

Rumours started to swirl around social media that Thomas was working for the Indian secret service - which Sirisena later referred to in a cabinet meeting, according to officials present, threatening a diplomatic furore.

India, the regional superpower, is an ever-present bogeyman for Sri Lankans. Many blame India for supporting Tamil Tiger separatists during the civil war.

Asked if Thomas was linked to India’s intelligence, the Indian High Commission in Sri Lanka did not respond. Thomas, who remains in custody in Sri Lanka, could not be reached for comment.

India’s foreign ministry has said Sirisena spoke to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi about the issue to ensure it didn’t lead to a diplomatic crisis.

As the rumours and conspiracy theories continue to swirl around Colombo, Sri Lanka’s government is in limbo. Wickremesinghe’s replacement, former president Mahinda Rajapaksa, has lost two confidence motions in parliament and been prevented from assuming office by a court order.

Sirisena has ordered the parliament dissolved and called for fresh elections, but Sri Lanka’s top court ruled the move as unconstitutional on Thursday.

Sirisena has called the impasse “a storm in a teacup.”

“These issues will be settled soon and no one needs to worry,” he said in the newspaper interview.
But he has refused to reinstate Wickremesinghe.

He told the foreign correspondents: “Leave the law and order aside, isn’t it a duty of a prime minister at least to ask the president who is facing an assassination threat? There was nothing like that ... How can I go forward with Ranil Wickremesinghe?”

Reporting by John Geddie, Shihar Aneez and Ranga Sirilal; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan

Back to square one

By Arjuna Ranawana- DEC 16 2018

President Maithripala Sirisena’s bid to bring his former rival to power through a back-door arrangement was defeated both by the Parliament and the judiciary. It is fifty-two days since Sirisena sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and appointed former President Mahinda Rajapaksa in his place. Fifty-two days, during which the country’s economy has been deeply affected with billions of rupees of foreign investment fleeing the country, billions lost in tourist booking cancellations during the busiest tourist season, our credit ratings hammered down and the country forced to a standstill.

Today Rajapaksa is out and Wickremesinghe will be sworn in as Prime Minister for the fifth time in his long career in politics. We are back to square one.

The rolling back of Sirisena’s move to appoint Rajapaksa began with a Supreme Court decision delivered on Thursday (13). It was a sledgehammer blow, a Seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court said that the President has no power to dissolve Parliament and call for fresh elections before four-and-a-half years had elapsed after its election. This is the first time in our history that the Courts have found that the Chief Executive wilfully violated the Constitution.

It was a historic judgment in every sense and a wake-up call for those who still believe the Executive Presidency is all powerful. Seeing all the judges agreeing that the President had been out of line was a clarion call for the upholding of the rule of law and a strong message that our democracy was alive and well.

The much anticipated judgment was delivered to a packed courtroom as the country held its breath because even the man on the street knew of the importance of the Court’s decision. It was not the arcane legal arguments which went over the heads of most people that the people lapped up, but the fact that it was the first time that a decision of such importance taken by an Executive President of Sri Lanka had been challenged and won!

As Ceylon Today reported, the Court, in two separate opinions, one written by Chief Justice H. Nalin J. Perera and which was joined by Justices, Buwaneka Aluwihare, Priyantha Jayawardena, Prasanna S. Jayawardena, Vijith Kumara Malalgoda and Murdu Fernando, and another concurring opinion written by Justice Sisira J. de Abrew, quashed the proclamation issued via an Extraordinary Gazette dissolving the legislature and calling for a Parliamentary Election, declaring it null and void, ab initio (from the outset), and sans any force and effect in the law.

Delivering the Judgment to a packed house of lawyers, journalists,
Parliamentarians, petitioners, intervenient petitioners and respondents, in Room 502 of the Supreme Court Complex, the Chief Justice said that the petitioners’, including MPs’, fundamental rights, as per Article 12(1) of the Constitution (right to equality and equal protection of the law), had been violated by the arbitrary exercise of power by the Executive President.

Reading his opinion after the Chief Justice, Justice de Abrew noted that according to Article 70(1) of the Constitution the President could not dissolve Parliament until a period of four and a half years from a Parliamentary term of five years since its first sitting had lapsed and could only do so if a two-thirds majority of MPs, including those not present in the House, passed a resolution and requested the President to do so.

Sirisena’s actions ever since he sacked Wickremesinghe and appointed Rajapaksa Prime Minister on 26 October, has only resulted in the country going downhill. The ill-fated decision to dissolve Parliament was taken once it was clear that Rajapaksa was unable to find a majority of Members of Parliament to support him.

