ABOLITION: A bluff of presidential proportions

It's now established. No one was really interested in abolishing the Executive Presidency. Still, there was a lot of talk about it a few weeks ago, which of course prompted this article for the Daily Mirror. So is it irrelevant now? Well, there's something about talk. About walking. And walking the talk. Some people tried to hoodwink us, didn't they? Good to know who they are as we go to vote! 

Colombo Fort Magistrate Ranga Dissanayake has issued an interim order preventing protesting disabled soldiers from entering the Lotus Road and being anywhere close to the President’s and Prime Minister’s office.

Obviously the judge had to make a determination based on a petition.  I have no quarrel with judges. I have an issue when governments can’t sort out the issues of disabled protestors. I have an issue when governments are dismissive of men who sacrificed so much to rid the country of terrorism. That’s tragic. 

But let’s be light here. Let’s move from the tragic to the comic or, if one wants to be charitable, to the ‘less tragic’. In a word, Karu. That’s Jayasuriya. The Speaker. 

Karu Jayasurya, in a media statement, has said ‘a large number of people’ had wanted him to contest the next presidential election. Few candidates will say otherwise. It’s as though they are really not interested but they reluctantly consent because ‘people’ want them to. Maybe these ‘people’ were important to him. Let’s leave it at that. 

Some have said that Karu would be a ‘national’ candidate; he would give up his UNP membership so that he can be a neutral or independent candidate with appeal to all sectors, political groups etc. We’ve had ‘podu apekshakas’ (common candidates such as Sarath Fonseka and Maithripala Siriena) who have essentially devalued that word/term.  Not much to gain from that tag. His business. 

Karu Jayasuriya would not be a ‘common candidate’. He is a UNPer and would be the choice of his party. That itself is a come-down for a man of his calibre given the track record of that party. Forget the time when the UNP and JVP tried to figure out which party could kill more people, even just the last 5 years have shown that Karu’s party is anti Sri Lankan (UNHRC Resolution 30/1), corrupt (Central Bank heist) and incompetent (look around you!). Still, in my opinion, nominating him would a) sort out the leadership crisis in the UNP, and b) give the UNP the kind of coherence it would need if they have to head into the Opposition a few months from now.  

He’s supposed to be a ‘candidate for reform’. Well, that’s what his party was up to the past five years. Not just his party but the entire yahapalana coalition which included Ven Madhuluwawe Sobitha Thero’s movement for a saadhaarana samaajaya (a just society — did I hear JR’s echo right now?), the entire community of funded voices (read, NGOs that claim to be but are not a part of civil society) and of course Chandrika Kumaratunga. They came up with a ‘reform candidate’, Maithripala Sirisena. Sirisena and Karu’s leader Ranil Wickremesinghe did ‘reform’. Well, they wanted to or rather said they would. They didn’t. They couldn’t.  All old wine. Stale. Again, Karu’s business.

My issue is with another old line that Karu wants resurrected: abolishing the executive presidency.  Haven’t we heard that before? Haven’t those who almost swore they would abolish once elected, conveniently shelved that part of their respective manifestos? 

Then again, just because they didn’t or couldn’t or wouldn’t, it does not necessarily mean that Karu is using the whole abolishing project as a slogan deemed to be useful. He could be and I am pretty sure he is serious about it. In that case one has to question his political intelligence. 

Karu ought to know how constitutions are changed. The president is not the Legislative entirety of the country. Laws are made or amended by Parliament. Saying ‘I will abolish the executive presidency’ is therefore the claim of a political neophyte. When Karu says something like this, one can’t really decide whether to call it comic or tragic.  

I have issues with those who propose the abolishing of the executive presidency and are dead silent about the 13th Amendment. Note: no one, not even the die-hard devolutionists, are calling for elections to be held to the now dissolved provincial councils. Devolution is dead, politically. It is resurrected only by Eelamists (open and closeted) to hoodwink Tamil voters who’ve been fed Eelamist historiography and duped on grand statehood dreams. The issue is that abolishing the executive presidency while keeping the 13th intact takes out an important safeguard against the 13th being used to facilitate the division of the country.  Karu hasn’t uttered a word about the 13th Amendment. Neither do those who have been vociferous about abolishing the executive presidency.  

Now had he done so, i.e. called for the abolition of both, one might take him seriously. But this is a monumental bluff that is unbecoming of the man.  We take it along with the noises made by other presidential hopefuls in his camp, Ranil Wickremesinghe and Sajith Premadasa. The former states he’s ready to bring in a new constitution (again something that Parliament has to handle, followed by a referendum). His backers commissioned to draft a constitution came up with a federal ‘solution’ all but in name. M.A. Sumanthiran is on record acknowledging that such subterfuge is necessary (for the Eelam project to be furthered). The latter talks of ‘maximum devolution’. What’s ‘maximum’? He has not spelled it out and one does not expect him to do so either. ‘Maximum devolution’ is as monumental a lie as ‘abolishing the executive presidency’.  It’s the tired line tossed out to hook the Tamil voter.  

