Confused and confusing 19-A

By Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha-December 20, 2018, 8:53 pm 

I have written much about the manner in which the 19th amendment was introduced, but this has been in different places. A coherent narrative looking only at just the amendment may be useful so that if ever there is another attempt at constitutional reform, those responsible will work more effectively.

The main problem that we now face arose on the first day way back in 2014 on which those tasked with Maithripala Sirisena’s Presidential manifesto met. This was in an upstairs office at Chandrika Kumaratunga’s house, but the whole process was chaotic. At the inception it became clear that the person I thought in charge of the process, Jayampathy Wickremaratne, had his own agenda, or rather was pushing actively for Ranil Wickremesinghe’s agenda. He declared when we began discussions that the first action of the new government, if Sirisena was elected, was to transfer power immediately to the Prime Minister.

I told him this was both immoral and stupid. In the first place, it was wrong to ask the people to vote for one man and then transfer power to another. Second, it was silly to hand over to Mahinda Rajapaksa what he thought would ensure his victory, namely the people thinking that the contest was between him and Wickremesinghe. I recalled then that two diplomats whose views I valued had said there would be no change of regime because Ranil was determined to stand himself and he was unelectable.

Jayampathy said the next day that he agreed with what I said, but they would do it after the election. Right through he was determined to return to a Westminster system with the Prime Minister having full powers. As he kept insinuating this by affirming in the manifesto that we would abolish the executive presidency, instead of changing its authoritarian nature, I went to see Sirisena, and found him characteristically laconic, but firm in his opposition to the idea. What he wanted was a reduction in the powers of the Presidency, which of course all agreed was necessary, and that was the form the commitment in the manifesto took, viz that on January 21st ‘The process will begin of abolishing the authoritarian executive presidential system and replacing it with an executive of a Cabinet of Ministers responsible to Parliament’.

Unfortunately, nothing had been said about a consultative mechanism for this process, and it seems that Jayampathy did the draft with support from Ranil’s office, without the involvement of other political parties. So, the draft that emerged removed the provision about the President being the head of the government and instead had him acting on the advice of the Prime Minister – just as in the 1972 Constitution, where the presidency was a purely ceremonial office.

I do not know whether there were other consultations but I had not been asked and I registered my protest with the President against this, given the commitment in the manifesto about sharing responsibilities with all parties represented in Parliament. So, I was finally asked to a consultation that took place in the President’s office on March 12th.

None of the others spoke up until I pointed out that the draft was unacceptable since it did not reduce the power of the President as pledged, but rather transferred power to the Prime Minister. At this point, I was supported by everyone else there, and indeed Champika Ranawaka complimented me later on the forcefulness I had used. The consensus then was that the draft should be changed and at that point Ranil told Nimal Siripala de Silva that he had promised to go along with abolition of the executive presidency. Nimal denied this and Ranil said that he would tell Chandrika. But despite this threat, the President did not intervene and it was agreed that Jayampathy would amend the draft, in consultation with G. L. Peiris.

But when we got the revised draft, the only significant change was to the first provision. Elsewhere there were provisions whereby the President had to act on the Prime Minister’s advice. When I upbraided G L with this, he said he had not noticed them. Obviously, he had not bothered to check, and Jayampathy had got away with cutting down considerably the powers of the President.

A sample of what had been left can be seen in the amendments I drafted on March 19th to the revised draft -

‘In 47 and 49 replace ‘on the advice of the Prime Minister’ with ‘in consultation with the Prime Minister’, and ‘subject to the direction of the Prime Minister’ in 50 (2) with ‘subject to the ‘direction of the President’.

I added to my note ‘I cannot understand how Jayampathy and GL allowed all this. If they gave up and left it to others as they claimed, they are unfit for this task.’

But all this was useless, for the following week the situation had changed again and Jayampathy triumphantly put forward the original provisions. When I asked him why he had ignored the clear consensus at the party leaders’ meeting on the 12th, he remarked that the Cabinet had approved the original text.

What had happened in the interim, on March 22nd to be precise, was that the Cabinet had been reshuffled to include several Ministers from the SLFP. So it could now be claimed that there was a multi-party consensus for abolishing the Executive Presidency.

Maithripala Sirisena must take the full responsibility for this particular manoeuvre, that had drastic consequences in time. But it is likely that he acted on the advice of Chandrika, who responded to Ranil’s complaint. Whereas Maithri doubtless still thought she could be relied upon to look after the interests of the SLFP, she had no affection for them and was more concerned with building up Ranil and the UNP. So what she did alienated the senior leadership of the SLFP, which in time led to them insisting that Mahinda Rajapaksa had to be resurrected, not to just join, but to lead, the SLFP campaign at the next general election.

For what happened on March 22nd was appointment to Cabinet positions of a bunch who were quite incapable of providing leadership to the party. Nimal Siripala de Silva, the Leader of the SLFP Opposition, told me that he had not been consulted at all on these appointments, and it was obvious that they had been made in an effort to undermine his position.

Though there were a few sensible people amongst the new Ministers, the only person I felt might have been bold enough to speak out against the plan to enthrone Ranil in power was S B Dissanayake. And when I challenged him, he told me that he had not been at the Cabinet meeting that adopted Jayampathy’s draft.

Fortunately, that draft had to be sent to the Supreme Court and, as they had to in terms of the constitution, they ruled that provisions taking away the President’s executive power could not be carried out without a referendum. But sadly our constitution does not make it mandatory that a new draft, after a Court ruling, is submitted again to the Supreme Court. So even if some clauses that were not specifically pointed out as requiring change were kept in, even if inconsistent with the changes that were demanded, what is then passed becomes the law of the land. And that is how a number of provisions remain that give the Prime Minister decision making powers that are incompatible with the President remaining the head of government.

