Towards an intersection of ‘Rule of Law’ and ‘Tradition’

Rule of Law. That was a yahapalana howl. The howl would quickly diminish to a whimper when the Yahapanalists carried out the Central Bank Bond Scam. The Yahapanalists went deaf and dumb over the dozens of people who died while under police custody. 

It’s not surprising. They know of Thajudeen but not of the thousands burnt alive during UNP governments. They know of Ekneligoda but not of Satyapala Wannigama. They talk of Lasantha but not of Richard. So, Rule of Law, is for them a demand and aspiration that surfaces when political fortunes are in decline, or as it is now, at zero.  

Sri Lanka has a political culture which makes for howls when in the Opposition and look-aside when in Government. Politicians and loyalists, therefore, get their knickers twisted when expressing outrage. 

The latest is the arrests of former ministers Patali Champika Ranawaka and Rajitha Senaratne. It is claimed Senaratne suddenly fell ill (very much like all politicians of all parties who are arrested and duly fall so seriously ill that they have to be transferred to the prison hospital). Maybe he did fall ill. Maybe he is so sick that hospitalization was necessary. However, none who talked of ‘Rule of Law,’ ‘Good Governance,’ and ‘Established Procedure’ have raised even a whine about Senaratne absconding. 

Ranawaka’s case is different. The anti-Ranawaka commentators have called the incident a hit-and-run affair. This is misrepresentation. Claims that he did not even inquire about the condition of the person who was injured is also a deliberate lie. The truth is that Ranawaka’s vehicle was hit from behind. The injured party’s condition was looked into. We don’t know what kind of agreement was reached between the two parties. We don’t know why the case was ‘closed’ but we can reasonably surmise that it was re-opened as much for political reasons as for the pursuit of truth and justice. 

What he is accused of has nothing to do with a traffic accident. He is charged with having deliberately misled the law. There’s talk of Ranawaka lying about who was driving his vehicle at the time, that he got his driver to ‘stand in’ for him etc. The court will no doubt get to the bottom of all this sooner or later. 

If indeed Ranawaka did the hanky-panky it is certainly a grievous wrong and grievously will he have to pay for it, at least in political terms. If convicted and released after punishment is meted out, Ranawaka will be ridiculed by his political opponents each time he appears in a television debate. All claims he makes will be prompt reference to claims made relating to this incident. In the event he is found guilty, the best course of action would be for Ranawaka to come clean, admit that he did wrong, that he panicked and that he has paid the price in full. To his credit he has not feigned illness and sought a transfer to more comfortable surroundings. 

What is interesting in all this is the behavior of the Speaker. Karu Jayasuriya, after visiting Ranawaka in prison has stated that he did so only because ‘normal procedure was not followed when Ranawaka was arrested, given the fact that he is a parliamentarian.’  

It would have been better for Jayasuriya to simply say something on the following lines: ‘I am not contravening any law by visiting anyone in prison. Ranawaka is a friend. I am not demanding that the law be relaxed in his case.’ Instead, he talks of ‘tradition.’  

Tradition? Is that part of the law now? What are these ‘traditions’ violated in Ranawaka’s case but upheld in the arrests of people like Udaya Gammanpila and Tissa Attanayake? Sure, there are courtesies of informing the Speaker; but courtesy is not a necessity, it is up to the discretion of the Police. And now the Speaker talks of summoning the IGP to demand explanation! 

Perhaps an extreme example would help sort this thorny issue of parliamentary privileges, established procedure and traditions that Jayasuriya talks about. What if MP X is involved in a sword fight or, like in a Western movie, a shoot-out with another MP, Mr Y. What if there’s injury or even death? What if the Police arrives just as X and Y are slashing off each other’s noses or bury bullets in each other’s bodies? What if X and/or Y, injured but still clinging to weapon decides to flee the scene?  Is the Police required to make a quick call to the Speaker, hope that he answers and then arrest the thug(s)? 

Had Jayasuriya simply said ‘He’s a friend and I just wanted to check on him,’ it would not be as ‘political’ as implying ‘damn it, there was injustice in this arrest!’ In either case the impartiality associated with his office would be questioned, but in the latter, by trying to give a convoluted justification, Jayasuriya has essentially said, ‘I am partial to the United National Party!’ 

[Not that we need to believe the man is impartial of course. His conduct in votes of no-confidence against the UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe and Mahinda Rajapaksa were so starkly different that no one should believe he is neutral.]

Vendetta. Politically motivated. Political victimization. These too are terms that are tossed around, typically by Colombots (aka Kolombians, Candlelight Ladies, Funded Voices and Born Again Democrats) who are either openly supportive of the UNP or are closet loyalists. Perhaps they hadn’t heard these terms when the Yahapalana Regime were putting their political opponents behind bars, instructing investigators to look for evidence with a view to arresting such people and using the state-owned media to concoct stories founded on the patently flawed premise of ‘accusation is coterminous with guilt’? 