He can say something though. He could answer the following questions. 1. What is the mechanism through which the executive presidency can be abolished (use two A4 papers, at least)? 2. What do you have to say about the 13th Amendment: was it legal, was it effective in terms of outcomes envisaged, does its existence threaten the unitary character of the state in the event the executive presidency is abolished, is it not a colossal waste of money and do people even want it (going by the absolute absence of agitation on account of the councils being non-functional)? 

As things stand, this talk of abolishing the executive presidency is a bluff. A bluff of presidential proportions. Karu Jayasuriya, given his track record, does not deserve association with that kind of project. Some may be taking him for a ride. Maybe he wants the ride (I hope not!). Either way, ‘bluff’ is not something I believe he wants to be a part of.  Let’s see.

Read more

So it is Gota and also-rans?

Image, courtesy Daily Mirror

Politics is about the clash of ideas, debates and discussions about policy, the turning of notions into ideas, ideas into ideologies and laying it all before the people for decision.  Elections are won and lost based on the strength or otherwise of competing programs. 

Alright. Let’s get real now.  This is Sri Lanka. The year is 2019. Let’s ask a simple question: when last did ideology count? Politicians are not stupid and neither are people. Rational choices are made but ideological preferences rarely figure in calculations.  It’s mostly about ousting incumbents; ideas and ideology, programs and policy, and other such lovely notions simply don’t have any currency in today’s political theater. There is talk, however, of a Leader. Yes, upper case. 

An effective leader. A strong leader. 

Now a leader of any pretension would also be effective, would also be strong. The obvious implication of this search is that right now Sri Lanka is effectively ‘leaderless’. In other words, those who have been running the country since January 2015 are ineffective and weak.  

And so we have people surveying the political firmament for personalities who would fit the bill. Naturally, given the political system Sri Lanka has, the focus tends to be on possible candidates from the major parties; the United National Party (UNP), the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), the last only on account of the fact that its leader, the beleaguered Maithripala Sirisena is the incumbent president.  

So we have the UNP leader, Ranil Wickremesinghe, always a contender even though he balked in 2010 (convinced probably of a routing) and in 2015 (perhaps unsure of victory but believing that the defector Sirisena would have a better chance against Mahinda Rajapaksa). The last four years have clearly set to rest any illusions that even the ardent loyalists may have entertained about his credentials as a capable, effective and honest politician. This is probably why many senior UNPers are looking at different options, in particular Sajith Premadasa. 

The ‘Ranil or Sajith?’ question has revealed deep divisions in the UNP with both camps digging in for a protracted battle. There seems to be absolute certainty among the majority of UNPers that Ranil has no chance against Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, the probable candidate of the SLPP, or anyone else from the SLPP for that matter. Sajith has to get past Ranil who, by virtue of the party constitution, has and will continue to call the shots. Going by track record it is unlikely that Ranil will agree to any proposal that could lead to his ouster as party leader, regardless of its impact on the outcome of the election.  

In any event, it appears that the ‘issue’ for those entertaining presidential ambitions in the UNP is party leadership and not the presidency — not for now at least. The struggle is more about positioning oneself for a bid at a subsequent election.  

With respect to probable victor, it’s almost as though Gotabhaya Rajapaksa is a shoo-in.  Even those who are not at all keen on a Rajapaksa becoming President have grudgingly acknowledged this. One regular columnist, for example, has said that ‘Gota’ has achieved iconic status amongst sections of the population.

Why a ‘strong leader’ though? The answer could be the attribution of all the ills of Sri Lanka to the absence of such a leader. That might be an extreme position to take, but then again this regime, led by Ranil Wickremesinghe (UNP) and Maithripal Sirisena (SLFP) have demonstrated incompetence, indecision and incoherence over and above an absolute lack of political will to deliver on election promises. Good governance was what was promised. There’s no governance and there’s very little ‘good’ in what’s been done.  There's every reason to conclude that the default-option scenario would be played out. That, one notes, was what brought Maithripala Sirisena to power.  Sirisena’s history and the UNP’s history were known and weren’t exactly talked about as though the relevant individuals embodied shining examples of statesmanship. 

Even if all this is perception and can be dismissed as subjective, one cannot wish away the results of the February 2018 local government elections, which in the very least point to a massive vote of no confidence on the regime. The regime hasn’t done anything remarkable since then to change this view. Indeed, the utter incompetence that facilitated the Easter Sunday attacks, compounded by subversion of the intelligence units, absolute demoralization of the security forces and unpardonable compromising of sovereignty in Geneva could only be expected to further erode voter confidence.  

Voting patterns tell a story too. The coalition that supported Sirisena in 2015 is gone. Sirisena might still support a UNP candidate or he could be the compromise candidate if the Ranil and Sajith factions cannot work out their differences.  The problem is that Sirisena is a tired and unmarketable brand. The SLFP won barely 15% of the votes in February 2018. It is unlikely that he will retain even the barest of support he got from the seniors in the party should he and the UNP try a 2015-repeat.  The Catholic vote was the UNP’s to lose. They’ve lost a lot after the Easter Sunday attack. The Muslim parties may remain with the UNP, but at the risk of alienating other communities. The main Tamil parties supported the UNP’s candidate of choice but the percentages are likely to change. Such an erosion could also be crucial.  It could be worse if the TNA or any other Tamil party chooses to field a candidate.  