I did point out the inconsistency of giving veto power in some respects but not all to the Prime Minister, and received the frivolous response from the then Secretary of the SLFP, Anura Priyadharshana Yapa, that if those were withheld he would start crying.

In the end, despite the inconsistencies with which it abounded, I voted for the 19th amendment, because I believed it created a better situation than we had had before. But I did try, by sending in on April 22nd amendments to the draft that was to be put before Parliament the following week, to introduce clarity in line with what the party leaders had wanted on March 15th and the Supreme Court had deemed necessary. I proposed the following changes -

11 continued Delete 43 (1) nd (2) and (3) and replace with ‘The President shall, in consultation with the Prime Minister, appoint from among Members of Parliament Ministers to be in charge of the Ministries, and may change the composition of the Cabinet of Ministers from time to time in consultation with the Prime Minister

11 continued Delete 44

The concept of State Ministers is unnecessary, and there should be a simple Cabinet with Deputies to match

11 continued Delete 45 (1) and (2) and replace with 44, The President may, in consultation with the Prime Minister, appoint upto 26 Deputy Ministers to assist the Ministers in the performance of their duties.

11 continued Delete 46 and replace with only ‘A Minister or Deputy Minister shall hold office throughout the period during which the Cabinet of Ministers functions unless he or she is removed from office under the hand of the President in consultation with the Prime Minister or ceases to be a Member of Parliament’

11 continued In 47, 48 and 49 replace ‘on the advice of the Prime Minister’ with ‘in consultation with the Prime Minsiter’, and delete references to ‘other Minister(s) appointed under Article 44)’

But no one else seemed to understand the dangers of a constitution whereby the President could do some things with regard to the Executive on his own, some in consultation with the Prime Minister, which means that he can decide but only after consultation, and others only on the advice of the Prime Minister, which means that decision making power lies with the Prime Minister.

Given the confusion that also besets us now with regard to the size and composition of the Cabinet, it may be useful here to look not only at the inconsistencies introduced in 2015, but also at the whole concept of an Executive Presidency.

We should register first that the problem began with the subversion of the rationale for such a position, when J R specified that the Cabinet should be formed from within Parliament. This does not happen elsewhere in presidential systems that are cited as models. In the United States the President forms an Executive that is largely from outside Parliament. And there, as in France which often has many Ministers who come from Parliament, they give up their positions in the legislature in order to take up Executive office.

In his manifesto J R had pledged to constitute an Executive outside Parliament. But he had good reason to renege on this, for he did not believe in separating the Executive from the Legislature since he wanted also to control the latter. After all, when Ministers are in Parliament, they are naturally the leading figures there, and run things. This means that the legislature is virtually in thrall to the Executive, as it is in countries which have the Westminster system, where the Cabinet emerges from Parliament and by virtue of a parliamentary majority.

But Sri Lanka has a directly elected President, whose powers remain substantial, as indeed they should because he or she is chosen by the people. But because the rest of the Cabinet depends on a parliamentary majority, the President has to manoeuvre through winning people over, and not by moderating policies. And since people are won over by power and position more than by argument and principle, it is by giving them Ministries and State Ministries and Deputy Ministries (with the leeway for corruption as well as wastage that engenders) that now Presidents ensure parliamentary approval for a budget as well as for legislation.

Given his overwhelming control of Parliament, J R then had no qualms about using this to subvert further the principles fundamental in other countries to the presidential system he had introduced. And his second amendment to his constitution was designed to increase his majority by allowing the party in power to pick up members even though originally the constitution had been designed to prevent crossovers. So whereas the earlier provision was that Members lost their seat if they ceased to belong to the party through which they had been elected, the amendment allowed Members of the 1977 Parliament crossing over to the government to remain in Parliament unless a parliamentary majority voted to expel them. This was the root of the idea that one could cross over with impunity – and that a parliamentary majority can override constitutional principles - and has led to the dance that still continues.

That dance must be stopped if we are to have a Parliament that will fulfil the primary function of a legislature. And it will not stop if we revert to the Westminster system, for majorities can then always be cobbled together by offering positions of power. Of course limiting the number of Ministers will help to stop this, and in that respect it is sad that the constitution did not have a strict limit. It is even sadder that the exception stupidly included was perverted and the Courts did not reject the argument that we had a national government.

But what would be even more effective is for the Executive Presidency to work in conformity with checks and balances based on systems prevalent in other countries. For this purpose the legislature must be strengthened, but without involvement in executive functions. This is the only way to get rid of the corruption that is now associated with control of ministries, the contracts, the jobs, the privileging of particular geographical areas. And there should be serious attention to developing committees of parliament that can contribute to policy making and also assess budgets and monitor expenditure in line with agreed policy.

For this purpose there must be a change to the current system of election. Failing to fulfil the commitment to do that was the worst let down of the government elected in January 2015. Unfortunately Ranil Wickremesinghe was interested only in taking over the powers of the President; Chandrika Kumaratunga was interested only in revenge, and the President had no idea about how to ensure the structural changes he had promised – even though his manifesto had made clear the evils consequent upon the current system

Amending the Electoral System

Another serious problem that our Sri Lanka Freedom Party led government failed to address during the last twenty years is the change of the electoral system. The existing electoral system is a mainspring of corruption and violence. Candidates have to spend a colossal sum of money due to the preferential system. I will change this completely. I guarantee the abolition of the preferential system and will ensure that every electorate will have a Member of Parliament of its own. The new electoral system will be a combination of the first-past-the post system and the proportional representation of defeated candidates. Since the total composition of Parliament would not change by this proposal, I would be able to get the agreement of all political parties represented in Parliament for the change.

