The 'republican' credentials of Patali Champika Ranawaka

I remembered R K W (Raja) Goonesekera. Patali Champika Ranawaka made me remember him. It took me back to the year 1992.

When Patali Champika Ranawaka, along with 14 others were arrested in a temple in February that year and detained for three weeks, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) accepted a request to represent the group. A fundamental rights case was filed in the Supreme Court. The case, ‘Channa Pieris and Others v Attorney General and Others’ is also referred to as the ‘Ratawesi Peramuna Case’ (SC Applications 145/92 to 154/92 and 155/92). A bench that included Justice Dr A R B Amarasinghe determined that their fundamental rights had indeed been violated. Justice Amarasinghe, in his book on fundamental rights in Sri Lanka, referred to the case several times. It is considered a landmark judgment and has been frequently cited in FR applications thereafter.

Among the BASL members who represented the group were Donald Walter ‘Bacon’ Abayakoon, Manori Muttetuwegama, Sanath Jayatilleka and R K W Goonesekera.  By way of helping these legal luminaries draft the affidavits, I, one of the petitioners, was tasked to interview and write down the political histories of my fellow petitioners.

The genial Counsel Goonesekera having read Ranawaka’s history made a comment that I have not forgotten:

‘I say, this Champa Ranawaka (yes, he mispronounced the name then and in court as well) is a remarkable fellow. But I worry. You know, I have seen people like this before. I once heard Mahinda Wijesekera speak. He was brilliant — thinking on his feet, shooting off his hip. Look where he is now. I hope this fellow won’t end up in the UNP.’

He did. For a while at least. There’s no telling if the parting of ways in 2020 marked the burning of bridges. In politics, bridges are rebuilt and if not, there are innumerable vessels that can be used to cross back. And forth.

Here’s his history in a nutshell: the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, Jathika Chinthanaya, Ratawesi Peramuna (RP), Janatha Mithuro (JM), National Movement Against Terrorism (NMAT), Sihala Urumaya (SU), Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) led by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), the United National Front for Good Governance led by the United National Party and the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) which was essentially the rebranded UNP.

Most of these parties and organisations are now defunct, in decline or have embraced ideologies that are far removed from what was espoused originally. Patali Champika Ranawaka is still around. The misfortunes of these organisations haven’t stopped his star from rising in the political firmament.

Not too long ago, parting ways with the SJB, he launched a group called ’43 Senankaya (Battalion 43).’ Not ‘43rd’ as he himself occasionally mis-names his own political formation, but ’43’ (after the year in which free education was launched in the country). Now he’s all set to launch a new party, ‘United Republican Front (URF).’ The launch has been scheduled deliberately for May 22, 2023, the 51st anniversary of the day in which Sri Lanka became truly politically independent, i.e. a Republic. The name, the date, the history make sense, but only as frills.

If history says anything, his followers, admirers and political associates should know that for Champika, as he once openly stated, political parties are mere vessels that allow him to move from one shore to another. Stepping stones, then.

People don’t have to stay in one place, politically or ideologically. They can plead, ‘I know better now.’ That’s legitimate; one does not have to stay rooted just because roots were put out at one point if one realised that it was the wrong spot to stop.

Where is he going, though? Put another way, where can he go?

Strictly in terms of positions held, the previous avatar would seem more grand. He was after all President Sirisena’s ‘right hand man’ in the Constitutional Council even as he was Prime Minister Wickremesinghe’s ‘right hand man’ as General Secretary of the coalition led by the UNP. He was a minister then and today he’s fighting to retain his parliamentary seat.

Given the way politics unfolds following the Second Republican Constitution (1978) with proportional representation and the marked reluctance for electoral reform, new entrants do not make waves. The SU got one seat in 2000. The JHU, in a unique political context, got 9 in 2004. Small parties do have a role. They help color the picture of a coalition. The leaders, if eloquent (and he is), clever (he is) and has a reputation as a doer and not talker (he’s a doer; his accomplishments when handed over important ministries are impressive), could attract the preferential votes of loyalists belonging to the main political party of the coalition. They could also wrangle a spot on a national list.

