The Government was planning to increase the size of the cabinet by claiming it was forming a ‘national government’. The 19th Amendment, following mandate sought and given, expressly states that the cabinet would be limited to a maximum of 30 ministers. The 19th Amendment, in contravention of mandate sought, includes wording that permits an enlargement subject to the caveat of there being ‘a national government’ in which case Parliament decides the size of cabinet.
Assurances were made in Parliament at the time by the then Minister of Justice Wijedasa Rajapaksha regarding the definition of ‘a national government,’ i.e. a government made of the parties or independent groups represented in Parliament having the largest and second largest numbers. This position was reaffirmed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. However, when the bill was passed very late that night, the definition had been altered. Only Sarath Weerasekara objected and the Amendment was passed. Those who voted were possibly misled, but those who authored and approved the text (and this has to include Wickremesinghe and Jayampathy Wickramaratne and possibly M.A. Sumanthiran of the TNA), clearly knew what they were doing.
At the time, part of the SLFP was in the Government and the rest of that party were in Opposition. This strange arrangement was replayed after the general election in 2015. Perhaps because the SLFP was the party that had the second largest number of MPs, the ‘national government’ idea still held some credibility. When the majority of the SLFP left the government, however, that credibility was lost. The Speaker, Karu Jayasuriya, proceeded to divest himself of credibility by refusing to recognize the Joint Opposition as a separate political entity, citing the technicality of the JO MPs having contested under the SLFP banner.
With the final fracture of the arrangement with the SLFP and of course it’s leader President Maithripala Sirisena, UNP tried to take the technicality-route in claiming it could form a national government. Interestingly and not surprisingly it was the UNP’s apparently designated constitutional-tinker, Wickremaratne who first floated the red herring. He claimed, unabashedly and shamelessly, ‘since the SLMC is with the UNP, we can still form a national government.’ Wickremaratne is a lawyer and he obvious cites only those points that favor his client (the UNP and himself in this instance).
Obviously, then, the amendment of caveats regarding cabinet size was deliberate and was akin to an umbrella kept handy in anticipation of a political rainy day. But then again, the SLMC, except for one individual, contested WITH the UNP led coailtion. And even if we take the SLMC to be a separate political entity that’s absolutely independent of the UNP-led coalition, the UNP, by even considering UNP+1 definition of ‘national’ betrays utter idiocy, not to mention making a complete mockery of all rhetoric bemoaning the bloated cabinets of previous regimes!
Then again, the shameless are often bold and tend to overestimate strength. Then again, the foolish will not see realities that hit them between the eyes (e.g. the UNP’s popularity plummet at the local government elections a year ago). So they tried a fast one.
They tried to get standing orders suspended to circumvent stipulated procedures, hoping this would give them some kind of edge in getting the national government motion passed. Unfortunately, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, who himself suspended his neutrality AND standing orders a few weeks ago, refused to accede on this occasion.
The UNP has a long history of itching to sell national assets (e.g. fanatical privatization) , subvert national interest in favor of (imagined) political profit, sloth or cowardice (Indo-Lanka Accord) and an unholy readiness to genuflect before foreign powers, especially the West (UNHRC resolutions). The word ‘national’ sits right in the middle of the party’s name, but it doesn’t belong to the UNP’s ideological heart but rather some rear-end body part.
The term ‘national GOVERNMENT’ was doomed considering a) the long history of enmity between the UNP and the SLFP, and b) the nature of the respective party leaders. It was a deformed child and was ailing from birth. It’s dead now. The attempt to resurrect it has nothing to do with national interest and everything to do with the desperation of the UNP in reduced and disarrayed circumstances.
Should we be surprised, though? The short answer is ‘no’. History casts long shadows. The SLFP and the UNP have long histories. Sirisena and Wickremesinghe have long histories. The observant voter can read the relevant shadows.
Those who expected miracles or let’s say teeny-weeny miracles from the Sirisena Presidency and the yahapalana governement were and are (at best) naive. However, many of them who were willing to ignore Sirisena’s vangu (or, un-yahapalanish acts) as long as he was seen as the UNP’s man (yes, not even as someone who was in a coalition WITH the UNP), are now at him, hammer and tongs. They are dead silent about attempted constitutional tinkering of the UNP.
Funded-voices, born-again democrats and candlelight ladies who came out of the woodworks in late October last year have gone silent. When the UNP pulls a UPFA or Wickremesinghe pulls a Rajapaksa, they play ‘I am sleeping’. You can’t wake up those who pretend-sleep.
Perhaps it’s a good thing. The UNP’s antics has effectively silenced these hypocrites. That however is just a small consolation for people have to be deluded to vote not only for the UNP, but the SLFP, SLPP, JVP, SLMC and the TNA.
Time for a new political-think, perhaps? Time for a truly NATIONAL ‘National Government,’ then, and one that is not tarnished by the kind of constitutional hanky-panky that the likes of Wickremesinghe and Wickramaratne indulged and indulge in, perhaps?
RELATED ARTICLES
malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment