Election results can be skinned any which way you like

A warm but flawed reading of the 2015 result,

People from the same camp, in terms of who they voted for, can and do come up with different reasons for victory, or if that's the case, defeat. 

For example, some who voted for Gotabaya Rajapaksa could put his victory down to one or more of the following: a) ineptitude of the Yahapalana regime and failure to deliver on promises, b) the need for a strong and tested leader in the face of new threats to national security, c) perceptions that he was a doer as opposed to a talker (that’s Sajith), d) a strong, determined and well-coordinated campaign as opposed to Sajith Premadasa’s wayward, disorganized effort further marred by in-fighting. 

Others could point to the overwhelming surge in the anti-UNP vote from areas dominated by Sinhala Buddhists and claim that it was a response to unnecessary and endless needling of the majority community by various UNP spokespersons. They could add that lack of clarity on the part of Sajith Premadasa on his arrangement with the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) given that party’s Eelamist posturing through conditions offered to and rejected by the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) was key. 

So it is about strengths of the winner and weaknesses of the loser and/or their respective parties. Strengths and weaknesses can be understood in different ways. How would some one who voted for Sajith explain the outcome?

Some might say ‘he didn’t have enough time to campaign since his party was slow in offering him nomination.’ Others would add, ‘and Ranil Wickremesinghe didn’t put his heart and soul into the campaign,’ even though the party leader has refuted this claim by pointing out that he was asked to campaign in the North and East, which districts he delivered. Whether he was key in this ‘deliverance,’ of course is another matter. Anyway, some inclined to be self-critical rather than looking for scapegoats have argued that there was very little campaigning at the grassroots, that the UNP’s party machinery was rusty, that UNPers were demoralized after the debacle at the local government elections in February 2018, and that Sajith’s ‘I-ME-and-Myself’ did not excite the floating voter, that Sajith had a tough brief to defend considering the (non) performance of the government in which he was a cabinet minister.  

Finger-pointers who are not willing to acknowledge error or blemish, have simply said ‘it’s all because Gota appealed to Sinhala Buddhist chauvinists.’  Some say ‘It’s the BBS’. That’s the Bodu Bala Sena. The BBS and it’s political twin, Ravana Balakaya, following the election stated that the organizations would be dissolved following the parliamentary elections.

‘There you go!’ did someone exclaim? It’s easy to join dots (any which way you like) to prove you point. Still, the BBS and Ravana Balakaya ‘decisions’ are worth commenting on. Now these outfits are considered extremists by some who, interestingly, extrapolate the ‘extremism to the entire Sinhala Buddhist population. Interestingly too, they don’t apply the same logic to the National Thawheed Jamath (NTJ) and the Muslim community. Neither do they pause to compare and contrast the extremisms — the involvement of the BBS in Aluthgama and Digana versus the Easter Sunday attacks carried out by the NTJ.  Cost of damage to property and lives lost could be but are not compared. 

Back to the BBS and Gotabaya Rajapaksa. So is it that the BBS and the Ravana Balakaya, having ‘delivered’ the presidency to Gota, have concluded ‘mission accomplished, we got our man in and our work is done?’ Is Gotabaya a BBS man or Ravana Balakaya man? That would be utterly simplistic. First of all, the BBS and Ravana Balakaya are essentially fringe elements of the Sinhala Buddhist nationalist discourse. More visible, of course, just like the NTJ, but that’s just one part of the story. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, when he was Secretary, Ministry of Defence, did accept an invitation extended to him by the BBS to be chief guest at the opening of an office somewhere in the Southern Province. That was out of order for a government servant. Does that make Gota a member of the BBS high command? Did the BBS deliver the presidency to Gota?  

The BBS contested the last parliamentary elections as the ‘Buddhist People’s Front’. The total votes polls by that party was 20,377 or just 0.19%. Nation-wide. And that’s ‘push’ enough to decide who would be president? Sobering, ain’t it?

Forget the BBS; was Sinhala Buddhist nationalism the most significant element at the election? Ameer Ali, in an analysis titled ‘Sibling wins, patriarch celebrates and minorities stunned,’ in the Colombo Telegraph, certainly thinks so. 