Further, waste and clashes could be minimised since electoral campaigns would be limited to single electorates.

Finally, given the drama caused by the President’s attempt to dissolve Parliament early, I should note that fixed terms seem to me an essential aspect of an Executive Presidency. He should not be allowed to cut short his own term and seek re-election when it seems advantageous to him. And it is even more preposterous that he should be able to interfere with the term of Parliament.

So in the amendments I proposed way back in 2015 to the 19th amendment, I had included -

4. (2) ‘Instead of amending 31 (3A) Delete the whole of 31 (3A)

The President should not be allowed to bring forward his election. This is not a privilege enjoyed by other elected Presidents, and leads to confusion as with the winner of such election taking office at different times depending on who wins.

And

5 Replace 33 3 © with To summon and prorogue Parliament

The President should not be able to dissolve Parliament, nor should we allow Parliament to be dissolved before the end of its five year terms. I think we agreed on fixed terms all round

But I should emphasize that this is in the context of the President’s executive powers being clear, and not subject to the advice of the Prime Minister. When there is a clear separation of powers, the Executive should have no right to reduce the life span of the Legislature.

Democracy Suffocated By Media And Oxygenated By The Judiciary

By Mass L. Usuf –DECEMBER 18, 2018

Mass Usuf

Thomas Carlyle in his book On Heroes and Hero Worship: “Edmund Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.”

While Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru with reference to India is famed to have called the media ‘the watchdog of our democracy’.

To call the ‘Press’ or the ‘Media’ as the fourth estate or the watchdog per se signifies its station in the temple of democracy. The Media besides its institutional nomenclature, functionally alludes to the collation and dissemination of information. This functionality is wide and varied encompassing democracy and good governance and, matters of public interest with relevance to society, economics, religion, culture and so forth.  Along with these via discussions and debates educating and guiding the public. Of course, entertainment is an integral part too.  

In the context of a government there is the Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary as the indispensable triad of democracy. Stability between them is ensured by the doctrine of separation of powers which enables maintain checks and balances. The news coming out of these three portals is given to the public by the media. Edmund Burke in order to emphasise the importance of the media said that the Fourth Estate is more important than the other three.

Limited Access

The country’s first television station was the Independent Television Network (ITN) which started broadcasting in April 1979. The new station remained independent only for two months as the government took control of it. Sri Lanka’s second state-owned television station – Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation (SLRC) – was established by the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation Act No. 6 of 1982.  

According to a research study by the Open University, as far as Sri Lankan Media industry is concerned, there are more than 60 radio channels, 20 television channels and 200 newspapers in all three languages. Only two market research companies operate audience rating systems on radio and television broadcasting in Sri Lanka. Yet the ratings systems operating in Sri Lanka have generally lacked transparency in terms of their methodology and process. (ISSN 2012-9916 © The Open University of Sri Lanka). This situation is exploited by the television owners to claim that they are the best or they are the number one. The common man is not aware of the intricacies of media rating systems. They can be easily fooled to believe in these fictitious claims.

Sri Lankan has a rural population of around 81% (of total population), according to the World Bank collection of development indicators. Only 19% are living in the city and urban areas.  Access by the rural population to information disseminated by the print, electronic, social media, radio and the internet is obviously limited. The reason being lack of infrastructure, domestic economic priorities, ignorance, weak purchasing power and, in general, typical rural backwardness. It is not strange to note that there are many households without even a television set.  If they have one it is connected only to the free to air channels. Mostly, the State television. Despite this the number of viewers is far greater when those who do not have television sets visit their neighbours to watch programs.

Distorted Reporting

It is essential that any news given in whatever form radio, print or electronic is presented with due accuracy and done so impartially. Public interest should be foremost in the minds of the news provider. Contextually, examine the following observations made about media reporting on the 2014 Aluthgama riots. “The mainstream media did not cover the events of Aluthgama as they unfolded. … The State media in particular presented a distorted and highly sanitised version of events. The editorial of the English medium state newspaper, Daily News on 17 June 2014, downplayed the incident by claiming it was ‘isolated’ and was being exaggerated. Privately owned newspaper ….. the Island’s editorial on 16 June 2014 insinuated that the blame lay with the Muslim community, as it claimed that participants at the BBS rally were attacked first.” (Post war religious violence in Sri Lanka, ICES & Equitas 2015.)

Read More

Vote on Account saved country from major crisis - Mangala

Disna MudaligeAmali Mallawarachchi and Camelia Nathaniel-Saturday, December 22, 2018

Finance and Mass Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera tabling the Vote on Account for the first four months of 2019 in Parliament yesterday said a new budget would be presented based on policies with new foresight.

He noted that the UNF did not have control of the government over a period of 54 days of the political crisis and if the Vote on Account was not approved, the country would have faced a dilemma where the state sector employees would not have been able to be paid and the public would have had to face untold difficulties.

The country was without a legitimate Prime Minister or government. As a result, he said the country would have been plunged into a worse economic crisis than Greece.

“If by any chance, we were unable to have the Vote on Account passed prior to December 31, the whole country would have been plunged into a serious economic crisis. State sector employees would not have been able to be paid, pensions could not have been paid, Samurdhi benefits could not have been paid.”

When UPFA-MP Wimal Weerawansa interrupted him, Minister Samaraweera said the illegitimate Prime Minister and government was defeated by both the Legislature and Judiciary.

Samaraweera riled Mahinda Rajapaksa by telling him, “I feel sorry for you. You are someone who usually never falls for dead ropes, but this time you were taken for a serious ride and this time you did not eat a normal rope but you swallowed a cable-rope. It is saddening when something like this happens to a fellow Southerner.”