But where is Patali going? Where does he want to go? With whom? The answer is, ‘well, he would know, for personal goals outweigh ideology and even political groups he himself forms/leads.’

He voted for the 18th, 19th and 21st amendments to the Constitution [In the original article published in the Daily Mirror, I erroneously stated that he had voted for the 20th as well. Apologies to Mr Ranawaka]. They were certainly not tailored from the same political cloth. I haven’t heard any explanations from him. He was the General Secretary of the coalition led by Ranil Wickremesinghe and the UNP even as he was SLFP leader and president Maithripala Sirisena’s representative in the Constitutional Council. He was a minister under Mahinda Rajapaksa and in the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government.

He was, unlike others playing the ‘small party’ card to further personal political ambitions (he is ambitious and that’s not a crime), a key spokesperson for those regimes and coalitions. Indeed, he was clearly the thinker when it came to conceptualising and writing political manifestos. Good as a side kick to some ‘whoever’ who may even consider offering him the prime minister’s post which of course would be read by him as yet another stepping stone.

To expect him to be a republican or a nationalist at this point, however, would be silly. His minions in a recent YouTube discussion clearly indicated that Patali Champika Ranawaka is quite cosy with the USA or rather the representatives and thinking of that country. He’s come a long way from screaming for ‘capitalism of he Putin and Mahathir kind.’ Makes sense. If he’s THAT right wing, he might as well share bed with the big bosses of that paradigm. Republican, then, in the sense of the Reagans, Bushes and Trumps of this world. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is what amuses me about picking the 22nd of May to launch his latest party. This is what made me remember and respect all the more that kind, gentle, highly intelligent man of integrity, R K W ‘Raja’ Goonesekera. 

Related Articles:

That man Patali Champika Ranawaka

Patali Champika Ranawaka: future, tense 

Read more

What is your preference, citizen: pillow talk or public concerns?

Should public figures have private lives? This is probably a question that has been asked and answered countless times across time and space. 

A related question would be ‘can public figures have private lives?’ Again an old question but one to which the ‘possible’ response has and is becoming increasingly muted courtesy technological innovation and surveillance complexities that are hard to notice and even harder to keep track of. 

It is not the case that people didn’t know about others’ lives prior to privacy-wrecking innovations.  People talk. People notice. People put two and two together. People perceive. People draw conclusions. And if the perception are negative, all other factors being equal, it could cost the perceived. 

Politics is an unforgiving vocation when it comes to privacy. This negative is known and politicians probably weigh the possible fallout against the potential benefits. Some have little to hide. Others who have skeletons, do their best to keep the cupboards locked and give the impression that there are no cupboards and no skeletons either. Some are careless. Some try to cover up and get away with it, either because they are clever or have the necessary leverage. Some make things worse by attempting to conceal the in-concealable. Regardless, in general, the old adage, ‘there’s no such thing as bad publicity,’ seems to have held.

The original question, then, is one that is as much about ‘the public’ as it is about politicians. The key word is ‘should’. Should or should not, that’s the question that needs to be considered. If the public and the private are for all intents and purposes inextricably entwined, do we consider them to be one and the same? Even if the lines are blurred, don’t we have a choice about which element to privilege in our considerations, either the private or the public? 

Let’s leave aside the despicable and utterly unethical nature of UNP parliamentarian Ranjan Ramanayake’s conscious practice of recording phone conversations. Let’s leave aside the childish after-the-fact defense of ‘exposing the system.’ Essentially the content in leaked tapes can be divided into two broad categories: a) that which is of relevance to the general public since institutions, processes, representatives and officials are implicated, and b) that which is strictly personal and has such relevance. 

There are no sanctions when it comes to the perusal of such things. To each his/her fascination, one could argue. The problem here is that there’s content that’s of serious public concern and content that’s not. The fascination with the latter could trivialize, displace and even make irrelevant the former.  

