The National (sic) Government

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

Sophomoric legislators cannot fix constitutional flaws

What of 'nation' and 'national' in this 'national government'? 

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

Read more

Where's the ‘National’ in this National Government?

Just the other day, this Government appointed four new Provincial Governors. Almost immediately one of them, who used to be a Governor in a different province, was removed and reappointed to his earlier post.   

What is it with this Government and Governors? Not too long ago, the Government appointed a man with a less than glorious track record as the Governor of the Central Bank. When he came under a cloud, the Prime Minister defended him. When he was effectively sacked, he was given ‘other employment’. When he was charged with wrongdoing and ordered to appear in court, those who guaranteed the man would submit to such an order, went silent. 

When the above was pointed out, someone quipped, ‘they are good at sacking and appointing judges, though’.  That entire process was quite sordid, though.

Anyway, if all this was bad, the circus that the much talked of cabinet reshuffle has turned into is far worse joke.  First of all, following the rout of all constituent parties in the Government at the local government elections, the Ministry of Law and Order changed hands not once, but twice!  After the vote on the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe a bunch of ministers who have resigned. 

Then we had the entire Parliamentary Group of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party wanting to quit the Government, followed by the party leader and president, Maithripala Sirisena, urging the bunch to re-think. Now we have the General Secretary of the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA), a coalition led by the SLFP, saying that even those who supported the no-confidence motion will remain with the Government.  Mahinda Amaraweera in an elaboration says that this is ‘to support and strengthen the President’.  Note, it’s the President and not the Government whose strengthening is sought here! 

Meanwhile, a section of the UNP wants to punish those SLFP ministers who ‘betrayed’ by bringing a no-confidence motion against them. Some of these ‘betrayers’ have decided to sit in the Opposition. In other words, the marriage between the UNP and the SLFP is strained (to be generous).  

Let us not forget that the President arbitrarily relieved certain key institutions from certain ministries and vested them in others. Let us also take note of whispers that ex-ministers Ravi Karunanayake and Wijedasa Rajapaksa are to be rewarded with cabinet slots for support shown during the no-confidence motion. Most importantly let us remember that the Prime Minister or the President or both (most likely the former) have been shuffling the cabinet pack for more than two months now. It looks like their general incompetence is finding expression even in this simple exercise of naming a new cabinet and it’s gravity is made even greater considering the chest-beating assertions about a new government being formed. ‘New’ in terms of a new cabinet.  

They key issue here is not coherence, it’s not restructuring or rationalizing. It’s about rewarding friends and buying off enemies. The problem is that retaining a parliamentary majority (note: the government in effect has lost its two-thirds majority) is about holding together 113 individuals whereas ‘holding’ has been reduced to an exercise in appeasement by way of portfolios, if not  cabinet minister then at least state or deputy minister posts. 

This is where we get to the thorny issue of the ‘national government’.  The 19th Amendment had two major flaws; first, the composition of the Constitutional Council which effectively compromises the ‘regaining’ of the independent institutions abrogated by the 18th Amendment, and secondly the caveats pertaining to the size of the cabinet. 

The 19th limited cabinet size to 30 ministers. The 19th  however allows for unlimited expansion where there is a ‘national government’. The architects of the amendment and those who voted for it (only one MP voted against it while one abstained and seven were absent) were complicit in keeping ‘national government’ undefined.  

It left us with an as yet unanswered question: what is a ‘national government’? It is ‘national’ if ALL PARTIES REPRESENTED IN PARLIAMENT are part of the government?  Is it ‘national’ if the two parties with the largest number of seats form a government? Would it be ‘national’ if one party (say, the UNP) forms a government with a few from the third largest political group in Parliament (in this case, the SLFP)? Would the word be valid for a ‘UNP + one or a few others’ that form a government?  

The key issue right now is that this is no longer a SLFP-UNP coalition. It is at best a government made of the UNP, a few SLFP stragglers (note, ‘UNP’ means all those who contested under the elephant symbol at the last General Election).  As such this cabinet would be illegal unless we use a very loose and even silly definition for the term ‘national’.  If common sense definitions are used, then the size of the cabinet as of today is unconstitutional.

This probably explains why both the UNP and the SLFP are laboring with the cabinet reshuffle.  The UNP needs to please more than 30 and it cannot do this if the SLFP doesn’t play ball.  Even if the SLFP decides to play ball, the term ‘national government’ would be hilarious if it weren’t an absolutely pernicious twist of the term since the there are at least 70 MPs who are not listening to Sirisena as of now.  At the last count (i.e. at the vote on the no-confidence motion), the Prime Minister had only the support of his party and the Tamil National Alliance. A government led by a Prime Minister who is not backed by over 100 MPs is not ‘national’ and not even a perversion of ‘national’. 

It is clear that a ‘National Government’ is no longer tenable and perforce cabinet size has to be cut down to 30. 

Wickremesinghe’s ardent fan club believes the man is a democrat (despite all evidence to the contrary) and a decent politician; yes, some say he’s a statesman. Let’s call the bluff.  Let him show that he is. Let him prune the cabinet down to 30.  

What he does (or probably will not do) is less important than getting the constitutional flaw corrected. ‘National Government’ needs to be defined so that political machinations by crooks, thugs and self-serving ego maniacs are stumped at every turn, including cabinet reshuffles.  That’s more important than seeing some two-bit politician stumble.  Agreed?

Also read: The19th Amendment should be revisited

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

Read more