He noted that the government MPs are committed to serving in the government with new vigour and commitment to bring the country out of this crisis and invited the Opposition to support the government in this endeavour.

“I assure you that we won’t give you dead ropes and will not let you down. We will say what we mean directly.”

Samaraweera said that the government had prepared a budget for 2019 and was ready to present it when the political crisis was unleashed on October 26.

Pointing to history he said, the first Vote on Account was moved on 1931 by the Leader of the State Council, Sir D.B.Jayatilaka.

Even on previous occassions, Vote on Accounts were presented in 1995, 2002, and in 2010 to allocated moneyies for state expenses. The Vote on Account passed yesterday, allocates Rs.795 billion and Rs.965 billion for recurrent and capital expenditures respectively in addition to the allocation of Rs.5 billion for the purpose of advances.

According to Minister Samaraweera, Sri Lanka had positive economic growth during the first six months of 2018. “There was a surplus in the current account. Inflation reached 0.1% in October. Foreign Reserves stood at US$8 billion. Sri Lanka had healthy international ratings and as a result the International Monetary Fund increased the support extended to Sri Lanka,” he said, adding that 2017 was the best year of the Unity Government which reported highest foreign investment and the exports.

In retrospect, the Enterprise Sri lanka programme of the Unity Government has contributed to expand the economy where over Rs.50 billion has been disbursed as loans for private sector including the small and medium size enterprises.

“The Government has given an interest benefit exceeding Rs.5 billion. Based on the interest rate benefit agriculture export, information technology, tourism sectors have seen turning a new leaf. As a result, the economy was widening. The Gamperialiya program developed the infrastructure at grassroots. As at October, we have had allocated Rs.20 billion for development of small irrigation projects and tanks, constructing of markets, and rural road development,” explained Minister Samaraweera.

In between his Vote on Account speech, the Finance Minister added humour by riling MP Mahinda Rajapaksa. “I initially though that you (MR) were innocent and had no hand in this coup, but it later struck me that you were also part of this conspiracy. At the parliament canteen, when you invited me to join you, I thought you were delusional as always. But I heard you were at the Shangri La when you have quietly slipped out and taken oath as the fake Prime Minister even without the knowledge of your wife Shranthi Rajapaksa.”

On a more serious note, the Finance Minister said the government intends to present the budget for 2019 with amendments in January and the debate would run into February, before it is passed. “As a responsible government, we have presented the Vote on Account to enable the smooth functioning of the government mechanism for the first four months of 2019.”

“Three key international credit rating agencies reduced Sri Lanka’s rating. The domestic interest rates went up by 0.85% increasing the debt servicing responsibilities of the Government. Rs.66.5 billion worth funds were withdrawn from our market. Sri Lankan Rupee continued to depreciate despite the 37% reduction of the global fuel prices. Regardless of the seasonal benefits, the tourism industry collapsed,” said Miniter Samaraweera promising to realign the country within a short period on the development path.

It has been proposed to allocate Rs. 1,765 billion as State expenditure in the first four months of next year, out of which Rs.970 billion or 55 percent has been allocated for debt servicing, both capital and interest components. Rs.480 billion has been allocated as recurrent expenditure and Rs.310 billion as capital expenditure.

Cabinet appointments: SF, Swaminathan, R. S’weera left out

 PAHAN WIJESEKARA-DEC 20 2018

In the appointment of the UNF Cabinet of Ministers, today (20), three former ministers had been overlooked.

Parliamentarians  Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, D.M. Swaminathan and Ravindra Samaraweera had not been assigned ministries.

Although the trio had been ignored for Cabinet posts, four other UNF MPs, Thilak Marapana PC, Malik Samarawickrema, Rishad Bathiudeen and Mano Ganesan, who had claimed they will not take Cabinet posts during the UNF Parliamentary group meeting, early this week, were reinstated in their former posts.

Another UNP MP who was recently noted for going back and forth from the UNP to the UPFA, Parliamentarian Wasantha Senanayaka was also not given a Cabinet posting at yesterday’s swearing in of the new Cabinet.

Furthermore, three SLFP and UPFA Parliamentarians, who crossed over at the last session of Parliament, namely Vijith Vijithamuni Zoysa, Indika Bandaranayaka and Lakshman Seneviratna were also similarly overlooked for Cabinet posts.

 

Why “civil society” cannot be absolved

 2018-12-21

ll things considered, the 52-day government shot itself in the foot by assuming that populist legitimacy overrides constitutional legality. There are times when the one will supersede the other, but such times come about only if the government in power is so unpopular that a Restoration is called for. The truth is that the Ranil

Wickremesinghe government did not covet enough unpopularity for it to be swept aside by a Rajapaksa Restoration. And the makers and of the latter Project let go of one constituent element that had a say in its downfall; the independence of the system. You can argue against the ruling of the Supreme Court, but there’s no denying the fact that, for the first time in many years, it didn’t tilt towards the man in power. 

"No one, at least no one with patriotic inclinations, will support any move aimed at abolishing the Presidency unless and until these needs are met"

Then again, the man in power isn’t the man in power. Lakshman Kiriella and other members of the UNP’s Royalist Regency may oppose Maithripala Sirisena’s decision to keep certain Ministries under him, but they (begrudgingly) recognise his rights to such tokenistic powers. In other respects, Sirisena is powerless. Attorney General Jayantha Jayasuriya’s assertion about those powers being akin to a monarch’s, read in this light, is plain nonsense on stilts. The 19th Amendment did impose checks on the man, whether or not such an act of robbing a man elected on a wide mandate, of his authority is desirable for another debate altogether.   
Personally (and I say this without any hesitation), I am for the Executive Presidency. But as with every power and privilege conferred on the ruler of a country it is, for the lack of a better way of putting it, a double edged sword. On the one hand it served its purpose during those heady war years when a separation of powers of the titles of the Head of State, the Head of Government and Commander of the Armed Forces would have been disastrous. On the other hand, with a series of unfortunate rulings that gave carte blanche to the president in the Rajapksa era and even before it, denigrated the idea of parliamentary supremacy and turned parliament into a spectacle.   

"I do not blame Ranil Wickremesinghe. Nor do I blame Maithripala Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapaksa. Nor do I blame the system."

 Despite my prejudices against the institution, however, I will make one thing clear. In 2015 the mandate given by 6.2 million voters was to change the governance structures that had been in place since J.R. Jayewardene’s presidency and had been exploited to bring about sweeping powers for and by Mahinda Rajapaksa. But such a mandate does not by itself exclude the Executive Presidency.   

This is not because past historical experience indicates clearly that other forms of governance in Sri Lanka have had their share of abuse(r)s. This is also because, given the penchant of politicians and of voters to change allegiances, an alternative to the Executive Presidency must satisfy the primary needs of a country: sovereignty of the country and sovereignty of the people.   

"A people’s sovereignty, on the other hand, rests fairly and squarely upon an institution to which lawmakers have been elected, not selected, and from which those lawmakers can be ejected"

No one, at least no one with patriotic inclinations, will support any move aimed at abolishing the Presidency unless and until these needs are met. There is a problem, however; a country’s sovereignty, in the populist sense of that term, is best served by a powerful Leviathan-like figure, the epitome of which, in Sri Lanka, was J.R. and Mahinda (and to a lesser extent, Premadasa). A people’s sovereignty, on the other hand, rests fairly and squarely upon an institution to which lawmakers have been elected, not selected, and from which those lawmakers can be ejected. There is then a clash, a contradiction, if not contradistinction, among the arms of the State which stand for these two “sovereignties”, the Executive and the Legislature.   No, I am not suggesting here that “people power” (“jana balaya”) is at odds with nationalism. In fact far from it being so, be it in the West or the East, there are times when the two will coincide. But in the popular myth of yahapalanaya and democracy perpetuated by the present government, the two cannot be one and the same.   

And why? Because in postcolonial societies like Sri Lanka, politicians look up to the ideal of a political –ism over its reality even as the other part of the world occupied by the “international community” engage in doublespeak and both champion, say, human rights AND de-validate them by propping up dictatorships friendly to them. This is a tragedy because the political debate in postcolonial countries is dichotomised between the democrats and the populists. It is a dichotomy refracted by the Western media: those who win elections are portrayed as demagogues, and those in the Opposition are portrayed as democrats fighting for people who never voted them in!   We saw this clearly in the 52-day Mahinda-Maithripala government. Shades of grey were abandoned, and in the rush to validate the ousted government, commentators and apologists (from the left and right) depicted the political scene as a battle between good and evil, light and darkness, decency and demagoguery, erudition and ignorance; in a word, between democrats and populists. As if demagogues can’t be decent, as if the uneducated are worse than the educated, as if democrats can’t be populists!   

"The yahapalanist discourse is hence in a shambles. It is dominated by intellectuals and artistes who project themselves as the superiors of politicians and ideologues"

The yahapalana discourse is based on these dichotomies and they are, far worse I should think, perpetuated by everyone. Amila Muthukutti in an article titled “The Rise of Social Media and Fall of Mainstream Media” makes the case for the Facebook generation and denigrates the “lamestream” media outlets which were in favour of the Rajapaksas. But with all due respect, there is nothing different between the one and the other; social media activists are just as blinded by political loyalties and good/bad binaries in the yahalapanist scheme of things as the traditional media are by its fawning to such binaries in the Rajapaksist scheme of things.   
I do not blame Ranil Wickremesinghe. Nor do I blame Maithripala Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapaksa. Nor do I blame the system. I blame the way everyone, including those who market themselves as neutral political players, has let the debate over such important issues as the Executive Presidency and good governance slip into a series of meaningless, simplistic, reductionist dichotomies.   

These dichotomies are what account for the popular myth, sustained predominantly by the young, but also the “educated” middle class, that the ousted government was the last real hope they could resort to. When arguments to the tune of, “We aren’t for Ranil but we are for democracy” are being made by activists who a) Didn’t as much as open their mouths when the Central Bank was being robbed and b) Distinguish between the ideal and the man they inadvertently champion as the best candidate to make that ideal a reality, I can hence only laugh.   

"We used to believe, when we were small, that politicians were bad and the people who rebelled against them were good"

The yahapalanist discourse is hence in a shambles. It is dominated by intellectuals and artistes who project themselves as the superiors of politicians and ideologues. They are not. The case of Dambara Amila, Sarath Wijesuriya, and Gamini Viyangoda should make this evident for everyone and anyone. In that sense the discontent channelled by the actor, the playwright, and the intellectual over the past few weeks has been, for the most, a farce. There’s nothing to suggest, nothing substantive, that these purveyors of good governance are better representatives of the people than those we have elected. There’s nothing to bear out their low opinion of populism because their own programme for a better polity, despite the resonant phrase and the outbursts of self-righteous fury (remember Manuwarna’s “kalakanni Disneylanthaya?), amounts to little.   

We used to believe, when we were small, that politicians were bad and the people who rebelled against them were good. But then the politicians were people once and people also have within themselves the tendency to enrich themselves. Unfortunately for us, though, the yahalapanaya debate, since 2015, has been dominated by this good/bad view. In this scheme of things, civil society, from intellectuals making grandiloquent claims for neoliberal compradores to good governance activists going mum over the actions of the government, has been given enough carte blanche.   