We need to acknowledge, as flagged at the beginning, that ‘the sordid’ can have a bearing on the political, it can damage a personality and the party/coalition and even ideology to which the particular individual subscribes. That ‘political’ element however is of marginal worth when one considers the larger implication of the leaks.

The sexual dalliances of any individual is his/her business. If anyone is interested in what another person does behind closed doors that’s voyeurism. ‘Political voyeurism’ if one wants to call it that, is cheap. It can cause damage to the ‘seen’ but it doesn’t exactly cover the ‘seer’ in glory. 

Take the sordid allegations that Prageeth Ekneligoda leveled at Patali Champika Ranawaka. Is it anyone’s business? Was it all true, in the first place? Ranawaka didn’t care to respond at the time, but he cannot be faulted. Those who pen such notes crave response, after all. The reason why it all became serious was the fact that Ekneligoda disappeared or was disappeared. If he was indeed disappeared, then the immediate question is, ‘who had a motive?’ If the allegations were true, then Ranawaka had a motive, we could surmise: vengeance. However, to even name Ranawaka as a suspect, one has to be able to conclude that no one else had any motive to get rid of Ekneligoda, for vengeful or other reasons. The truth is that Ekneligoda made many enemies. He was, all things considered, a shady character and not only because keyhole-journalism was one of his passions (note: such journalism doesn’t require one to peep through keyholes or — a vivid imagination and a deranged mind are adequate ‘journalistic’ tools).

The problem with the Ekneligoda story and the politics that ensued is that the claims are not substantiated. Secondly these unfounded allegations had an extremely negative impact on Ranawaka’s family, including two daughters of schooling age. Thirdly there is no evidence of Ranawaka having had anything to do with Ekneligoda. 

So we have wild speculation. So we have speculation painted as fact. So we have ‘facts’ used to attack Ranawaka politically. As things stand it is highly unlikely that the Ekenligoda piece in and of itself could cause any significant damage to Ranawaka. Even if he did have something to do with Ekneligoda’s disappearance, it is not the truth of the narrative but the damage it has done to Ranawaka and his family that could have generated ‘motive.’ Lots of ‘ifs’ there, take note. 

What is interesting here is selectivity. The allegations were made when Ranawaka was a minister during the second presidential term of Mahinda Rajapaksa. That camp didn’t utter a word then; some in the then Opposition did make some noice. The pohottuwa camp resurrected  Ekneligoda’s article only AFTER Ranawaka moved to the Yahapalana Coalition. And those in the then Opposition who had made an issue of it went silent. 

Thus, it all came down to political loyalties (or otherwise). Not even the sordidness (which itself wasn’t proven and which in any case is certainly not a public-interest matter).

All this is what we expect from politicians in a political culture that’s childish at best and even then only sporadically and an absolute stink at worse. What of the public though?

Why do the public mimic politician? Conversely, is it that the politician is a true representative in that he/she mirrors the priority-confusion and a preference for the sordid on the part of the represented?

The more serious issue pertaining to Ranawaka is the allegation that he fled the scene of an accident which involved a vehicle he was allegedly driving and the allegation that he deliberately misled the law enforcement agencies. Note, ‘allegations’. Remember, presumption of innocence. Such pertinent issues are seldom raised. It’s no different from the behavior of those making a song and dance about ‘war crimes’. Allegations. Presumption of innocence. Such caveats are not flagged. 

Still, this accident-issue is surely more important than the spawn of Ekneligoda’s warped mind. And yet, Ekneligoda wins the day. The personal elements in the leaked tapes win the day over everything that point to serious decay in the institutional and processual arrangement of the state.  

Whose fault? Well, if we want to enjoy the ‘personal’ circus then let’s surrender ourselves to a long sojourn in a land where mismanagement, misappropriation, misrepresentation and other such vile creatures have a ball and rake in the bucks from the public kitty. Let’s not complain.

This was first published in the DAILY MIRROR [January 16, 2020]

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

Read more

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

Sickness: a politician’s preserve?