Writ of Quo Warranto

As soon as the SC decision was announced, there were whispers that Rajapaksa would resign from the Prime Minister’s post. In fact, he was not legally the Prime Minister at the time as the Appeal Court had issued a stay order on his appointment in response to a Writ of Quo Warranto filed by 122 Members of Parliament opposing him and the question of ‘resignation’ did not apply.

On the following day, the SC gave leave to proceed on Rajapaksa’s appeal against the Court of Appeal (CA) order but upheld the interim order preventing Rajapaksa from continuing as PM. This decision was considered by a Three-Judge Bench comprising Justices Eva Wanasundera, Buwaneka Aluvihare and Vijith K. Malalgoda.

The petitioner’s request to vacate the Interim Order issued by the CA, restraining Rajapaksa from holding office of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet of Ministers from functioning, was rejected by the Court.

The Supreme Court Bench, then granted leave to proceed with the appeal and fixed hearing of the case for 16, 17 and 18 January next year.

Making submissions to the Court on behalf of Rajapaksa, President’s Counsels Romesh de Silva and Gamini Marapana said that the interim stay order, issued by the CA, was illegal. They further pointed out that due to the interim stay order, the Premier and his Cabinet had not been able to perform their duties and that as a result, the country had suffered.

Making submissions to the Court on behalf of MP Ranil Wickremesinghe, President’s Counsel K. Kanag-Iswaran PC said that the CA had issued the interim stay order having seriously considered the submissions made by them. He said that a no-confidence motion had been ratified against the Prime Minister on 14 November in Parliament by a two-thirds majority and the actions of the Parliament cannot be challenged in Court as per the Parliamentary (Privileges and Powers) Act.

The aforesaid order by the Bench came after consideration of those submissions.
 On 3 December, the CA issued an interim order restraining Rajapaksa and his Cabinet of Ministers from functioning until the hearing of the Writ of Quo Warranto filed against them, is concluded. However, the following day an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court against the interim order stating that it was unconstitutional and that the CA has no authority to issue such orders.
 The appeal was filed by lawyers on behalf of Rajapaksa. The 122 MPs who had signed the Writ of Quo Warranto petition, against holding office as the Prime Minister, were named as respondents in the appeal. Meanwhile, a lawyer on behalf of Wickremesinghe filed a motion before the Supreme Court requesting a five-member Bench for the hearing of the aforementioned appeal. However, this motion was rejected by the Court after consideration.

A second motion was filed in the Supreme Court by 122 MPs, who are named respondents of the appeal, requesting that the relevant appeal should not be heard before Judge Eva Wanasundara, in fear of a biased judgment owing to her alleged close association with Rajapaksa. It was announced in Court that Justice Wanasundera, after 40 years of service, would retire with effect from Friday.

Rajapaksa’s decision to back down from his claim to premiership came with the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday not to remove the interim stay order given by the Court of Appeal. The former President’s son MP Namal Rajapaksa told some reporters outside the Court that afternoon that our letters of resignation are with the President.
He just has to accept them. Rajapaksa had by then lost votes of confidence in Parliament four times and was now being restrained from functioning by the Court. Shortly after Rajapaksa conveyed his decision to the President, the latter called Wickremesinghe and agreed to swear-in the UNF leader as Prime Minister. The swearing in is scheduled for 10 a.m. today.

Workings of former President’s camp

Rajapaksa released a statement in which he said he decided to resign as the country was badly affected by the instability and also to ‘prevent any uncomfortable situations which President Sirisena may have to face.’

The way the decision was made for Rajapaksa and his Cabinet to step down gave a glimpse into the inner workings of the former President’s camp. On 26 October it appeared that even his brothers were not aware that he was being appointed as Prime Minister as his younger brother, the former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa was in Galle attending an event organised by a group supporting his political ambitions.
The younger Rajapaksa was asked to rush back to Colombo and made it just in time although he was not present at the Presidential Secretariat when Sirisena handed over the appointment letter to the former President. At the time he accepted the letter, Rajapaksa was surrounded by a number of United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) MPs.

On Friday, in contrast that group seemed unaware that MR was calling it quits and ditching his claim to be Prime Minister. His staff denied that such a decision had been there even as late as 6 p.m. But on Saturday morning the former President ceremonially signed the letter of resignation at Rajapaksa’s Wijerama Road residence, while Buddhist, Muslim and Hindu clergy blessed him. He was surrounded by a number of UPFA MPs as well as officials such as the Secretary General of the SLFP Prof. Rohana Lakshman Piyadasa.