Ali believes that Ethno-religious nationalism decided the winner. He claims that ethno-religious Buddhist nationalists created and presented an image to the Sinhala public that the two minorities are a clear and imminent danger to national security. He claims, ‘an uncompromising but ultra-nationalist section of the institutionalised Buddhist clergy spearheaded a campaign to deprive the minorities of that privilege and rallied Sinhala Buddhist voters behind Gotabaya, who in their view will be the man to save Buddhist Sri Lanka.’ And, pointing to the fact that Sajith won handsomely in the North and East, but was trounced elsewhere, Ali concludes that it was indeed a battle between the Buddhist majority and the minorities. He says, in the process, that the minorities ‘hoped for a 2015 repeat scenario when their votes decided the winner in a tightly fought presidential contest and threw their support behind Sajith Premadasa.’

On the hand, why doesn’t Ali see that the Sinhalese and Buddhists could perceive an existentialist threat given statements issued by the likes of Sumanthiran and Hizbullah and of course the fact that terrorists from both the Tamil and Muslim communities unabashedly vented against Sinhala Buddhists? He doesn’t play that part of the game, but picks the reverse. It can’t cut just one way, though.

Anyway, Ali’s reading reminded me of an elegant meme created by Shanuki De Alwis just after the January 2015 election. It was a warm interpretation of the result, depicting the North and East embracing/protecting the rest of the country. Indeed, it seemed apt at the time. However, if you looked at the numbers, the story is very different. What the anti-Rajapaksa candidates gained between 2010 and 2015 from these two provinces are dwarfed by what Mahinda lost in just the Southern and Western Provinces. It was not just the minorities that defeated Mahinda in 2015. 

Less than five years later, Mahinda’s brother swept these very same provinces by massive margins. Were people in the relevant districts suddenly converted to the political stance of the BBS (if we believe that claim)? Obviously there are other explanations. Yes, national security was an issue. So was incompetence. Incoherence. Utter confusion. You name it!  That’s all Yahapalana attributes. 

So why say ‘Buddhist’ or ‘Sinhala’ just because of the 6.9 million who voted for Gotabaya happened to be identified in such terms? Sure, they were Sinhalese and Buddhists, but on what basis can anyone say that it is only their ethnic identity and religious faith that determined choice? It’s a bit like saying all those in the North and East who voted against Gotabaya are Eelamists or Islamic Fundamentalists. They voted for Sajith, a Sinhalese, who was in rhetoric far more nationalistic than Gotabaya was, if anyone followed their respective speeches. So Sinhala Buddhist anxieties may have been part of the story, but it cannot be concluded that it was THE story of the election result.

It’s about how you want to skin it, in the end. Minority angst can of course privilege perceptions and hence persuade people like Ali to say ‘we are shocked’. Shocked because you didn’t expect it or shocked because you fear the consequences? Perceptions are real, even if they are not based on facts. You paint a monster and then ‘the monster’ haunts you. You believe your own propaganda. You have a set frame and cannot fathom that that’s not the only one available. You see certain things, choose not to see others and are absolutely ignorant of still other factors. So you go with what you know, throw in anxieties and political preferences/disappointments and get to ‘THIS IS WHAT IT WAS!’  

It’s good to feel good or, as the case may be, to feed one’s anxieties in a masochistic kind of way. That’s however simplistic political analysis, nothing more.  

malindasenevi@gmail.com

This article was first published in the Sunday Morning newspaper [December 8, 2019]

Read more

Sophomoric legislators cannot fix constitutional flaws

Constitutional reforms is a serious business, whether it is an amendment or a new document altogether. Even ordinary bills and acts of parliament are serious affairs. Such things require lawmakers, the Attorney General’s Department, the judiciary and the general public to act with sobriety and responsibility.  

The basic premise of any new piece of legislation is that whatever exists is insufficient or flawed. That, however, is just one reason for attempting correction. It is (too) easy to use the horrendously flawed Second Republican Constitution (of 1978) as an excuse for (any old) amendment. ‘It can’t get worse’ is tired, silly and unethical reasoning for the simple reason that it (indeed!) can (get worse)!

Just think of all the amendments since 1978. Lawmakers didn’t exactly cover themselves with glory in those exercises. The most recent was the 19th Amendment. From draft to legislation makes a case for how not to engage in constitutional tinkering. The Supreme Court shot holes in the draft. The lawmakers did not amend the draft but almost rewrote it, leaving contradictions and grey areas. It was a shortsighted and mischievous piece of legislation, to put it mildly. Let us just mention, in passing, the following: a) presidential powers to dissolve parliament, b) the appointment and removal of the prime minister, c) the notion of a national government to circumvent limitations on cabinet-size, and d) a politician-heavy constitutional council which effectively mangled the idea of ‘independence’ in related institutions. 