Looks like he's having the last laugh!

Politicians are sick. I’ve heard people say that. It is an unfair statement if only because it is a generalization. Nevertheless, politicians can be like a corrosive cancer given the impact that their arrogance, ignorance and incompetence have on society in general. Not all, not some, but most, most would agree. 

On the other hand, if those who are elected are a reflection of electors and if the adage that people get the politicians they deserve is true, then it would mean people themselves are unwell, so to speak. In other words, belief that accountability is not important and that integrity is just a meaningless word, is a general corrosive which infect politician and non-politician alike. 

It can’t be that simple. Institutional arrangements made for the most part by politicians, a system that encourages certain kinds of people to contest elections but not others, and a considerable distance between the represented and the representative do give politicians pride of place in the blame register. 

We are talking of sickness, though. We all fall ill. Sickness can hit us at unexpected moments. It’s the same with politicians. They too have common colds. They are infected by viruses. They can and do get heart attacks. Even the carcinogenic among them can be brought down by cancers. 

And yet, there’s something that defy the laws of average when it comes to politicians: they suddenly become unwell in the event court determines that they be remanded. Indeed, in some cases, they ‘fall ill’ when arrest appears to be imminent. Anticipatory deterioration of health, in Sri Lanka, seems to be as effective a precaution as anticipatory bail. 

We need to affirm the principle of presuming innocence, so we should not call arrested politicians rogues, murderers and such. That said, falling ill or feigning sickness has become par for the course in the case of politicians. It is a privilege others do not enjoy. 

It must be mentioned here that former minister Patali Champika Ranawaka is a rare exception, as was former Army Commander and now Field Marshall, Sarath Fonseka. Maybe their bodies are made of sterner stuff. Maybe their resolve is stronger. In any event, they stand in stark contrast to their parliamentary colleagues who have fallen foul of the law or are suspected to have done so. 

What’s strange about these sick politicians is that no one knows what their sicknesses are. Just the other day, former minister Rajitha Senaratne pleaded for anticipatory bail. The bail application was rejected. Twice, I believe. Then he disappeared. This was when a warrant was issued for his arrest. There was speculation that he was being protected by a powerful politician. That’s speculation. It was later found that he had been admitted to Lanka Hospital. No speculation there.   

What happened next is unclear. The reports have been contradictory. It was reported that prison officials had gone to move him to the prison hospital and later abandoned the idea. Who gave the directive, if indeed this is what happened? The court? A ‘powerful politician’? Let’s leave the ‘why’ out of it; that it happened this way is a serious concern. In the rush of it all, he was granted bail.

Now bail can be granted for many valid reasons. Ranawaka too was granted bail. Senaratne’s case is different because he bragged that he would not spend even five minutes in the Welikada Prison. Was that conviction of innocence? It cannot be, for the court ordered the police to arrest him. What made him so sure? Is it not contempt of court?

Question: what are the chances for a non-politician to get away with this kind of behavior? Answer: close to zero. 

What is really puzzling is that although such politicians fall ill, no one knows what the illness is. Is it that the court and police know and they don’t say anything on account of privacy considerations? Is it that court and police know what’s what, that politicians falling ill upon arrest is so common and it’s such a common lie that they don’t bother to pry? But they should, shouldn’t they?

If Champika Ranawaka’s fault, as per charges, is misleading the law, then feigning illness cannot be ‘ok’.  A few weeks ago when a Swiss Embassy was steadfastly thumbing its proverbial nose at Rule of Law, Due Process and such, trying to prevent police from questioning an employee who claimed to have been abducted because ‘her health was deteriorating,’ court would have nothing of it. Court moved. The police moved. She was duly arrested, questioned and examined by medical professionals. 

Sure, we still know nothing of her medical condition. All we know is that the Swiss have backtracked quite a distance from an untenable and arrogant position, consumed humble pie and even saluted the Sri Lankan government for upholding good governance and rule of law. Maybe that’s diplo-deal if you will, and good enough to let pass. Is Senaratne’s case a deal, a politico-deal, then? Is that something we can or should let pass? If in the face of what was called a diplomatic row that could have serious fallout for Sri Lanka the government could throw chapter, verse and book at the Swiss, what’s preventing the same government from applying the same operational principles to Rajitha Senaratne?