That’s also ‘traditional’ isn’t it? People are tried by the mobs. They are tried by partisan media outfits. The act is one thing, narrative is another. The first has to be assessed by the law, the latter needs no such referents. 

So it is a circus. There is a positive though. Political connections can get you a break. Political enmity can put you in a soup. The best thing, therefore, is to try to operate within the law and if there is infringement (as in the case of a traffic violation), then do the humble thing: submit to the law, let ‘due process’ take you where it will.  

It is best that laws are robust. It is best that law enforcement is marked by a high level of professionalism. It is best for there to be absolutely no political involvement. It is best that certain cases are not focused on because they could hurt political opponents or that there are no surreptitious acts that allow others to be postponed because those who could get hurt happen to be loyalists. 

Now if that was the ‘tradition’ then we won’t hear people howling about Ranawaka getting a raw deal. We wouldn’t have to talk about Senaratne making even more a clown of himself than he did with his bearded white van drivers. And we wouldn’t have Karu Jayasuriya, a decent man who has for the most part conducted himself with dignity, slipping on procedural plantain-skins and appearing to be out of sorts, to put it mildly.  

However, if we are to push ‘tradition’ to that level, then the principle ‘equality before the law’ has to be strictly applied. All cases related to politicians of all political parties should be taken up with the same rigor. Investigations should not be lax in one case and intense in another. Courts should not have different timetables for hearing different cases.  

We haven’t got to that Moment of Tradition yet. It can and will happen only when ‘tradition’ serves only to affirm and not bend Rule of Law.  That’s something President Gotabaya Rajapaksa should think of.  

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

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

The ‘Honorable’ Speaker and the Spirit of Democracy

The United National Party (UNP) has informed Speaker Karu Jayasuriya of the party’s intention to move a resolution on forming a ‘National Government’. The UNP has in doing so identified a UNP-Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) coalition as satisfying constitutional conditions for such an eventuality. The SLMC has just one member in Parliament, Seyed Ali Zahir Moulana, the others having contested under elephant symbol at the 2015 general election. 

Two words. Hilarious and preposterous. Oh! There are another couple of words: expected and scandalous. 

Let’s walk through the process. When the 19th Amendment was tabled in Parliament, the authors (who did a lot of hanky-panky after the Supreme Court determined that sections were unconstitutional) they ensured (yes, it was deliberate) that ‘national government’ would be ill-defined. 

On April 28, 2015, MP Chandrasiri Gajadheera demanded a definition and the then Minister of Justice, WIjedasa Rajapakshe responded thus:  for a determination of the ‘national government’, then Minister of Justice Rajapakshe responded: “When the recognised political party or the independent group obtaining the highest and the recognised political party or the independent group obtaining the second highest number of seats in Parliament agrees to form a Government.” Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe affirmed this position when others raised the question. 

Indeed, this is how the text of the draft read (with respect to the size of the cabinet): Article 46 (3) a ‘National Government’ as ;“If at the conclusion of the General Election held immediately after the coming into force of this Article, the recognised political party or the independent group obtaining the highest and the recognised political party or the independent group obtaining the second highest number of seats in Parliament agrees to form a Government of national unity, then, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), the number of ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers and the number of Ministers outside of the Cabinet of Ministers and the Deputy Ministers, may be increased up to forty-five and fifty-five, respectively.

However, late that night, when the bill was passed (while most the MPs were probably half-asleep), the constitutional ‘experts’ involved, Jayampathy Wickramaratne certainly and possibly M.A. Sumanthiran of the TNA, the wording had been amended in favor of vagueness and making for multiple interpretations. The ‘second highest number of seats’ section had been replaced by ‘other parties or independent groups represented in Parliament.’  

The subterfuge even escaped Asanga Welikala of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) who edited a collection of essays on the 19th Amendment. Well, we are being generous here, for Welikala has scholarly credentials and one assumes that when compiling such a text basic homework would be done!   

So we have the four words: hilarious, preposterous, expected and scandalous. Hilarious because there’s nothing ‘national’ about the UNP and because the UNP plus a single SLMC MP is an insult to the word ‘national’ when there’s the SLFP, the SLPP, JVP and TNA making up more than 50% of the parliament. Preposterous because it goes against the grain of all sentiments associated with ‘good governance’ and is antithetical to pre-election rhetoric of the UNP regarding cabinet size, doing things differently, being decent etc. Expected because the UNP has a long history of letting political expediency wreck national interest in such matters, dating back to J.R. Jayewardene’s constitutional tinkering starting with the 1978 constitution, through all amendments until the 17th including the unconstitutional and treacherous 13th. Scandalous because the Speaker hasn’t as of now thrown the motion out.

The Speaker. Karu Jayasuriya. He didn’t cover himself in glory during the recent ‘constitutional crisis’ except of course in the eyes of the UNP and it’s support cast of funded-voices, candlelight-ladies and born-again democrats. A simple comparison on the motions against Ranil Wickremesinghe (April 2018) and Mahinda Rajapaksa (October-November 2018) in terms of adherence to procedural norms, time frame and of course how the vote was counted would put all doubts to rest. 

Now Karu Jayasuriya, ‘the democrat,’ has a decent enough history, especially compared to the vast majority of parliamentarians past and present. And yet, apart from the ungainly and partisan conduct mentioned above, he was also complicit in another piece of constitutional skullduggery engineered by the UNP, that which related to the Provincial Councils. The UNP, was loud about legislation to ensure better female representation but quietly slipped in a bunch of procedural obstructions to make it hard to hold provincial council elections. Karu Jayasuriya chose to ignore objections raised at the time.

The non-holding of long overdue PC elections is another matter about which the ‘democracy-loving’ self-appointed civil society watchdogs are quiet about. Indeed, even the devolution-mad ‘democrats’ including that arch word-twister M.A. Sumanthiran don’t seem upset that these bodies are non-functional. In effect they’ve cast a damning vote against constitutional amendments that seek to wreck the unitary nature of the state. 

That’s an aside, by the way.

What we have is, let us reiterate, a hilarious, preposterous, scandalous and nevertheless expected attempt at constitutional tinkering on the part of the UNP. What it does to ‘the spirit of democracy’ is something that should upset the more democratic elements in the UNP, for example, Eran Wickramaratne and, well, that’s about the only name that comes up! 

Karu can do a ‘Recent Karu’ and let Kiriella’s motion hold. He could do an ‘Old Karu’ and ensure that the flicker of that thing called the spirit of democracy prevail. If he does the former, there’s bound to be objection from within parliament and it would be interesting to see how the TNA and JVP respond. There would be litigation and we can have a new season of courtroom teledrama.

The Speaker is a seasoned politician. A year ago I would have been convinced that he would not allow this kind of nonsense. Now I am not sure. Who knows, though, maybe he will surprise one and all once again! 

RELATED ARTICLES

Where is the 'national' in this 'national government'?

Re-size the cabinet to fit specific subjects in the national interest

The 19th Amendment as a plaything of the UNP

The 19th should be revisited

The 19th Amendment: blessing or curse?

So who is cheering the 19th Amendment now?

malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindasenevi@gmail.com.

Read more

The Supreme Court and Constitutional Clarity

Sooner or later, one way or another, the political crisis will be resolved. It is interesting but ultimately of less importance to speculate on how and when it happens, who wins out and who the losers would be. It would be beneficial if resolution arrives along with clarity on important aspects of the constitution, in particular the contentious articles embedded int eh 19th Amendment, clearly authored, perused and approved by people hampered by lack of expertise, integrity and foresight.

But first, let’s address a couple of issues that are being debated right now: the issue of ‘majority’ and that of a possible Presidential Election.

The Constitution is clear on the second matter. It is only if the incumbent seeks a second term that he or she can go for an election at the completion of four years. With regard to the first, the question is one of legitimacy, i.e. who has the confidence of a parliamentary majority. A quick perusal of the results of parliamentary elections since 1994 would show that except in 2010, when the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) won 144 seats (127 on district basis and 17 from the national list), the ‘winners’ always had to seek the support of smaller parties to cobble together a majority in Parliament.

In 1994, the People’s Alliance (PA) won 105 seats whereas the United National Party (UNP) got 94. In 2000 the PA had 107 seats while the UNP secured 89. In 2001, the UNP had 109 and the PA just 77. In 2004, the UPFA had 105 and the UNP 82. In 2015, the UNP had 106 and the UPFA 95. Today, following shifting political loyalties, the UNP and UPFA have roughly the same numbers. A majority, therefore, would require the particular party to obtain the support of some of the 24 MPs belonging to the other parties represented in Parliament.

The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), which has 6 MPs, voted for the motion of no-confidence brought against Ranil Wickremesinghe earlier this year. While the JVP has expressed strong objection to the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister, the party has not changed its stance on Ranil Wickremesinghe. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA), with 16 MPs, has stated that it will not be part of any Government led by either the UPFA or the UNP. As such, neither the UNP nor the UPFA can claim to have the numbers to form a majority government. Needless to say, it is easy to gather signatures exceeding 112 voicing objection, but extremely difficult to do so in affirmation of any particular individual. A better method of finding out who is best suited to be Prime Minister would be to compare the ‘ayes’ instead of the ‘nays’.

Another important factor that needs to be kept in mind is that minority governments are not necessarily disasters although they do indicate a certain lack of political stability. They are vulnerable on account of defection that may give the second largest group in Parliament an opportunity to defeat a budget and orchestrate dissolution leading to a with-momentum election. This happened in 2001 to the PA.

The point is that the ‘majority-issue’ is not an extraordinary one. It has asserted itself as such solely on account of the so-called national government falling apart and President Sirisena sacking Wickremesinghe. The shenanigans in Parliament following the Supreme Court deciding to grand an application against dissolution leave to proceed are disgusting and every single MP including the Speaker have been party to that ungainly spectacle, either on account of rank rowdyism, blatant thuggery and (in the case of the Speaker) a deplorable departure from accepted procedure on motions and this, quite in contrast to the decorum with which similar motions brought against Wickremesinghe and Ravi Karunanayake.