Rajapaksa lost several hundred thousand votes in 2015 (compared to 2010) in the Western Province. The SLPP recovered much of these traditionally SLFP-leaning voters as evidenced by the February 2018 results.  

There is also the possibility of a third party candidate. The JVP could decide to contest. The National People’s Movement (NPM) with or without the support of that party and the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP). Nagananda Kodituwakku, Rohan Pallewatte and others have expressed plans to contest. Separately or together, it is unlikely that this segment could obtain significant numbers. The JVP, for example, even under the most favorable conditions could hardly garner more than 5% of the vote. In any event, it is probable that they’ll attract those who voted for Sirisena rather than those who voted for the SLPP last year. Unfortunate, I feel, but then again, we are not talking ideology or program here. 

So we have a very likely possibility of a Gotabhaya Rajapaksa presidency.  Whether this is to be applauded or not, whether he is likely to deliver or not, whether the alleged ‘strength’ would translate into ‘iron fist’ are most certainly matters that warrant discussion. Such discussion is important but it is not typical for deep-ideology to play a significant role in decisions come election time.  We are talking strictly about ‘winnability’.  If prediction is the name of the game, then right now, it is certainly Gota, if as expected he is officially nominated as the candidate of the SLPP.  It’s Gota by a stretch, really. Whether we like it or not. As things stand right now. 

malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com  

Read more

This government is a threat to security!

“Conspiracy theories about the involvement of the U.S. military draw attention away from where it should be focused, which is firmly on the victims and their families,” the U.S. Ambassador to Sri Lanka Alaina B. Teplitz has stated. Conspiracy theories do distract, she is correct. We’ll come to that presently.  Let’s focus on ‘focus’ for a moment. 

Alaina believes that ‘unity is the most powerful answer to terrorism’. Unity is key, she is correct. It is also difficult to obtain and is most fragile, she might have added. Is it THE most powerful answer to terrorism, though? I would say ‘necessary but not sufficient’. 

Just the other day, some peace-loving citizens gathered at Independence Square to hold a candlelight vigil for victims of last Sunday’s terrorist attack suspected to have been carried out by a group calling itself National Thowheed Jama’ath (NTJ). The ISIS has since claimed  responsibility. Whether the NTJ is aligned with the ISIS or whether ISIS pounced on a brand-visibility opportunity we do not know yet. What is clear is that we haven’t seen outpouring of outrage from ‘civil society’ of the kind witnessed when the comparatively baby-like acts of violence perpetrated against Muslims by extremist Buddhists in Digana and Teldeniya last year or when similar violence was unleashed in Aluthgama a few years before. One has to ask if it is because Buddhists constitute a soft and preferred target as far as ‘civil society’ is concerned? 

Love, kindness, concern for our neighbors, a determination to differentiate a terrorist professing the Islamic faith from that particular religious community (a distinction that was not made between the BBS and Buddhists, by the way) are important no doubt, but in the larger and necessary engagement, it is what a friend called ‘astroturf being passed off as grassroots’.  Good for feel-good but only for a while. The well-intentioned citizens who gathered at Independence Square would not dare conduct a similar vigil in Kalmunai, Chawalakade, Sammanthura or Kattankudy and I wouldn’t blame them for giving such places a pass.

Focus. Let’s get back to Alaina. Yes, the victims and their families need to be focused on. Obviously that’s not going to stop the terrorists. Nothing less than a comprehensive, united (yes, THAT word) and determined effort by THE ENTIRE NATION is required. History bears witness. What’s clear though is that the Government has absolutely no clue about any of these things. 

The Prime Minister with his pedantic posturing about the limits of the law has essentially invited all global terrorist outfits to set up office in Sri Lanka. There was evidence of Muslim extremists engaged in indoctrination, organizing, training and getting ready to unleash terror. In the name of religious freedom and with a nod to the Muslim vote bank, this government put the entire population at risk. Even the previous regime factored in the Muslim vote bank. They, to their credit, did not subvert the entire security apparatus of the country and especially the intelligence units.  

What really takes the cake is that the yahapalanists have absolutely no trust in the people of this country. Ranil Wickremesinghe and his team are so utterly incompetent that they run to the so-called international community at the drop of a hat. They’ve forgotten or have stubbornly refused to acknowledge that the war against the LTTE was won because the then government placed faith in the people of this country. Sure, they had logistical support from foreign governments but these often came with a price and was grudgingly given.  

This is why we have to take Alaina’s statement seriously. It is NOT a conspiracy. It is a fact. She has admitted that ‘expert teams from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) are providing support to the Sri Lankan-led investigation into the attacks’. This is ‘at the behest of the Sri Lankan Government’.

One doesn’t need to have read Noam Chomsky’s ‘What Uncle Sam really wants’ to understand that the USA has had a long history of hand-in-glove association with terrorism. They have created terrorist groups and fought against them, sometimes creating other terrorist groups for this purpose. Partly to secure and control resources and markets, partly to control markets and partly to support the arms industry of the USA.  They’ve unleashed terror on their own steam too (in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, much of Latin America). Even after shutting down hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad, according to www.politico.com. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined. They are ready to terrorize too.

So, as Alaina said, there’s no ‘conspiracy’ here. There’s no secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. It’s too obvious for the word ‘secret’ to be used. Mind you, I am not faulting Alaina. She’s doing her job, part of which is to dismiss fears about what her government is up to. Hence the misuse of the word ‘distraction’. All par for the course. The fault is with the Government. As Alaina puts it, it is all ‘at the behest of the Sri Lankan Government’.  

Ranil Wickremesinghe and Maithripala Sirisena have essentially brought the world’s most unreliable ‘friend’ into the country. Keep in mind that this ‘friend’ is also best known disseminator of confusion, an accomplished wrecker of peace and an aider and abetter of terrorism (when it is not playing terrorist, that is). 

The entire world came out in support of Sri Lanka. Everyone offered prayers. Many offered support. Why is the Government not seeking the support of Russia, the one country among the military powers of the world that has a no-nonsense approach to the ISIS? Why is China’s support not being solicited, for China after all has a on-the-ground stake in operating in a country without a terrorist threat? Why not India (despite her sorry history with respect to the LTTE), for India is facing the same threat and is our immediate neighbor? Why pick the worst of the lot?  

The answer is easy. This Government is a puppet of the USA. This Government is utterly incompetent. This Government has played into the hands of the terrorists. They turned Sri Lanka into the softest of targets. It is not a ‘won’t do government’. It is a ‘can’t do government’.  This government is part of the problem and has to be named as a security threat to the entire population.

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com. 

Read more

Democracy is alive, ladies and gentlemen

What’s the talk of the town? ‘The town’ of course can be anything from Cinnamon Gardens to Hokandara to Debarawewa. If you are talking about Cinnamon Gardens as the trope that it is for a significant portion of the decision-makers of the United National Party (UNP) and those who balk at power shifting to Debarawewa (or Kebithigollewa or Karandeniya or Kachchativu), then the talk is all about democracy.  

And democracy (or its subversion) was SUDDENLY noticed.....!

Here are some of the low-tone rumbles that are making the rounds in that particular echo chamber: ‘Democracy is under serious threat,’ ‘we need to fight to the last to safeguard democracy for future generations,’ ‘this is not about Ranil, it’s about democracy,’ ‘this is not about us, but about all of us (i.e. the entire nation).’  Well, considering the deafening silence of most of these born-again democrats (the Sinhala term is better, ‘heenen bayavunu prajaathanthravaadeen’ or ‘democrats waking up from a bad dream’) on all anti-democratic moves by the UNP from DS to Ranil and not forgetting JR and Premadasa and in particular the dictatorial party constitution and post January 2015 subversions, we can safely say ‘it’s about you, it is about Ranil, it is about the UNP.’

In their case, it’s a matter of outcome-preferences framing political comment. In the case of the less partisan, the outcome-fears (‘If Mahinda returns, he will bring back the 18th’) overrides all.  And so, they conclude (prematurely) that a) the removal of Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister and the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa in his place was illegal and unconstitutional, and b) the dissolution of Parliament was illegal and unconstitutional. They conclude, therefore, that Speaker Karu Jayasuriya is a hero (never mind that he flouted procedures he was almost worshipping a few months ago).  

The ‘other lot’ is no different. They have their outcome preferences, they have their fears. They will happily conclude that the President was acting constitutionally, never mind the high-handedness, never mind that if the UNP lost mandate and political legitimacy on February 10, 2018, so too did Maithripala Sirisena. 

But let’s focus on democracy.  

Fact: we got a terrible constitution in 1978. Fact: of the 19 Amendments passed since then, 18 were partisan and favored incumbents. Fact: the 19th amendment was flawed. Fact: the architects of the 19th, in particular Jayampathy Wickramaratne, the ardent backers (the UNP and the NGO cheering squad) and the ‘aye-sayers’ including those in the Joint Opposition except for Sarath Weerasekera, are guilty of irresponsibility if not utmost imbecility.  

A polity is not made of a constitution alone. Democracy is not a synonym of either constitution or parliament. In these things, people count. In these things process matters. There are times when limits, especially those couched in vagueness, need to be tested. This is one. Whether Sirisena’s intention was to test limit or otherwise is immaterial. 

At the end of the day, the law-makers appear to be stumped. The President, for all the power-curtailing, has prevailed and in prevailing, at least for now, has thumbed his nose at the architects of the 19th Amendment and its approvers. Hopefully, the courts will offer clarity on all the vagueness that the executive and legislative branches of the state have together inscribed. At the end of the day, also, everyone is learning that constitutions are not cast in stone, that there are no accidental errors (no, not even the discrepancies in Sinhala and English and possibly Tamil versions), and most importantly, the people need not get into fisticuffs on behalf of their so-called representatives. If Parliament is a joke and parliamentarians are jokers, let them do their thing — we can laugh. That seems to be a common enough response.  