“The Rise of Social Media and Fall of Mainstream Media” makes the case for the Facebook generation and denigrates the “lamestream” media outlets which were in favour of the Rajapaksas"

Next week I’ll explain why that good/bad rift that civil society has brought up between the people and their representatives is so simplistic that it has succeeded in concealing more insidious forms of power structures and hierarchies. For now I’ll end with a contention: no amount of debate over the Executive Presidency, that most potent and hated symbol of the Rajapaksa Era (an era of darkness for those who have forgotten J.R. and Premadasa and Chandrika), will be constructive unless we look beyond the “we-are-holier-than-them” attitude of civil society activism.   

UDAKDEV1@GMAIL.COM   

UNF Government should not squander this last opportunity

Ranil Wickremesinghe taking oaths for the fifth time as a Prime Minister 

 Friday, 21 December 2018


President Maithripala Sirisena appointed a 29-member Cabinet yesterday after two months of political turmoil.

It was reported that the UNP has sent in 36 names to the President to be appointed as Ministers and that President Sirisena had struck off eight of them. He had removed the names of Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka and Palitha Range Bandara from the UNP while he had also omitted the names of A.H.M. Fowzie, Lakshman Seneviratne, Wijith Wijemuni de Soysa and Piyasena Gamage who crossed over to the Government from the SLFP.

The President, who is still not happy with the current political developments, had said a few days earlier: “My personal opinion on this matter still remains totally unchanged. I decided to reappoint Ranil Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister as I have the utmost respect for parliamentary traditions.”

He also referred to several statements made by pro-UNP activists that the President’s actions could lead to violence and Sirisena might suffer the same fate as Gaddafi. He said: “Sri Lanka had many leaders in the past who faced numerous problems. Some of them, like J.R. Jayewardene, ruled the country with an iron fist. But no one dared to make such claims, as they knew the dire consequences of such threats.”
Admirable
The sudden rash action of the President gave the UNP only two options; to either sink or swim, just like what Chandrika Kumaratunga did back in 2004. It was a great test for the UNP. Many of the capable young leaders came forward and rose up to the challenge to support the UNP Leader. They now need to be rewarded and recognised.

The UNP leaders at least now must move away from the current coterie of people around them and build a new team that have a sense of the common man’s thinking and also reduce the huge gap in policy agreement between the two leaders to ensure the current arrangement survives.

It will take a few more weeks before political normalcy will be fully restored again, and even longer before the shaky economy is brought to even keel. Much will depend on how the Government will pan out over the next several weeks and months and how they work with the President.
Appreciation
One cannot forget the key role played by the people in Sri Lanka during this crisis. Many people chose to stay in the middle without reaching the threshold of supporting either party or any of the key actors. They were patient and thoroughly poised; their demeanour did not change and they lent their ears to everyone but stood for what was right. That is a mark of a mature country. Sri Lankan values stood tall. That is the most redeeming feature in the midst of a broken down Government. The determination and the will of our ordinary people therefore clearly deserves admiration and applause. The Government and the President therefore owe it to them to do what is best for the country.

Since a two-thirds majority resolution is needed for an early general election that both the Rajapaksas and the JVP want, it also creates the opportunity to piggyback on that majority – for a constitutional amendment. Therefore the task before the Government is not to pretend that it has a new mandate to govern on an idiosyncratic agenda of multiple Free Trade Agreements and a million jobs, and giving jobs back to those cronies who ruined the Government, but to formulate a minimum program to build on the political gains of the last two months and to capitalise on the space provided by the Judges of the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, the President too needs to honour his 8 January pledge.
(The writer is a thought leader.)

Sri Lanka: Wonder tale may not end happily

The issue that broke the alliance was trade: Sirisena preferred to make deals with China, Wickremesinghe with nearby India.

by Gwynne Dyer-Dec 22, 2018

Dec 21, 2018

You could write a heart-warming fairy tale about the turbulent events in the island nation of Sri Lanka in the past two months. It would involve a conniving president who abruptly and illegally dismisses the elected prime minister, and replaces him with a corrupt and blood-soaked former despot who was the president’s old boss.

The despot tries to strengthen his position by offering members of parliament jobs as ministers in his new government. If enough accept, he would have a majority in the parliament and could claim to be sort of legitimate. But most of the MPs turn down the political bribes and parliament twice votes to reject him.

Finally, after 50 days of chaos, the judges of the Supreme Court say the president has acted illegally and the ex-despot can’t claim he is prime minister. At this point the despot resigns and the president grudgingly “re-appoints” the legitimate prime minister. Virtue triumphs, and joy is unconfined. Maybe they even live happily ever after.

It’s an engaging tale, and the basic outlines are true, but in the real world the historical and social context that surrounds the events changes the tone of everything.

Sri Lanka is only 10 years away from the end of a brutal civil war that lasted for a quarter-century, and the despot is the man who won it by being more brutal than anybody else. His name is Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Up to 100,000 people died in the war, which ended with an orgy of killing (40,000) in the final five months of battles in 2009. Rajapaksa was the president who directed those battles, and he emerged from the war as a national hero.

Rajapaksa seemed set for a very long run in power. His government continued to torture and “disappear” opponents, and his family grew rich from corrupt deals.

But in 2015 one of his cabinet ministers, Maithripila Sirisena, defected from the government, ran against Rajapaksa for the presidency – and won.

To his credit, Rajapaksa accepted his defeat. Sirisena found a new ally in Ranil Wickremesinghe, whose business-friendly United National Party had won a majority in parliament, and appointed him as prime minister. However, the new allies had little in common and estrangement between them grew.

The issue that broke the alliance was trade: Sirisena preferred to make deals with China, Wickremesinghe with nearby India.