Regardless of how all this resolved, what it important is to obtain constitutional clarity on two matters: the appointment and removal of the Prime Minister, and dissolution of Parliament. It is now apparent that the constitution is ambiguous on this. It is clear that the 19th was a document fraught with error. Political expedience pertaining to the tenuous nature of cohabitation seems to have framed the thinking of the authors of the document. The plight of a UNP Prime Minister in a situation where a non-UNP President reneges has clearly been the concern ‘addressed’ in articles pertaining to the appointment and removal of the Prime Minister, concerns which were also informed in all likelihood by the memory of President Kumaratunga taking over key ministries on November 4, 2003, leading to the overthrow of that Ranil Wickremesinghe led Government.

Constitutional provisions should be more robust. They should not be about putting in mechanisms to safeguard parochial interests. Those who drafted needed to have seen beyond party interest and the needs of the particular political moment. In other words, they should have anticipated situations such as the one we have right now or else situations where governability is seriously compromised on account of a gross mismatch between parliamentary composition and popular will (or, put another way, loss of mandate).

Dissolution. Here the ambiguity is obvious. The 19th, in the end, went around the Supreme Court’s objection by inserting a dissolution clause. Article 70(1) in the 19th Amendment violates the third observation of a determination delivered by a 7-member bench of the Supreme Court in 2002 on the ‘dissolution-powers’ of the President. It would be useful to revisit all three observations which President’s Counsel Samantha Ratwatte has detailed in an article titled ‘Avoiding repugnancy the need of the hour to protect sovereignty’:

1. The dissolution of Parliament is part of the exercise of executive power vested in the President.
2. Such power cannot be alienated, in that, it cannot removed from the President and be vested in the Parliament.

3. The restriction of that power can be done up to a maximum of half the period of Parliament and if a restriction is placed beyond half , it would amount to alienation and therefore, such a restriction would violate the inalienable sovereign executive power of the people set out in Articles 3 read with 4(b).

Ratwatte argues that this binds the Supreme Court and that any interpretation of the Constitution has to be done necessarily in line with this judgment.

The Supreme Court has, on occasion, observing ambiguity, delivered rulings which, in effect, override constitutional wording and are treated as constitutional and legal. The stipulation in the Second Republican Constitution that anyone can be appointed a judge was ‘amended’ in that manner, when the Supreme Court interjected a minimum standard, that of the candidate being at least an attorney-at-law.

Similarly, this is a moment when the Supreme Court needs to heed the overwhelming concern of the general public on these two matters. In short, it needs to respond to the question, ‘where is the clarity?’ and proceed to delivery clarity.

RELATED ARTICLES:
How about some sovereignty for a change?
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 a freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com.

Read more

Karu Jayasuriya — a man beseiged

He’s the man on the spot. Right now. He’s the boss in Parliament. He’s required by the dictates of his office to remain neutral. He is required to know the distinctions between the executive, legislative and judicial arms of the state. He’s experienced enough to know all this. 

He may have got caught off-guard when President Sirisena sacked Ranil Wickremesinghe on October 26, 2018. That’s fine because the entire country, almost, was surprised by the move. Initially he decided that Mahinda Rajapaksa, the newly appointed Prime Minister would sit on the seat reserved for the post. 

All of a sudden he had a change of heart. All of a sudden Karu the Speaker became Karu the would-be executive. The contentious move by Sirisena to dissolve parliament probably impacted his thinking, but only he would really know. All we know is that once court gave petitioners who filed against dissolution leave to proceed, Karu shed all notions of neutrality. 

At some level, Karu can be forgiven. He can be forgiven because Sirisena did the dirty on everyone, especially those who voted for him in January 2015, by sacking Wickremesinghe and worse, replacing him with Rajapaksa. He can be forgiven because MPs supporting the new alliance between Sirisena and Rajapaksa were utterly disgraceful in the way they conducted themselves.  There were fisticuffs (and yes, the UNPers were also guilty of hooliganism). Objects were thrown. Karu had to enter Parliament with a police escort. It would have been hard for anyone to maintain any degree of composure. Karu did his best.  

And yet, there are matters where Karu was way out of order. He decided to play executive. He decided that he can decide who is Prime Minister and who is not. He decided that standing orders can be shoved in the proverbial wastepaper basket. He decided that it is fine not to entertain complaints from Members about other Members brandishing knives in Parliament. He decided that he could ‘count’ votes in the House by checking out loudness of shout. He decided to accept dubious affidavits signed by Members of Parliament.

Let’s discuss the man in the larger context of his life and the political moment. 

Karu. Karu Jayasuriya. Deshabandu Karu Jayasuriya. Deshabandu Karu Jayasuriya, the 20th and incumbent Speaker of the Parliament.  He has an impressive curriculum vitae, having served as a Commissioned Office of the Sri Lanka Army and serving on dozens of boards in the corporate sector. By all accounts and from what I personally know, he has conducted himself with dignity and has remained humble to a fault, both in his public and private lives.  

Karu is identified as a man who has the courage of his convictions. He crossed over to the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) to support the Rajapaksa regime’s drive to eliminate the terrorist threat. He crossed back to the United National Party (UNP) when that story ended, explaining that he could not condone the various wrongdoings of the government. He stood against his leader, Ranil Wickremesinghe, accepted defeat gracefully, accepted also, later on, the leadership of the UNP’s ‘Leadership Council’ and campaigned fiercely to bring down the Rajapaksa regime. He was unanimously elected Speaker on September 1, 2015.

No one is perfect. His detractors could point out his criss-crossing as being prompted by the possibility of personal gain and even a certain political fickleness. Let’s get to the flaws later. For now, let us applaud the man.

Back to Parliament. Karu would be tested, naturally. He stood his ground, taking hits from all corners. That’s admirable. And he, unintentionally of course, helped certain diplomatic missions and diplomats, mostly Western (no surprises there!), trip over their own convoluted and laughable notions of democracy.  

Let’s start (and end) with the US Ambassador, for that post has, in practice, been voice not just for the United States of America but her political allies in all crimes of omission, commission, rank ignorance and political subterfuge.  

Ambassador Alaina B. Teplitz took office on November 1, 2018, less than a week after Sirisena surprised all his backers, the US Embassy included. On November 6, she met Karu ‘to discuss the importance of Parliament reconvening to put an end to this political crisis’ and said these democratic institutions should serve the people of Sri Lanka.’ She insisted that elected representatives have their say. 

On November 9, she waxed eloquent on ‘democracy’: ‘Democracies rest on rule of law.  Sri Lanka’s constitution provides the framework for resolving political disputes, just like ours does.’ The waxing continued for on November 10, she said ‘The US is deeply concerned by news the Sri Lanka Parliament will be dissolved, further deepening the political crisis.  As a committed partner of Sri Lanka, we believe democratic institutions and processes need to be respected to ensure stability and prosperity.’

All this sudden interest in democracy is fascinating, coming from the representative of a country that is struggling to come up with the basics of representational democracy and bombs other countries to the middle ages in the name of democracy. 

The use of words and terms such as ‘democratic institutions and processes’ is also interesting considering the fact that the prompt came from dissolution and because the word ‘people’ has been thrown in as well. Well, if it’s about democracy and representation, and if people count, what’s wrong in an election? Why is she is worried about letting the people decide?

Ms Teplitz hasn’t been here long, but I’m sure she’s been briefed. She would know that the US Embassy and the State Department have interfered with the democratic process in the country by funding political campaigns. She would know that neither the Embassy nor the State Department showed even an iota of interest in democracy (institutions or processes) when a) Ranil Wickremesinghe was illegally appointed Prime Minister in January 2015, b) when parliament was dissolved on the very day that the parliamentary report on biggest financial scam in history was to be presented, c) when local government elections were repeatedly postponed, and d) there’s no sign of postponed provincial council elections would be held.  

And yet, the good Ambassador was worried about democracy. She was so worried that when Parliament convened on November 14 following the Supreme Court stay order on dissolution, she went to watch democracy unfold, first hand.  

Here’s her tweet: ‘Honored to attend reconvening of Sri Lanka Parliament this morning to see democracy in action.  Very lively but glad this institution is once again fulfilling constitutional role.’

Karu Jayasuriya gave her a show to write home about, that much is clear. Teplitz saw how her democratic darlings operated ‘on the floor’ and would have seen much more had she gone to Parliament the following day as well, for on the 15th, the guardians of democracy (sic) were seen brandishing knives. She may have gone, I don’t know, but had she not she would have seen the footage. 

Anyway, Karu did the democratic honors on the 14th. The Speaker thumbed his nose at established procedures (minimum period before including motions by a non-cabinet member in the order paper, debate before vote etc), ‘counted’ a vote by noise-levels, accepted a dubious document submitted by the UNP, TNA and JVP in lieu of an official vote count, arrogated exective power on himself by declaring he would not recognize the Prime Minister and in this and other ways, showered disgrace on the office of ‘The Speaker’.  

Karu was out of order. This does not mean, let us emphasize, that the way in which the ‘government’ MPs behaved can be condoned.  They were acting like rowdies, but then again the likes of Teplitz would not have expected them to behave in any other way. They were not their darlings, after all (shhh….it’s not only the UNP that they love, they adore the TNA and the JVP too!). 

Karu didn’t have an easy time. A lot of pressure was put on him. In the rush of things he forgot his office and his mandate. He slipped. It’s not enough to say ‘I was besieged first by the President and then by my party.’

This drama is not over. Karu has, one would believe, ample time to recover composure and be the gentleman he is known to be. Others have done much worse. He scarred himself though. That’s a pity.

READ ALSO:

Sri Lanka's democracy-deficit

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. 