Let’s assume this happened in some country in Europe or even some other South Asian ‘democracy’.  There would be riots, it is safe to assume. By and large, Sri Lankans have determined, ‘it’s none of our business’.  It is our business, true, but then it seems more prudent to let the courts have a say before the streets do. Those who are street-bound are essentially a partisan lot; the majority will have none of it. That’s healthy. There’s a time for agitation, this just isn’t that time. The diehards will rally around their leader(s), i.e. either Ranil Wickremesinghe or Mahinda Rajapaksa, but let’s not fool ourselves into believing that they are doing this for ‘all of us’ or for ‘democracy’.   

The ‘us’ of it all, is biding time, it seems. ‘Our’ time may or may not come soon, but it will only be at the politically auspicious hour that ‘we’ will speak, it is safe to assume.  Here’s a Facebook post (pruned and edited to capture the essence) that captures some of that ‘us-sentiment’:

‘The people of our country have been behaving exceptionally well. If any other country were had a headless state, life would have been grim, but the lack of a Government has not deterred nor derailed our ppl [people] from their daily paths. Even though the macro environment is worrisome, focus is not lost. It proves we don't need the 225 donkeys to govern and even if they did or didn't no one seems to give two hoots. It proves our people our innately good, have the power to regard or disregard.  Hopefully we will continue to be calm and collected, draw up the courage from our 2500 years plus culture and do what needs to be done to get over this speed bump and put our country back on track.’

So what’s this hullabaloo about democracy then? Perhaps the answer can be found in an insightful observation made at the inauguration of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party by S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike on September 2, 1951.

SWRD at the inauguration
of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party

‘It will be thus seen that unlike other countries such as India, Pakistan, Burma, Indonesia, Ireland, etc., which advanced to Freedom through the instrumentality of Mass Movements based on clear-cut principles and policies, our Freedom Movement was really one proceeding from the top and cut off to a great extent from the masses (SWRD had previously referred to D.S. Senanayake and his aides getting the Soulbury Constitution amendment to obtain Dominian Status ‘without placing amendment before country or parliament but prepared according to Mr Senanayake’s personal views — hint, hint). It has created a feeling in the minds of some people that our freedom is not something that the people have obtained but one that a few individuals have succeeded in getting, and one therefore that is looked upon to a great extent as the private property of these individuals, the benefits of which should be chiefly enjoyed by them. It is this psychology that is chiefly responsible for the nepotism and cliquism which our rampant today and for the reluctance to deal effectively with the many important problems that face us, a free country today, particularly in the context of the present trend of world affairs.’

SWRD’s own errors and culpabilities notwithstanding, this could be read as a damning account of the born-again democracy-brigade of today. This year marks the 200th anniversary of the 1818 Rebellion and the capture of Keppitipola. Democracy was blood-less and something we owe the D.S. Senanayakes, they believe and/or would have us believe and therefore it is an elite-birthed project for the benefits of political progeny, they seem to think. No wonder that the general public are not inspired by their siren call to save democracy from ‘the yakkos’.  

Well, the masses appear to know what’s what. In retrospect one might conclude that they knew the dangers of electing Ranil Wickremesinghe in 2005 and knew the dangers of re-electing Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2015. It is unlikely that they have any illusions about these two individuals or about Maithripala Sirisena. They know better than democracy-experts that democracy was always an unholy creature which didn’t die on October 26, 2018, and moreover has to owe its longevity to the people, who have been patient and have largely refused to purchase all the lies about it. They know what it is and what it is not. They don’t need tuition on the same.  

malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com

Read more

How about some sovereignty for a change?

In certain circles, political debate has been reduced to whether or not the Prime Minister is legitimate. Some argue that Ranil Wickremesinghe’s ouster was illegal and therefore the issue of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s legitimacy is resolved by that very fact.  

Those who argue in this manner support their case in terms of parliamentary arithmetic. Strictly speaking, after the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) withdrew from the ‘National Government,’ even by the injudicious and vague definition of the same, the ‘National Government’ ceased to exist, and immediately Wickremesinghe ceased to have majority control of Parliament.  

A vote against Mahinda Rajapaksa is not the same as a vote for Ranil Wickremesinghe, let us note, observing at the same time that no such vote was taken in terms of procedures established in parliamentary standing orders. In other words, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) may support a vote of no-confidence brought against Rajapaksa but this does not mean that they would back a Wickremesinghe premiership.  

There are minority governments all over the world. That’s not a pleasant thing of course but it doesn’t mean utter confusion or dysfunction either.  Hypothetically a vote in Parliament about who should be the Prime Minister might resolve the question of popularity, even if no one gets 113 or more votes.  The current political turmoil does not permit such litmus tests.  

The importance of examining parliamentary support is predicated on the issue of sovereignty.  In a democracy, however flawed the related structures, institutions and culture are, popular sovereignty holds that the authority of a state and government are created and sustained by the consent of the particular polity, the people, through their elected representatives. The key word is ‘people’. ‘Representative’ is secondary and representation subsequent.  

As of now, the voices against President Maithripala Sirisena’s move to oust Wickremesinghe and of course against Rajapaksa, stand on the issue of representation and related parliamentary numbers to ascertain ‘popular will’.