On Oct. 25, Sirisena sacked Wickremesinghe (illegally) and appointed Rajapaksa as prime minister instead.

Wickremesinghe pointed out that Sirisena didn’t have the power to do that and barricaded himself into Temple Trees, the prime minister’s official residence. Rajapaksa couldn’t get enough members of parliament to switch sides. They voted twice to remove Rajapaksa, so Sirisena dismissed parliament and called new elections.

That was illegal too, and the struggle continued until, last week, the Supreme Court ruled that Sirisena could not dissolve parliament. At that point Rajapaksa resigned, and on Monday an angry Sirisena grudgingly swore Wickremesinghe back in as prime minister.

An encouraging outcome, in which parliament, the courts and the general population behaved better than anybody expected, but of course the story is never really over.

Sirisena can constitutionally dismiss the parliament 15 months from now, and Rajapaksa may well win the next election. Meanwhile Wickremesinghe’s government may be almost paralysed, because relations between Sirisena and him are totally poisonous.

The fairy tale is to be preferred whenever possible.

Mangala promises a bigger Cabinet...

by Shamindra Ferdinando-December 21, 2018, 11:24 pm 

Finance and Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera says that members of the previous cabinet couldn't be re-appointed as a result of a court ruling.

Once that problem was overcome, the Cabinet could be expanded, Samaraweera said at the Finance Ministry on Wednesday afternoon.

The UNPer said so when the media asked Samaraweera as to why UPFA lawmaker Vijith Wijayamuni Zoysa (Moneragala/UPFA National List) had been denied a ministerial portfolio in spite of switching allegiance to the new government.

Referring to court proceedings in respect of quo warranto petition filed by 122 lawmakers representing the UNP-TNA-JVP against Mahinda Rajapaksa's appointment as PM, Samaraweera said that once the government got the court ruling lifted those who had switched allegiance and lawmakers expected to join in the near future could get ministerial portfolios.

In addition to Moneragala District National List MP Zoysa, UPFA members, Piyasena Gamage (Galle), A.H.M. Fowzie (National List), and Lakshman Seneviratne (National List) were not accommodated in the cabinet.

Gamage entered parliament in Nov 2017 after Supreme Court ruled in favour of a petition against actress turned politician Geetha Kumarasinghe holding a parliament seat on the basis of her being a dual citizen.

Although, Samaraweera and several other UNPers, including Ministers Dr. Rajitha Senaratne and Vajira Abeywardena asserted that more than 30 ministers would be appointed, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution expressly restricted the number of cabinet ministers to 30 and State and Deputy Ministers to 40 unless in the event of formation of a national government.

Among the 29 cabinet ministers appointed were two National List members Tilak Marapana and Malik Samarawickrema, both UNPers. The 29 included five representing the United National Front's constituent parties, Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (Rauff Hakeem), All Ceylon Makkal Congress (Rishad Bathiudeen), Jathika Hela Urumaya (Patali Champika Ranawaka), National Union of Workers (Palani Digambaram) and Democratic People's Front (Mano Ganesan).

Of the UNF constituents, the SLMC is the biggest with six elected and appointed on the UNP ticket, in addition to one elected on the party ticket. The ACMC comprised five elected on the UNP ticket whereas the JHU consists of three (one member Ven. Rathana functions as an independent member). The National Union of Workers and Democratic People's Front are represented by two and one, respectively.

Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, (Colombo), D. M. Swaminathan (National List) and Ravindra Samaraweera (Badulla) didn't receive cabinet portfolios. Rajapakse received Education and Higher Education under Mahinda Rajapaksa's premiership whereas Swaminathan and Samaraweera were represented in the Wickremesinghe cabinet sacked on Oct 26.

Rajapakse switched allegiance to Sirisena-Rajapaksa combine in the wake Wickremesinghe's sacking. Another loser was Wasantha Senanayake (Polonnaruwa), who switched sides on multiple occasions before finally joining quo warranto petition against Rajapaksa's appointment as the Premier.

From two Premiers to two Opposition Leaders

Disna Mudalige-Saturday, December 22, 2018

Battered by the high-handed decisions of the Executive for 50 turbulent days from October 26, which made inroads into Parliamentary democracy, a loud and renewed call came from the Legislature this week to abolish the Executive Presidency.

The first thing Parliament took up following the historical defeat of what one may call a coup, which shook up the entire political establishment of the country, was an adjournment debate calling for the abolition of the Executive Presidency, an unkept pre-election promise of all successive leaders since 1994.
The JVP in moving the adjournment motion saw that the ambience and timing were so much in favour to push the 20th Amendment to the Constitution (20A) spearheaded by them. The 20A mainly proposes to abolish the Executive Presidency and end crossover of MPs.

Unkept promise

The UNP, TNA and even MP Chandrasiri Gajadeera, who represents left-wing politics, joined in the call to dispense with excessive presidential powers, sending a strong message to the masses. The JVP used the debate to create a vibrant discussion on the topic to educate the masses and bust some common myths with regard to the system of Executive Presidency.

UNP senior member Malik Samarawickrama pointed out that the recent events in the country showed that “the concentration of power in one office is a recipe for disaster”.

“Abolishing the Executive Presidency was a cornerstone of the Yahapalana Government’s plan guided by the late Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera and it is now time to re-commit to that goal.

After having seen the ill-effects of the system, we cannot turn a blind eye. We have to act now,” he said.

TNA MP M. A. Sumanthiran recalled that the three main promises of the President, on the day he declared to be the Common Candidate back in November 2014, were that he would abolish the Executive Presidency, reform Parliamentary Election system and appoint Ranil Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister.

A rejection of crossover political culture was also loud and clear in the aftermath of the political crisis. The MPs were said to be offered bribes up to Rs 500 million to switch the sides as the President himself openly claimed.