Read more

Some run, some walk, some crawl and some stand still

Tilvin Silva of the JVP made an interesting point at the commemoration of comrades slain in 1988-89: ‘Mahinda has already run half the race.’  The constitution favors incumbent.  Authorities turn a blind eye on the abuse of state resources and indeed the institutional arrangement is so poor in terms of checks and balances that this is a ‘given’.  Citizens have, sadly, resolved to shoulder-shrug in a ‘par for the course’ sense.  And then there’s the Opposition: broken, confused and running around in circles.  So yes, Tilvin has a point.

Mahinda Rajapaksa has been running for re-election since January 2010.  He had the J R Jayewardena and Chandrika Kumaratunga presidencies to figure out the fate of a lame duck incumbent.  His decline would begin on Day 1.  He must have started plotting the 18^th Amendment the moment he was re-elected.  He had the numbers in Parliament.  He got it passed. 

There was of course what appeared to be a hiccup in the form of the former Chief Justice, Sarath N Silva raising the issue of ineligibility.  JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake referring to this as well as the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the objection, claims that even a schoolboy would know that the President was ineligible.  This means that for four years, Anura as well as the JVP had the political maturity of toddlers and nothing more.  After the SC determination, Silva says ‘nothing can be done now except defeating him in an election’.  It is almost as though he brought the issue up to ensure that Rajapaksa would not be stumped on nomination day. 

Sections of the Opposition briefly flirted with the idea of a Chandrika come-back.  Ranil Wickremesinghe is reported to have supported the idea.  If this is true it only indicates that he doesn’t believe he can defeat Rajapaksa.  Dayan Jayatilleka got it right when he said that if anyone can do worse than Ranil it is Chandrika.  She was President for 11 years and has nothing to show for it.  She played hide and seek with the LTTE and came off second best.  She has nothing concrete to show compared to what Rajapaksa can brag about.  Rajapaksa, moreover, presided over a comprehensive victory over terrorism.  Track records will be compared.  In any case, Silva’s antics have effectively dumped the Chandrika Candidacy idea in the bin.  She can keep out of things or she can support an Opposition candidate.  She would be a liability more than an asset in the latter case. 

Mahinda has things to show.  That counts.  It counts more than things that begin with ‘If I am elected…’  He has his liabilities and handicaps but to make these count the Opposition has to start running, to take from Tilvin’s observation.  Right now, though, while Mahinda has got off the blocks and is half way towards the finishing line, all the running that the Opposition seems to be doing is ‘in circles’. 

Mahinda has the show-tell advantage.  He has the regime-fatigue handicap.  He has the incumbency edge, but has to deal with the fallout of non-deliverability on several issues.  Abolishing the executive presidency is a non-issue for the average voter, but law and order is an in-your-face matter.  He has failed there and he can thank the thugs and crooks he has indulged or cultivated for this.  His coalition has not seemed as solid as it used to be.  There has been audible grumbling about the ‘Clan mentality of the Rajapaksas’.  These haven’t resulted in major cracks.  The Opposition, with its own confusion and fractures, is a hardly attractive place for dissenting voices to relocate.  As of now, only the JHU seems uncertain or supporting him for the third time, but there is no guarantee that a possible JHU exit would precipitate an exodus that is significant. 

The weight of the ‘JHU factor’ will depend on whether they support someone put forward by the UNP or whether they decide to contest separately.  A JHU candidate would be a spoiler but it is hard to say who gets spoiled.  If Ranil is contesting, the Ranil-Mahinda gap could be so wide that the JHU would be a non-factor.  Such a candidate might get a few disgruntled votes from both sides.  A Karu Jayasuriya candidacy might succeed in obtaining JHU support.  Whether this would translate into victory is left to be seen. 

The Opposition right now appears hell bent on making most of the above irrelevant.  What the voter is seeing is a bunch of self-serving politicians under-cutting one another.  Sajith Premadasa is playing spoiler. He knows he can’t defeat Rajapaksa and therefore he doesn’t want anyone else, particularly Karu Jayasuriya, to have a shot the presidency.  He backs Ranil because he is banking on turning Ranil’s probably defeat into an edge in ousting the man as Party Leader.  Ranil holds the cards: he decides who will contest.  If he feels he can’t win then he would want to put forward a loser.  Karu doesn’t know who to trust.  The Opposition’s self-appointed spin-doctors are not helping by throwing other names into the hat:  Arjuna Ranatunga, Chandrika, Ven Maduluwawe Sobitha Thero and even Maithripala Sirisena of the SLFP (he has since ‘opted out,’ clearly signaling that the rank and file of the ruling party doesn’t want to gamble on an iffy Opposition candidate). 

The JVP ran with Silva’s objection and is now left without a slogan.  ‘Boycott’ seems to be the face-saving option, but this might result in further erosion of vote base in a possible General Election following the probable Presidential Election in early January. 

Tilvin, then, is describing only part of the unfolding political. Mahinda is not only half way there, the Opposition is running in the opposite direction. 