If we were to leave out the issue of legality (regarding dissolution), deferring respectfully to the wisdom of the Supreme Court, we would have to dwell on the question of legitimacy a la sovereignty.  

There are broadly two ways to handle this. First, we could examine manifestos, mandates and performance.  Few would say that the Yahapalana regime conducted itself with distinction. At best, even its most ardent supporters would have to qualify all claims with the two words ‘at’ and ‘least’.  Relative merits is a dangerous game and in the end inconclusive and of very little practical use. This is why we need to examine the second option: ‘what do the people think?’

Well, people’s opinions cannot be obtained except through an election. Usually when there’s absolute lack of clarity in all things parliamentary, it is best that the final arbiters on the issue, the people, be allowed to express will. That, as mentioned is in the courts as of now. We can, however, obtain some sense of where the people stand by checking out the results of the most recent election. Elections to local government bodies were held throughout Sri Lanka on February 10, 2018. That’s just nine months ago.  

What do the numbers say about how confident people were about the Yahapalana Government? The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna secured power in 239 local government bodies whereas the UNP got just 41 and the SLFP/UPFA led by Maithripala just 10. If we talk vote-percentages, the UNP got just 32,64%. If we use the Mangala Samaraweera Theorem (he added votes that the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna — SLPP — had not obtained to say that the majority were against the Rajapaksas), 67.37% were against the UNP.  Close to 85% were against the SLFP (which can be taken as proxy for a ‘Sirisena Rating’).  

It can therefore be argued that the current composition of Parliament is a grotesque distortion, that it does not in any way reflect the general sway of voter sentiment.  Indeed, it hangs solely on dubiously worded articles in the 19th Amendment.  It is an error so enormous that arguments for and against who holds the confidence of the majority of MPs is itself an insult to the notion of sovereignty and the people.  One could offer than the current political imbroglio is but a product of this error.  

Even if we forget the numbers and what they say about sovereignty and its confusion and corruption, it would be hard to argue that the people are thrilled about the conduct of their ‘representatives’, regardless of which party they belong to. They have, by omission and commission contributed to the subversion of sovereignty.  

The people need an opportunity to express themselves. They need an opportunity to decide which party or coalition is best suited to represent them. They need an opportunity to decide who among this current lot deserves to be reelected and who should be shown the door. 

Is we talk about democracy, we need to talk about sovereignty. Talk of sovereignty cannot make sense if we are silent on the people and if you want to include people, then, all things considered it is imperative that elections are held. If court objects in its wisdom, then the legislative should amend the 19th to let the people’s voice be included in the democratic process. If not, they should suspend the use of the word ‘democracy’ from their vocabulary.

READ ALSO...

Sri Lanka's democracy-deficit

Who the &^%$ is Maithripala Sirisena

Karu Jayasuriya: A man besieged 

Hypocrisy in the name of democracy

From DS to RW: The Decline of the United National Party

Selective tear-shedding in seasons of demagoguery

Malinda Seneviratne is a political analyst and freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com

Read more

Sri Lanka’s Democracy Deficit

A cartoon that did the rounds during and after the heady days of the Arab Spring, so-called, had Uncle Sam declaring, ‘Beware! We will give you democracy!’ It’s a bit like someone grabbing a fish out of water and saying ‘I want to save it from drowning!’ Much of the democracy angst we’ve seen over the past few days is like that. 

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018, the Supreme Court granted leave to proceed on the matter of several Fundamental Rights applications contesting the gazette notification issued by the President to dissolve parliament. What this means, in plain language, is that the court has determined that there is a legal matter that requires examination, nothing more, nothing less.

The politicians who went to court cheered what they called was ‘a triumph for democracy’.  Now, had the court determined otherwise, would they have lamented ‘a defeat for democracy,’ one must ask. Anyway, such triumphalism is par for the course. So too, the cheers of the faithful. 

What’s amusing is the angst and subsequent relief of those who claim to be apolitical or at least non-partisan. They include, but are not limited to spokespersons of certain Western diplomatic missions, self-labeled ‘civil society activists,’ certain academics and other professionals. They also include those outside of these circles, for examples, ‘ordinary citizens’ who hold candlelight vigils and posters claiming (perhaps to alleviate embarrassment) ‘this is not about Ranil’.  

Let’s nutshell it. We didn’t hear no whimpers about democracy, darlings, when Maithripala Sirisena appointed Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister on January 9, 2015 even though the man had less 25% support in Parliament. No whimpers when in April 2015, the Yahapalanists tabled a constitutional amendment drafted by a rank incompetent, Jayampathy Wickramaratne, that had more holes than swiss cheese. The UNP either didn’t see the holes or believed that the hole-guard, Maithripala Sirisena would a) not allow the opposition (the Rajapaksas, as they put it) to creep through it and indeed wouldn’t himself take a crawl. That the Mahinda-Faction of the SLFP voted for it is another matter here. The point is, there were no concerns raised then.

No whimpers when the President and Prime Minister worked to dissolve Parliament the very day the COPE report on the bond scam was to be made public. No whimpers when the democracy-champions used their respective national lists to accommodate persons rejected at the polls by the people. No whimpers when Sarath Fonseka was made an MP and given a ministerial portfolio.  