The somersaults of MPs like Wasantha Senanayake and Vadivel Suresh, and the telephone recording exposed by MP Palitha Range Bandara intensified the public detest on the sell-out political culture. Despite that, the spate of somersaults continued even this week with MPs Vijith Vijayamuni Zoysa, Lakshman Seneviratne and Indika Bandaranaike crossing the floor of the Chamber to join the Government.

Political debacle

The President’s recent ill-advised actions that eroded parliamentary democracy came under scathing criticism by many speakers who took the floor. JVP MP Bimal Rathnayake in a blistering speech said the public perception on the President is at all-time low.

Sri Lanka Muslim Congress Leader Rauff Hakeem summed up that President Maithripala Sirisena’s actions in the last 50 days could be best explained with the Sinhala idiom Natapu netumakuth ne, bere paluwakuth ne (there has been no dance but half of the drum is torn).

He also pointed out that the ill-advice of some MPs has pushed former President Mahinda Rajapaksa into a serious political debacle. “The man who was riding the high wave of popularity has compromised his popularity unnecessarily, trying to grab power through the backdoor to satisfy a few of his fellow MPs who had misled him. That is his fate. I hope he will see some saner counsel soon,” he commented.

JVP MP Vijitha Herath, expressing similar thoughts, said that former President Rajapaksa suffered a severe blow from President Sirisena’s actions. “You would not get hurt much if you fell while seated. If you were standing, you could get hurt more and perhaps could get injured too, but if somebody pulled you up and suddenly banged you on the floor then it could be fatal. That’s exactly what President Sirisena did to Rajapaksa,” MP Herath remarked.

The predicament faced by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa from being at the helm of power to risk losing his Parliamentary seat also came up during the sittings. This was as a result of a fresh tussle broke out between Rajapaksa and TNA Leader R Sampanthan for the post of Opposition Leader.

‘Flower bud’ or ‘Hand’?

No sooner the Speaker announced that the Opposition Leader post would be given to former President Rajapaksa going by the Parliamentary tradition as the UPFA MPs have taken Opposition seats, objections were raised by Leader of the House Lakshman Kiriella and TNA MP M. A. Sumanthiran.

The objections were mainly twofold. The first and most serious allegation was that former President Rajapaksa’s Parliamentary seat has fallen vacant after he obtained the membership of Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) on November 11. Kiriella quoted ‘Article 99 (13) (a)’ of the Constitution which said, “Where a Member of Parliament ceases, by resignation, expulsion or otherwise, to be a member of a recognised political party or independent group on whose nomination paper his name appeared at the time of his becoming such Member of Parliament, his seat shall become vacant upon the expiration of a period of one month from the date of his ceasing to be such member,” in support of his argument.

MP Sumanthiran tabled newspaper reports of this event, which took place merely two days after the President’s purported dissolution of Parliament, as proof.

In a historic judgement the country’s judiciary reversed the dissolution after establishing that it was unconstitutional. This was not anticipated by the former President or any of his fellow MPs who ceremonially received membership cards and posted them on their social media accounts. As the controversy brews, one by one denied having obtained the SLPP membership and started removing such photos from their respective social media accounts. The other objection was that giving the Opposition Leader post to a Member of Parliament belonging to the same party of the President, who is the Head of Government, Head of Executive and Head of Cabinet and currently holding three Cabinet portfolios, was not correct. The TNA requested the Speaker to appoint a Parliament Select Committee to ascertain the suitability of Rajapaksa to hold the Opposition Leader position. TNA Leader R. Sampanthan, being an old-timer who had experienced many political storms, refused to back down without a fight and claimed that there are two Opposition Leaders in Parliament now.

Double-tongued MPs

It is worthwhile reminding that the person holding the Opposition Leader post becomes an ex-officio member of the Constitutional Council. The 10-member CC is the apex decision making body that recommends the appointments to the Independent Commissions and high ranking positions such as the Attorney General, Auditor General, Parliament Secretary General, IGP, Chief Justice and superior court judges among others.It is ironic that the UPFA MPs supporting Rajapaksa, who spewed venom against the Speaker over the past two months, were quick to remind the House that the Speaker’s announcement on Tuesday was final. JVP MP Bimal Rathnayake exposed those double-standards of the JO MPs in the first turn he got. “Pro-Rajapaksa camp is a shameless group who abused the Speaker in the most despicable language. It is amusing to see how they are now praising the Speaker.

 They should kneel down before the Speaker’s Chair and plead for forgiveness,” he noted.
Speaker Jayasuriya, who emerged the champion of democracy for fearlessly standing up for democratic principles under trying circumstances, is faced with another fresh puzzle in choosing the rightful owner of the Opposition Leader post. The Speaker yesterday requested further time to give a final ruling.

Severe blow to economy

As the dust settles on the political coup, the Government presented a Vote on Account to provide for the public expenditure of the first quarter of next year till a full-budget is ready. The tourism sector, investments and foreign exchange took a severe blow due to the unnecessarily prolonged political crisis and as a result, the country’s feeble economy has had to pay dearly. Former Central Bank Deputy Governor W. A. Wijewardena analysed in a post on his Twitter on December 19, “Sri Lankans embroiled in power game aren’t aware of economic volcano they are sitting on. Growth in the third quarter of the year has fallen to 2.9 percent of the GDP making economic growth so far this year just 3.3 percent of the GDP, annually, at most 3.4 percent. Rupee is kept at this level by selling USD by Central Bank, so far near USD 1billion. Bad period ahead”.

The Government will no doubt face more and far bitter struggles in the coming months as it strain to ease the economic impact of the political power game without compromising on its new found political capital.