Read more

The 'Sajith-Factor' in the Presidential Race

If it is about who will be the principal presidential candidate of the Opposition then it boils down to who wins Ranil Wickremesinghe’s endorsement, in the event that he chooses not to contest of course.  This is because the United National Party is the main Opposition party and the one that can secure support from important sections of the rest of the Opposition.  This is also because of the UNP’s constitution and, more important, Ranil Wickremesinghe’s proven shrewdness in holding on to party reins. 

There will be, as there already is, pressure from various sources.  He will be asked to step aside for a more credible candidate to take on President Mahinda Rajapaksa.  Some might even entertain thoughts of a coup to oust him before candidacy is formally declared.  It won’t work.  He has to decide whether or not he would contest and in the event he steps aside he has the biggest say in naming a ‘common candidate’. 

Very few, including the big names in the UNP, seriously think Ranil Wickremesinghe can win.  People do check out track-records.  People remember.  They remember more clearly what’s more recent, sure, but there are things associated with Wickremesinghe that are not forgotten.  The archives will no doubt be visited and relevant material unearthed and touched up.   At best it would be a very tough ask unless he is helped by a ‘spoiler candidate’ capable of making dents in Mahinda Rajapaksa’s vote bank. 

An easier ‘ask’ would be a ‘common opposition candidate,’ but then again it would be hard to come out with a name with appeal greater than that which Sarath Fonseka had.  Even if one were to account for abuse of state resources and other election malpractices, the margin is still considerable.  Regime-fatigue, regime-ills and such might not bridge it for a lesser name.  Anyway, it’s less about party than about personality.  Mahinda Rajapaksa, simply, is still seen as ‘leader’ over and above the fact that he is considered a one-of-us kind of guy by large swathes of the voting population.   A non-UNP ‘common candidate’ will suffer from the lack of enthusiasm from the rank and file of parties supporting him/her that was widely seen in 2010. 

It has to be someone from the UNP.  There are only two names to be considered. Karu Jayasuriya and Sajith Premadasa.  Dayan Jayatilleka (The Karu candidacy project: is it a viable option?) says he is the ideal candidate but says ‘that’s just his potential’.  Leaving a window of opportunity slightly open for Karu (‘It isn’t his reality; certainly not yet—and there are only a few short weeks to go for crunch time’), Dayan opens a bigger window. For Sajith.

He says Karu has mismanaged the equation with Sajith.  Some would argue that if anyone is guilty of mismanagement it is Sajith.  Sajith wanted Ranil to resign in favor of Karu and snubbed Karu at every turn including most recently in Uva.  He wanted to oust Ranil but now backs him; backed Karu and now wants him hoofed out.   That’s amazing ‘equation-management’ especially if Karu is all that Dayan claims him to be (‘Potentially the ideal candidate’). 

Then he makes some grand claims about Sajith: ‘Sajith is not only the only UNPer who can galvanize the grassroots, he is the only frontline UNPer with resonance among the vast majority of voters who are rural/provincial’.   He paints Karu as someone who has appeal only among ‘the goigama Sinhala Buddhist elite and its urban and suburban strata’.  Sajith, on the other hand, he claims, ‘can carry the larger swathe of Sinhala Buddhists under the poverty line’ and adds ‘like his father did’.  He also says, quite correctly, that Karu’s signature political project of abolishing the executive presidency has no mass appeal, but then again it’s not difficult to downplay this.  He does this and there’s no more an ‘Achilles heel’ in his candidacy.  Sajith, it must be remembered, has no project apart from ‘I, Me and Myself’.   

The under-painting of Karu directly contradicts Dayan’s earlier ideal-candidate (potentially) claim.  More seriously, Dayan just doesn’t substantiate the claims he makes about Sajith.  Sajith’s Sinhala-Buddhist credentials are weak.  ‘Hambantota’ (over 14 years) does not translate into ‘Sri Lanka’.  He has been a divisive factor more than a unifying one in the UNP, even getting anti-Ranil pals to badmouth the party and the leader at his own rallies.  He’s gone on record to say that if he is made candidate he must have the leader’s post as well.  Yes, he’s all about ‘I, Me and Myself’. 

How big is Sajith anyway?  He has admittedly a great cheering squad.  He is also the beneficiary of much inflation by a television station whose owner has time and again proven that he has absolutely no clue about political winds, backing the wrong horse imagining it had the legs to win. For the voter-segment that Dayan believes would pick Sajith over the President that station is a joke.  

Whatever that Sajith might hold back in the event of a Karu candidacy, is going to diminish into a non-factor as campaigns gather steam.  What he ‘takes out’ could be compensated for by the JVP and JHU, both more comfortably with Karu than with Sajith. 

Finally, the presidential election will be about what political forces the candidates can mobilize.  Sajith is a demoralizer.  Karu accommodates.  That could be key in an election already skewed in favor of the incumbent for reasons that are larger than incumbency in the context of the existing constitution.  A good effort that falls short of a win would help democracy; a weak showing as is likely with a Ranil or Sajith candidacy would not only platter-giving to Mahinda Rajapaksa  but would bleed into a poor showing in a General Election thereafter. 