Clearly, this sickness is more political or rather a creature of a political culture than about viruses, poor metabolism and the like. It can only be cured by affirming at all times and in all circumstances the primacy of the law. Bend it for a friend or out of pity once and that’s precedence and worse, a habit that the ‘giver’ is likely to avail him/herself of when in reduced circumstances. 

Something has been bent. A short-cut has been taken. Like bending and short-cutting that has happened during previous regimes. But why? A cheque being cashed? Old friendships being remembered? Future profits, political and otherwise, anticipated? 

There’s good reason to brush aside privacy concerns and find out what was really wrong with Rajitha Senaratne. The reason: equality before the law. If getting admitted to a hospital on a whim or because a doctor’s kindness has been sought and granted allows a wanted man to avoid a prison cell, if illness is a ‘wild card’ that can be used to have a more comfortable incarceration, then such privileges should be available to one and all. It cannot be the politician’s preserve. That’s sick. 

This article was first published in the DAILY MIRROR [January 2, 2020]

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

That man Patali Champika Ranawaka!

Patali Champika Ranawaka is the General Secretary of the United National Front for Good Governance (UNFGG). That’s a coalition led by the United National Party (UNP). The UNP is Ranil Wickremesinghe; I recommend a perusal of the party constitution to anyone who doubts this. Ranawaka was also the President’s nominee to the Constitutional Council under the 19th Amendment. The President is Maithripala Sirisena, who, after defeating Mahinda Rajapaksa became the leader of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party. In other words he was at the time the proverbial ‘right hand man’ of the leaders of both major political parties in Sri Lanka. A unique kind of creature, one has to acknowledge.

The man is a factor, that cannot be denied. A senior journalist, Gayan Gallage described him in a Facebook post as follows: ‘The hero of the serious political game of the past two months is none other than Champika.’ He went on the substantiate his claim in terms of the stark contrast between Wickremesinghe’s behavior after October 26, 2018 and his lame submission to Chandrika Kumaratunga in 2003 when she exercised presidential powers to take over three key ministries, precipitating the rout of the UNP in April 2004. 

Of course the circumstances are not identical. Back in 2003, there was no 19th Amendment, for example. However, Gallage claims that Champika played a key role if not the main role in keeping the UNP together in the moment of extreme crisis and utter chaos. Insiders would know the truth; I do not. 

There are things however that are public knowledge. The formation of the Sihala Urumaya (SU) in 2000 helped bring a Sinhala nationalist voice into the entire discourse of conflict-resolution. The Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) was formed in February 2004 and effectively wrecked the parliamentary equation. Champika was in the thick of things on both occasions.  He played a key role in Mahinda Rajapaksa’s victories in 2005 and 2010. His parting of ways with Rajapaksa, arguable in a situation where Rev Athureliye Rathana Thero forced his hand and that of the JHU, was a game-changing move in the 2015 presidential equation.  

What’s his history? He was a student leader at Moratuwa University. His political associations in terms of organizations, in many of which he was a key member and decision-maker, say as much about ideological orientation as about political ambition, untrammeled drive and an uncanny ability to read the political moment: the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, Jathika Chinthanaya, Ratawesi Peramuna (RP), Janatha Mithuro (JM), National Movement Against Terrorism (NMAT), SU, JHU, United People’s Freedom Alliance and the UNFGG. The RP, JM, NMAT and SU no longer exist. The JVP and JHU are more or less adjuncts of the UNP. The UPFA has been abandoned by non-SLFP parties including, officially, the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP). The UNP lost considerable ground at the last local government election and what’s seen by some as a ‘resurgence’ is essentially a closing of ranks by the diehards. If Gallage is correct, then even in this exercise Champika played a significant role and one unusual for the leader of a small party which might not win a single parliamentary seat if it contested on its own.  