Since the Supreme Court determination on dissolution, there’s two documents before Parliament. First, the (new) 20th Amendment tabled by the JVP seeking to abolish the Executive Presidency, and secondly a new constitution, as per a TNA need, based on recommendations by the so-called committee of ‘experts’.  

The merits and demerits of both exercises can be debated. Obviously, the second would make the first irrelevant. But what’s crucial to understand here is the fact that this parliament has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that it is incompetent when it comes to its fundamental purpose — law-making. 

The Parliament made a mess of electoral reform, in effect replacing the existent proportional representation system with another proportional representation system, despite the rhetoric to the contrary! Today, across the political spectrum, people seem to have resigned themselves to reverting to the previous system, which each and every one of them deemed to be flawed, made for thuggery, the movement of vast sums of money and other ills.  

We saw how they went about with the 19th Amendment. The proposed 20th Amendment shows how shortsighted and silly the JVP is, since it seeks the abolition of the executive presidency without accounting for the dangers of such an eventuality given the existence of the 13th Amendment (which moreover was constituted in the most undemocratic manner). 

Now we have the ‘new constitution’ circus. The JVP has opposed it. Sections of the ruling coalition, especially the JHU, has objected to it. The TNA, as expected, whines about people being ‘political’ — as though politics is something absolutely alien to that party! The chances of a new constitution, therefore, are slim. That’s not something bad, even though the current constitution simply cries out for replacement. ‘Not bad’ because we just cannot trust this Parliament to do anything right regardless of intentions, which too they have taught us not to trust.  

However, there is the danger of this utterly sophomoric set of legislators hoodwinking the masses by leaving intact articles whose repeal could spell trouble while surreptitiously inserting others that make those very same articles irrelevant (just like the articles pertaining to dissolution in the 19th Amendment). They can retain terms and notion (e.g. ‘unitary’ and ‘foremost status of Buddhism’) and throw in things that make them meaningless. They can’t make decent laws but they seem to be experts at the indecent end of things.  

The question is simple: considering that this set of parliamentarians have demonstrated incompetence, proved they are either hooligans or have directly or indirectly sanctioned hooliganism, that electorally, the UNP, SLFP and JVP (making up a majority) have lost their standing and even legitimacy in the eyes of the voting public, and have abused power in numerous ways, can we and should we trust them with tinkering with the constitution? The answer is pretty obvious: No!  

The constitution needs to be changed, yes, but not by these people. We just cannot trust them to do anything right. We cannot trust them to ensure that the sovereignty of the people is kept intact. 

We can trust them to do just the opposite. 

RELATED ARTICLES

Justice delayed is justice affirmed, apparently

The 19th Amendment: blessing or curse?
The before and after of the Supreme Court decision on dissolution

Citizens as 'suckers'

'ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය උදෙසා සටන් කරන ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදීන්' වෙත ආදරයෙනි

So who's cheering the 19th Amendment now?

Democracy is alive, ladies and gentlemen

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

The Supreme Court and Constitutional Clarity

The 19th Amendment should be revisited

Constitutional Reform Poisons: personalities, parties and outcome-preferences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more

Is the SLFP about to scream 'Mayday! Mayday'?

"I surrender" might be a consideration

‘Mayday’ is a signal. The term indicates a life-threatening emergency usually used by aviators and mariners, but also in some countries by firefighters and other working in difficult conditions. Apparently it was coined by a senior radio officer at Croydon Airport, London in 1923. He had bene asked to come up with a ‘distress-indicating word’ and had drawn it from the French word m’aider which means ‘help me’.

‘It is unrelated to the holiday May Day,’ Wikipedia notes. May Day predates Mayday, and conspiracy theorists may very well say that it was pernicious twist. May Day has rarely distressed anyone, especially the capitalist class. Indeed, one might even say that the capitalist class has appropriated May Day through political parties that by and large take care of their interests. 

This year won’t be different in this sense, and yet for at least a couple of reasons May Day 2018 will be quite unlike May Days of the past. 

‘May Day not being on the 1st of May feels strange,’ many have said. ‘May Day’ however is International Workers’ Day, where workers all over the world, in and out of unions, in and out of political parties, talk about the distance traveled and the distance to be traveled, so to speak. 

What’s important is that it is a single day that’s set aside to celebrate labor and workers, talk about conditions of work exploitation, articulate grievances and discuss what needs to be done.  Well, in Sri Lanka, that’s not what happens in the main, but let’s put that aside. 

It’s a single day. It’s as if ‘labor’ counts only on a single day, which of course is all rubbish.  So, one could argue, if it’s just a single day and if it is close to meaningless, it shouldn’t matter when May Day is held, in May or in another month, or whether it is held on the 1st of January, the 31st of December or the 28th of February.  