All this, IF RANIL STEPS ASIDE, it should not be forgotten. 

RELATED ARTICLES:
The inflation of Sajith Premadasa

Options for the Opposition

Sajith Premadasa's move(s)

The vilification of Karu Jayasuriya

Read more

Options for the Opposition

Dayan Jayatilleka in an article published in the Colombo Telegraph (How a weak opposition could still play it smart) offers that the Opposition is actually helping President Mahinda Rajapaksa secure a third term. 

He claims that the Opposition has picked the wrong slogan, that of ‘constitutional change’ when ‘it has little prospect of acting as a rallying cry among millions of rural voters’.  But even if the Opposition got the slogan right, it has got the candidate wrong, Dayan argues.  As things stand of course, the stand out figure among the pretenders is Ranil Wickremesinghe who, according to Dayan and many others is the weakest of all candidates against the President.  Furthermore, Dayan argues that the President will win against any candidate that the Opposition puts forward, so in and of itself Wickremesinghe contesting is not an issue.  

In this scenario, Dayan advises the Opposition to use the Presidential Election as a springboard to target ‘the weak link in the chain of regime hegemony, which is lodged in its real base: the parliament and the two thirds majority’.  Ideally, the ruling party would be defeated and this would stop ‘an oligarchic-securocratic or oligarchic-militaristic Iron Curtain (descending) upon post-election Sri Lanka, behind which a garrison state will grow and a dark age will settle’.  That’s Dayan with his usual doom’s day conclusion-flourish.

In an earlier piece titled ‘The Uva effect and the Presidency,’ written just two weeks ago, Dayan made a case for the UNP putting forward someone other than Wickremesinghe. He tossed out two names, Sajith Premadasa and Karu Jayasuriya, and argued the former’s case.  He didn’t claim that Sajith could win, but that he would help secure moral points in a loss that narrows the gap between regime and Opposition.  He seems to have shelved Project Sajith (for the moment), but can’t be blamed for arguing that any momentum gained even in a losing cause at the Presidential Election could help the Opposition in the Parliamentary Election that is most likely to be held immediately afterwards.

There are lots of ‘ifs’ in Dayan’s analysis of post-election scenarios.  There are lots of ‘wants’ too.  He would ideally have ‘the main Opposition goes into the parliamentary election under a new, populist-patriotic leadership which can achieve two things at the same time: (a) re-profile the Opposition so it looks newer and younger than the UPFA and (b) neutralize the regime’s monopoly of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism.’

That re-profiling, according to Dayan, would see the Opposition using the Presidential Election to raise consciousness and employing ‘Sajith Premadasa, Sujeeva Senasinghe, Harsha de Silva, Eran Wickremaratne, Rosie Senanayake, Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Sunil Handunetti, Vijitha Herath, Wasantha Samarasinghe, Lal Kantha and Tilvin Silva in a pincer move’.  Ranil Wickremesinghe and Karu Jayasuriya are left out of the picture.  Ravi Karunanayake and much of the UNP’s ‘Leadership Council’ are out too.  So re-profiling would essentially be a Sajith-led affair. 

Now ‘newer and younger’ doesn’t guarantee anything.  J.R. Jayewardene was not young in 1977, for example.  As for ‘pincer moves,’ it’s not names that count but the numbers behind the names.  It is not that each JVP leader mentioned here comes with all the JVP supporters. Together they bring all -- separately they don’t bring additional numbers. Harsha, Eran and Sujeeva are intelligent and eloquent but they are all voice-cut politicians.  Sajith has great appeal but not only is he not his father’s son in this respect he is divisive, arrogant, fixated with his political future and is a puppet of two prominent media moguls. 

In a post-Presidential situation, whatever momentum gained loses to election-fatigue, demoralization, additional electoral swing towards the winner and the scrambling of coalition. Going by history, the UNP would be distracted by yet another Unseat-Ranil effort which, given that the man is far more shrew than people make him out to be and is backed by a For-Ranil party constitution, would give nothing but take much from ‘re-profiling’.  It would be optimistic to stake it all on an unlikely reversal. 

    

The solution (a tough one of course) would be to look for an alternative candidate who doesn’t look like Sarath Fonseka (a sure ‘loser’ that saves face).  Alternatively the Opposition should dig in for the long(er) haul associated with regime-change.  Such a choice would not see anyone getting too excited about the Presidential or Parliamentary Elections.  To the extent that these elections can be used, it would be about enlarging the Opposition by winning over all disgruntled elements in the ruling coalition.  Only a right candidate with a right program that addresses all the antipathies that the majority of Sinhala Buddhist voters have regarding the UNP’s political positions could do this.  

This doesn’t seem to be happening.  Dayan is right in this sense: taken as a collective (and with a few individual exceptions) Sri Lankan politics today has the dumbest opposition this country has ever seen.

Read more