No whimpers, either in January 2015 or in August the same year when MPs crossed over to the government. But today, ladies and gentlemen, there’s  horror at the possible subversion of democracy. There are whimpers today. And therefore there are hurrahs at what is not an unexpected court ruling considering the fact that the architects of the 19th Amendment were incompetent and slothful. 

To elaborate, the Supreme Court pointed out points in Wickramaratne’s draft that were in violation of the constitution. The dissolution clause, court determined, required a two-thirds majority plus a referendum. Wickremeratne amended it, inserting a clause which allowed an interpretation permitting the President to dissolve at will, clearly at odds with the four and a half year moratorium on dissolution in a different clause. 

Back to whimpers. No whimpers when the Yahapalana Government kept postponing local government elections. No whimpers that the terms of six provincial councils have expired and there are no signs of elections being held.  

Not about Ranil? No, it is about Ranil for it’s Ranil that is the UNP and it is Ranil who was caught by the short-hairs by the President. If one were to be generous, one could say, ‘alright, it’s not about Ranil but it is certainly about the UNP and its political fortunes.’

The constitutional crisis should be talked of as a problem of careless wording. It is also about the machinations of politicians belonging to all parties, not just the UNP. However, the root of the crisis is about true representation. In other words the issue of legitimacy.

Sirisena mentioned a few months ago that there had been some 400 demonstration in Colombo since January 2015.. The official Leader of the Opposition votes with the yahapalanists on a consistent basis. What he and the heenen-bayavunu prajaathanthravaadeen (democrats who seem to have woken up from a bad dream) have not mentioned is the glaring representational anomaly. 

The opposition (which is of course not coterminous with the SLPP or the Joint Opposition) does not have proper parliamentary representation. Voter sentiment as expressed in parliamentary composition was mangled in January 2015 and this was repeated in August 2015. The results of the local government election in February 2018 is the most reliable indication of where the people stand. The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna secured power in 239 local government bodies whereas the UNP got just 41 and the SLFP/UPFA led by Maithripala a humbling 10.  If democracy is about people, then they have spoken. 

Unfortunately, there was a clause in the 19th that made it difficult to act so as to correct this anomaly, i.e. through the dissolution of Parliament. It took a parting of political ways for Sirisena to move on this and we know how that process is stumbling along. What’s pertinent, however, is that simple arithmetic clearly shows that the anomaly has got worse after Sirisena decided to form a political alliance with Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The court knows best, and one should not presume here. Whatever the outcome of the litigation process, it seems sensible to proceed in a manner that resolves the representational conundrum for if left unresolved, the basic premises of sovereignty will be compromised. 

Those who champion the cause of democracy cannot ignore the democracy-deficit in parliament. They cannot therefore hesitate on the need for correction. There’s no better corrective mechanism than elections. There’s no better test of approval available in a democracy. You can’t want democracy and not have elections; no elections, no democracy.  The bottom line, then, is a single word: ELECTIONS.  

READ ALSO:

Who the &^%$ is Maithripala Sirisena

Hypocrisy in the name of democracy

From DS to RW: The Decline of the United National Party

Selective tear-shedding in seasons of demagoguery

Malinda Seneviratne is a political analyst and freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com

Read more

Who the *&%# is Maithripala Sirisena, huh?

Maithripala. Maithripala Sirisena. Pallewatte Gamaralalage Maithripala Yapa Sirisena. President. Executive President. A man who has the distinction of going against an  incumbent considered to be unbeatable, Mahinda Rajapaksa, and defeating him for the presidency in January 2015. Enough to warrant some kind of special mention in history. His story is not yet over, but if it were to end today, that’s about it. Nothing more.  

He is, undoubtedly, the man of the moment, but not for reasons that elicit loud and wild applause. Let’s first deal with the trivial and then move to the more serious implications of his presidency and in particular his recent move with respect to the sacking and appointments of Prime Ministers.

Maithripala appears to be a glutton for abuse from all quarters. He earned the wrath of the diehard loyalists of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) when he broke ranks and joined the party’s arch enemy, the United National Party (UNP). He was welcomed with open arms for obvious reasons — the UNP had neither held the presidency nor backed a winner in more than twenty years. 

At the time, pro-UNP political analysts tried to make people believe that Maithripala would be a figurehead President, despite the constitutional provisions that rebel against such notions. The naive among the more sober believed that Maithripala would move to abolish his own office. The less naive thought that the 19th Amendment would contain provisions to turn their dream scenario into reality — a constitution-determined figurehead president and a Prime Minister with executive sway.  We know what happened and what did not.

Naturally, the Rajapaksa camp did not miss a single opportunity to criticize Maithripala. It was not just criticism of course. There was excessive ridicule at his glaring errors of omission and commission.  Some were thoughtful enough to tag Ranil Wickremesinghe and the UNP to such censure, most did not. 

Maithripala’s language use was parodied, first by the Rajapaksa loyalists and later by UNPers increasingly frustrated by the simple fact that they had read him wrong, read the political process wrong and were clueless about the constitution.  His humble beginnings were alluded to. The ‘gamarala’ part of his name was laughed at. His English language incompetency was mercilessly parodied in what Gehan Gunatilleke calls ‘The Puswedilla Franchise’ which he likened to ‘a dose of morphine offering the audience a coping mechanism.’