Those who are religious about May Day have objected, and that says a lot about the status of the working class movement and the Left in this country. In short, they are religious about May Day, i.e. the trappings, and are clueless about the conditions of exploitation.  

May Day 2018 is strange for another reason and one which makes us think of ‘Mayday! Mayday’. Let us say it in the form of a question: will the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) hold a May Day rally this year? 

In 2017, the Yahapalana Government, which seemed less watery in terms of cohesion than it is now, threw a challenge to the Joint Opposition (JO): ‘we will let you have the biggest open space in Colombo, Galle Face — try filling it!’ The JO was essentially a breakaway faction of the SLFP. The ‘mother party’ decided to do its thing in Kandy. The JO took up the challenge and drew unprecedented crowds to the Galle Face. It was an even bigger show than their rally a year before in Kirulapona.  

If that was an indication of slippage in the SLFP’s and especially President Mairhtipala Sirisena’s political fortunes, the true dimensions were realized on February 10, 2018.  Sirisena’s share of the party, so to say, diminished to the point that his faction, the official SLFP, could hardly muster 15% of the total vote at the local government elections.  

Further erosion was evidenced when 16 SLFPers who officially sided with Sirisena supported the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on April 5, 2018.  Today, they are threatening to organize a separate May Day rally if the party leadership does not move to replace certain office-bearers.  Whether they can do it is not relevant here. What’s pertinent is that as we write, just two weeks before the official May Day (May 7), the SLFP does not seem to be in any position to do the show-of-force number that May Day has traditionally been. 

Apparently a committee has been appointed to organize the event, this time in Batticaloa. From Hyde Park to Kandy to Batticaloa might sound like a retreat to some. 

The JO is to have it’s May Day rally in Galle this year. ‘Retreat’ cannot be applied to this ‘distancing’ from Colombo simply because the JO is in consolidation mode. Their numbers increased in Parliament and they are well ahead outside. In all likelihood, they will put up the best show this ‘May Day’.

Some UNPers are cock-a-hoop over their leader surviving the no-confidence motion, but they’ve failed to understand that this ‘victory’ came from a parliamentary composition that inflates considerably the voter-sentiment as evidenced on February 10. They’ve moved from Campbell Park to Sugathadasa Stadium.

More importantly, the entire exercise has driven the key coalition partner, the SLFP and its leader Sirisena, into a serious identity crisis. They are not sure if they are part of the government or not, whether they should or should not be in the government. 

Sirisena, whose tenure has been marked by tremendous efforts to be accepted as the leader of the SLFP (not just in name), doesn’t have a party to speak of. It’s as though the SLFP has upped and left its official residence on Darley Road.  The party office remains, but the building is all but empty. We will know for sure when the show is over. There will be some chest-beating and bravado. No one will actually blurt out ‘Mayday! Mayday! and not just on account of language preferences, but the distress signs are so unmistakable that cries for help are not necessary.

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. 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

Dissolve or be dissolved

Constitutions are not always made with good intention. Even when the intention is good the unexpected trumps the word. They are supposed to be documents of the ‘forever’ kind, but if one thing is certain it is the fact that the sum total of human knowledge is but a speck of dust compared to the universe of human ignorance. And so we have amendments, some pushed through to further narrow political and personal objectives and some to correct flaws showed up by unexpected developments.  

Those who authored the 19th Amendment were quite rightly seeking to reverse the anti-democratic 18th Amendment. They reintroduced term-limits, which was good. They restored and added to the 17th Amendment, i.e. the establishment of the Constitutional Council and independent commissions. 

They erred/subtracted when they wrote in the composition of the Constitutional Council.  They were narrow and self-seeking when they used the notion of a ‘National Government’  to get around the election promise of downsizing the cabinet.  And they didn’t anticipate the February 10th result, just as J.R. Jayewardene didn’t anticipate Sarath N Silva’s determination to enable crossovers or the sway that someone like Mahinda Rajapaksa could have in obtaining a two-thirds majority regardless of the outcome of a parliamentary election.

So what have we got now? In a word, confusion. We have a parliamentary composition that is at odds with the sentiments of the people. Throw in what was always an iffy union between two parties that are so alike but have been at each other’s throats for more than half a century and a pact that started coming apart even before the local government election, and it’s a bloody mess.

The unity-pact, so-called, expired on the 31st of December 2017. As such there is no formal agreement that gives credence to the notion of a ‘national government’ which, by the way, has been ill-defined in the 19th Amendment.  One might argue that the Cabinet has lost legitimacy.  