Is he then an opportunist who is absolutely focused on reaching somehow the top of the political ladder? Yes. Success in politics as far as an individual is concerned necessitates an eye for opportunity. As for changing political platforms, well, he’s no worse than most of his contemporaries.  

Champika clearly established himself as a doer when he was in charge of the Ministry of Environment, Power and Energy, and Science and Technology. He hasn’t exactly covered himself in glory in far more ambitious Megapolis Ministry but his supporters will point out that he is not ideally situated in the political coalition he’s a part of to get things done and that anyway the economic reality is not in his favor. They might even say, ‘it cannot be done overnight.’ The perception however seems to be ‘he can’t do it.’  Let’s assume that the jury is out on that particular matter. 

Perhaps the views of someone who is diametrically opposed to Champika’s stated ‘nationalist’ leanings would help locate him politically. Kumar David claims to be a Marxist and an opponent of Sinhala nationalism. He writes, within brackets interestingly, that he is an opponent of Tamil nationalism as well, although he also went on record to say that ‘the left’ should hope that the LTTE stops the government’s military operations in Kilinochchi.  Anyway, let’s read his take on Champika, as expressed in an account cum reflection of the launch of Champika’s book ‘Power and Power’ in August 2014. The title of the article was ‘Champika’s Double-Edged Book Launch; Is Ranawaka Initiating A Leadership Challenge?’

Here’s David: ‘I am not favourably inclined to Ranawaka’s ideology or his possible presidential ambitions. This piece, however, is about a different aspect. It is about the challenge that has been mounted and about the intrinsic strength of the challenge because it proceeds from intelligently chosen premises linking key techno-economic anxieties with political abuse. It taps into roots of social concern as against the UPFA’s and UNP’s fish-market sloganeering. The old fashioned left (the Dead Left included), the new style JVP and even newer Pertugami will not be able to meet this challenge unless they wake up to 21-st Century techno-economic, global-structural, and emerging national class realities. Unfortunately they do not have the intellectual cadres to digest and address a complex challenge such as this.’

David referred in the same article to the keynote speaker’s ‘unabashed panegyric to the next, or a future president’.  The speaker described Champika as ‘a visionary leader and a servant of the people; a technical expert (Ranawaka in an electrical engineering graduate) and a fighter against a mafia that is exploiting and corrupting state enterprises.’ David did not exactly tear apart this generous construction. 

Not long after the launch, Champika said ta-ta to Rajapaksa. He almost led Sirisena’s campaign in terms of formulating manifesto and strategy. Today, he seems to be Ranil’s sole non-UNP lieutenant and perhaps even his key advisor overall.  

Does ideology matter to him? He has the language, intellect and oratorical skills to justify anything he does. Time was when he argued against the abolition of the executive presidency given the its importance is ensuring that the 13th will not lead to a breakup of the nation.  He voted for the 19th. He would have known that it was a terribly flawed and nonsensical piece of legislation. He can plead ‘collective responsibility’ but that vote may add to the scars he’s inscribed on his political persona on account of loyalty-switching.  On the other hand, it could also be that he knew the 19th did precious little pruning of executive powers. Was he looking to the future?

Well, now it appears he wants the executive presidency abolished. Has he abandoned all notions of territorial integrity and threats to the same which he eloquently pointed out when talking of the 13th Amendment? Has his ‘vision’ diminished to that of any random politician, i.e. a power-seek? Political experience suggests the answer is, ‘yes’. The onus is on him to prove otherwise.

For now, it is clear that he’s a political asset that far outweighs the perceivable strength of his party. Wickremesinghe would be loathe to drop him. There’s bargaining power there, obviously, and it is good to recognize that Champika knows this.  

Is he ruthless? Well, he knows that assessment of enemy and enmity is par for the course. We can’t give anyone blank cheques and it would be silly to give him one too.  One thing is certain. Patali Champika Ranawaka should not be underestimated.

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

  

Read more