Hafeel Farisz in a review titled ‘The politics of Puswedilla’ lays it out in this way:

‘It [Puswedilla] boiled down to mimicking a system that we have either confused ourselves about or ridiculing a system that those in Colombo love to loathe. ‘Yakkos’ governing the country is not something that many have been used to prior to the incumbent regime assuming power.’

And he elaborates: ‘The Premadasa era is often used as a case point to negate this argument, but fact remains that even during that era, the institutional mechanisms had not felt the social ‘turnaround’ as it has now. It is in this context that the writer seems to be making hay, through Pusswedilla, catering to an audience that largely comprises a population segment that is becoming negligible in the larger political schism of Sri Lanka.’

Puswedilla elicits laughter, perhaps for the clever jokes but perhaps the appreciation is born of the need to cope. After all, there are people who think Sri Lanka is Colombo and that its theirs to govern by birthright. Or something like that. No place for yakkos, godayas, gamaralas and country bumpkins. Both were writing in 2014, a time when ‘Puswedilla’ focused on the Rajapaksas. When ‘the unbelievable’ happened, i.e. when Maithripala was found to have a mind of his own, the invective was simply directed at him. It was in fact targeting neither Rajapaksa nor Maithripala but the cultural ‘other’, those who are not seen as born-bred ‘Colombo People’ and were seen as culturally inferior because they were not fluent in English.   

Well, it’s got worse. Maithripala has kicked the UNP in its proverbial teeth and worse, decided to bed with the arch enemy, the Rajapaksas. If UNPers were first amused, then worried, later anxious and confused, later still dismayed, they are now positively livid. They (and this includes senior and seasoned politicians like Mangala Samaraweera but not Ranil Wickremesinghe) have not minced their words. 

Maithripala is therefore a politician who is grudgingly loved, first by the UNP and now by the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and absolutely hated, first by Rajapaksa loyalists (who later morphed into the SLPP) and now by UNPers.

Back in the day whenever Maithripala did the foot-in-mouth number, the Rajapaksa loyalist guffawed, Ranil’s backers were silent for the most part. Today it’s the other way about. All of a sudden UNP loyalists have discovered that he’s homophobic. All of a sudden he’s violating the basic norms of democracy. 

[Note, they were quiet when he spat on parliamentary arithmetic to appoint Ranil as Prime Minister on January 9, 2015, when he opened the national-list back door to allow people rejected at the polls to enter parliament and of course they were thrilled when he, along with Ranil, dissolved Parliament on the very day that the COPE report on the Central Bank bond scam was to be made public!  All of a sudden he’s the villain.]

Whereas the legality of premiership claims (Mahinda Rajapaksa’s and Ranil Wickremesinghe’s) are contentious, that of Sirisena is not. When it comes to legitimacy, clearly the UNP and Sirisena (plus his SLFP) are also rans compared to Rajapaksa and the SLPP, if we go by the most recent election results. 

On February 10, 2018, the SLPP demolished both the UNP and the SLFP.  The UNP’s vote share fell from 45.7% in August 2015 to 32.63% or more than 13 percentage points.  So, following an argument put forward by Mangala Samaraweera at the time (he claimed that more than half the population had rejected Rajapaksa), we can say that 77.37% rejected the UNP and 86.62% have rejected Maithripala Sirisena and the SLFP/UPFA. The SLPPsecured power in 239 local government bodies whereas the UNP got just 41 and the SLFP/UPFA led by Maithripala a humbling 10.The parliamentary composition does not reflect this nation-wide reality and that is partly why we have this present crisis (quite apart from the power aspirations of the key players).

The UNP now claims that Maithripala’s legitimacy draws from the support he received from the UNP in January 2015 and after the political divorce, he no longer has the legitimacy. Correct. Maithripala, it appears, picked the best option: he abandoned the illegitimate elephant-rail and clung to the far more legitimate saatakaya, to put it metaphorically.  

Maithripala’s future is bleak. He’s now a prisoner of the SLPP and he probably will not have any decent cards to play after the next election.  He has the power of the office and as the UNP learned to their dismay, it is considerable.  

He demonstrated in no uncertain terms that without any political legitimacy to speak of he can still wreck the political equation. He demonstrated that the 19th Amendment was a sham. The UNP cannot complain because it was that party which authored the document. The Rajapaksa camp went along and we do not know whether Mahinda was aware of the flaws and if he did whether he planned to exploit them at the right time. What counts is that it is flawed. 

If D.B. Wijetunga was a man who happened to be at the right place at the right time, it appears that Maithripala is a man who knew how to get to the right place at the right time.  Some in the UNP may have taken him to be harmless or even a fool, but it’s clear that two can play that game and that Maithripala has come out ahead, as of now. 

How will history judge Maithripala? Let us not be hasty, but let us just say that as of now, even as Rajapaksa loyalists are painting him in kind and appreciative colors, he’s not looking too good.

Malinda Seneviratne is a political analyst and freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com

Read more