The long-drawn out crisis has seen Civil Society and the smaller political parties in Parliament playing important roles. The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, in particular, has been playing a moderating role taking a principled stand on various issues. The JVP has not supported the UNP and Wickremesinghe but has opposed the illegal and unconstitutional acts of the President, voting several times in Parliament against Rajapaksa.

Soon after the SC verdict on Thursday JVP Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake said the decision was a victory for democracy. He said Parliament had three tasks ahead of it. “We must investigate and punish those who conspired to create this crisis, we must pass the 20th Amendment which has been tabled by us to abolish the Executive Presidency and then we must resolve to dissolve Parliament and hold an election as there are Members in the House who have been tainted by scandal.”

The Tamil National Alliance also took a principled stand and did not cave into various promises made to them by Sirisena and Rajapaksa. They, however, chose to back Wickremesinghe for PM, prompting the Rajapaksa faction to bray that a minority party that once supported the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam has become kingmaker. However, the TNA has said that they will not join the UNP Government or accept portfolios.

The large coalition of Civil Society organizations that came together against the Rajapaksa rule in 2015 and were largely disappointed with the performance of the Wickremesinghe-led Good Governance administration that has come together again and has been given new life. However, they are more critical of the political parties and are calling for more reform at all levels.

Yahapalanaya regime
too slow

Although the Yahapalanaya regime was too slow in prosecuting the alleged wrongdoers of the Rajapaksa period, some of the reforms that they were able to bring in have been tested and proved right during this crisis. The media has been under pressure to be free and fair, the Courts have shown strength and independence at the right time, and efforts to transfer Police officers conducting inconvenient investigations into allegations against Rajapaksa cronies have been thwarted.

Going forward, Wickremesinghe will continue to be backed by his party and the UNF partners All Ceylon Muslim Congress, Democratic National Movement, Democratic Party, Jathika Hela Urumaya, Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, Tamil Progressive Alliance and the United Left Front. The UNP also said that the four MPs who crossed over to support Rajapaksa, Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, S.B. Nawinna, Wasantha Senanayake and Dunesh Gankanda will be returning to the fold.

The UNP is also saying that a group of Si Lanka Freedom Party MPs had already indicated that they were willing to join Wickremesinghe in forming a National Government. Some of them had been in discussions with the UNP leadership over the past month, they said. Some of the names that are being mentioned are Duminda Dissanayake, Lasantha Alagiyawanna, Weerakumara Dissanayake, Mahinda Samarasingha, Vijith Vijayamuni Soyza, Angajan Ramanathan, Faiszer Musthapha and Lakshman Seneviratne.

There are questions being raised about what portfolios will be handed out. The UNP hierarchy and some back-benchers want Ravi Karunanayake to be given back the Finance portfolio which he lost amid the Bonds scam scandal.

Rajapaksa, meanwhile, continues to call for immediate general elections and is likely to forge an alliance between the newly minted Sri Lanka Podujana Party and the SLFP to face that election.

Finally, this crisis has far reaching consequences for the biggest political actors on the Sri Lankan stage, Rajapaksa, Wickremesinghe and Sirisena.

The President who left the Rajapaksa regime to contest as the common candidate on a Good Governance platform has clearly botched the job. He has proved to be an obstacle to reform and has actively prevented the Police from taking action against corrupt officials. In trying to oust Wickremesinghe and appoint Rajapaksa he has shown that he had no clear strategy.

In simple terms he failed to consult the Supreme Court before he took such actions to see whether he was permitted to do so by the Constitution. He has indicated he wishes to contest the Presidential elections and seek another term but which party would support him? Much of the public anger against the goings-on has been directed at Sirisena.

In the maelstrom following his sacking, Wickremesinghe’s moribund UNP has seen rejuvenation. In fact Rajapaksa quipped last week that he has brought ‘new life’ to the UNP. But along with that the calls for internal party reform has become louder.

 In the crisis, Deputy Leader Sajith Premadasa has emerged as a clear number two and Wickremesinghe has been told by party stalwarts that they will support him in this crisis but Premadasa needs to lead the charge in a future election. Political Scientist Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda says that the party faithful also know that it was Wickremesinghe’s strategic mind that helped the party outmanoeuvre both Rajapaksa and Sirisena. Therefore, he will still need to be in a prominent position in the UNP.

Finally Rajapaksa, the man who won the war for Sri Lanka and was once hailed as a king has come off second-best this time. He lost the 2015 presidential election; then the Parliamentary election that was held shortly after and now has been pushed out of the PM’s chair which he had occupied through the back-door. Clearly he has lost his lustre.

All three main stars are diminished on the Sri Lankan stage, and now it is time for some new stars to emerge.