It is against all this that the United National Party (UNP) and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) mull their respective political futures. The UNP leader, Ranil Wickremesinghe claims that he has constitutional legitimacy. He has avoided speaking about the cabinet and in particular its size. Given the now openly admitted rift, his task would be to secure support from SLFPers not inclined to go along in a possible but uneasy and even dangerous alliance with the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP). He can probably count on the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) not to side with his political opponents should there be a vote in Parliament.  

The leader of the SLFP, President Sirisena, indicating that he’s broken off the engagement with Wickremesinghe, has deployed loyalists to woo UNPers disenchanted with Wickremesinghe. Naturally, Sirisena has the harder task. Around 25 MPs would have to defect, provided of course that only around 7 or 8 would go over to the UNP and that the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) will back him.

His party ended a distant third behind the UNP and the SLPP. His political fortunes are on the wane, to put it politely.  To the extent that the local government election was also a contest about who owns the SLFP (it’s parliamentary group, members and supporters), it is clear that Mahinda Rajapaksa is the clear winner. The 1.5 million votes that the SLFP/UPFA received (just over 13% of the total votes cast) are more likely to gravitate to the SLPP rather than the UNP. 

Sirisena, then, is not in a position to demand. He could, however, keep things in limbo, hoping that it would feed discontent within the UNP, leading to Wickremesinghe being ousted. A long shot, though.

The SLPP is in a very strong position, in contrast. It is reported that the party’s de-facto leader, Mahinda Rajapaksa, who is also a ‘Senior Advisor’ of the SLFP, has indicated that the SLPP would support the SLFP if it manages to cobble together a working majority. The SLPP, it is reported, will not seek cabinet portfolios in such an eventuality. In effect the SLPP would hold the SLFP/UPFA as well as President Sirisena hostage, politically. In any case, the SLPP can step back and enjoy the bitter fight between the SLFP and the UNP for control of the government and indeed for political relevance at least in the short term.  

Whoever ends up in control will have to reduce the size of the cabinet to 30. Therefore loyalty would have to be purchased through means other than offering a portfolio. Few if any are in this for ideological reasons. Politically, there’s nothing attractive that either party can offer anyone from the other side. Since there is no provision for the dissolution of Parliament apart from the death, resignation and the rejection by Parliament of the government’s policy statement or budget, things may very well trudge along in this muddled manner until March 2019.  

While some UNPers have claimed that the election loss was because the party wasn’t allowed to implement its policies, rank incompetence and a blind-eye or complicity in monumental corruption cannot be ruled out as factors. Going solo is unlikely to change public perception regarding the party, especially since an embittered President can and probably will move on prosecuting those responsible for the Central Bank bond issue scam. An SLFP/UPFA government would find it even tougher given terribly reduced circumstances.

All things considered a dissolution of Parliament would be best at this point. Theoretically it is possible to obtain the two-thirds majority required to pass through enabling legislation. The immediate beneficiary would of course be the SLPP since it owns the political momentum following the unexpected and unprecedented victory at the local government elections. This could dissuade both the SLFP and UNP from considering such a course of action. 

The alternatives, however, could be worse. The more muddled and confused things are, and that’s what is reasonable to expect considering the track-record of the ‘Yahapalana’ government and the peculiar circumstances it finds itself in, the longer dissolution takes the worse would be the result. Rajapaksa and the SLPP can afford to wait, for they alone can continue to work at the grassroots mobilizing support for the cause of getting rid of a UNP-SLFP regime that doesn’t seem to know if it’s coming or going.  

Those who are blind to the recent and all-time track-records of the UNP and what’s left of the SLFP might shudder at the thought of Rajapaksa returning to power. The truth is there is little to choose between the UNP, SLFP and SLPP when it comes to corruption, power-abuse, thuggery and murder, unless of course one deliberately blocks out massive chunks of post-independence history.  

The argument for constitutional amendment (of the 19th) to enable dissolution stands not on such things but the simple fact of legitimate representation or rather the lack thereof. This Parliament, as the results of the local government election demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt, is illegitimate. It does not reflect the popular sentiments of the people.  Its continuation amounts to a travesty of justice and a deference to everything that rebels against the spirit of democracy.  

The silence of the so-called progressives in certain NGO circles, ‘informed academics,’ political commentators and other activists on all this is deafening. 

Dissolution. That’s what needs to be agitated for. If nothing else, it would involve correcting a constitutional error in the 19th Amendment.  

Read more