Connect with us

Editorial

Clash of mandates

Published

on

Monday 7th October, 2024

The process of submitting nominations for the 14 Nov., general election is currently underway. It is popularly thought that a person who wins the presidency stands a much better chance of steering his or her party to victory at a subsequent general election. But anything is possible in politics, where upset wins are not uncommon. What if a party other than President Dissanayake’s NPP wins the upcoming parliamentary polls?

Dissanayake has been one of the bitterest critics of the executive presidency, which his party, the JVP, has condemned as a wellspring of evil. But he chose to do what his predecessors had done, after being sworn in as the President; he exercised the much-despised executive powers of the President to dissolve Parliament prematurely in a bid to secure control thereof and consolidate his position.

There is a compelling argument that the last Parliament had to be dissolved as the NPP, which had only three members in it, needed to secure legislative power in a general election to carry out President Dissanayake’s policies. But the question is whether a mandate given to a President takes precedence over that of a political party which controls Parliament. There is another argument in favour of the premature dissolution of the last Parliament; the SLPP government, which was full of undesirables, lost legitimacy to remain in power when President Gotabaya Rajapaksa (GR) and Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa resigned due to mass protests. One cannot but agree that the SLPP government was full of misfits, but ironically the majority of the people who, unable to make proper judgements, made the mistake of electing those undesirables in the 2020 general election, voted for Dissanayake overwhelmingly at the recently concluded presidential election!

True, the SLPP government mismanaged the economy and inflicted unbearable suffering on the public, who were left with no alternative but to rise against that regime. But if mass protests can delegitimise popularly elected administrations, future governments, including the one President Dissanayake is planning to form, will also lose legitimacy in case of continuous mass protests against them.

Interestingly, Dissanayake, who successfully harnessed the forces that ousted President GR to realise his presidential dream, said in the run-up the 21 Sept. presidential election that President GR was a victim of what Ranil Wickremesinghe’s reckless borrowing from external sources to the tune of USD 13.5% billion during the Yahapalana government (2015-2019). The biggest beneficiary of the 2022 uprising, which the JVP infiltrated and manipulated, was Wickremesinghe, the ‘reckless borrower’; he became the President! Thus, Dissanayake and the JVP/NPP are doubly at fault.

If the political parties/alliances that form governments after obtaining popular mandates can be dislodged on the basis of the outcomes of presidential elections or according to the whims and fancies of the Executive Presidents, then what are general elections there for? In 2015, following the election of President Maithripala Sirisena, the UPFA ceded control of Parliament to the UNP, allowing President Sirisena to appoint Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister. The UNP did likewise in 2019, after GR secured the presidency. In 2004, the then President Chandrika Kumaratunga sacked the UNP-led UNF government, which had obtained a popular mandate about two years after the 1999 presidential election.

In 2018, President Sirisena made an abortive bid to sack Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and then dissolve Parliament. Last month, the SLPP government stepped down, following the election of President Dissanayake, allowing him to appoint a three-member Cabinet before dissolving Parliament. The Presidents who have either dissolved Parliament or wrested control thereof, immediately after being sworn in, came to power promising to abolish the executive presidency or to curtail the presidential powers that help undermine the legislature. Their actions have facilitated the emergence of an unhealthy political culture devoid of co-operation and coexistence between the Executive and the Legislature, unlike in mature democracies.

There is a constitutional provision preventing the President from dissolving Parliament before the expiration of two and a half years of the term of Parliament. In other words, if the President and the Prime Minister happen to be elected from different parties, they will have to co-operate for at least two and a half years to prevent the country from descending into chaos. If so, why shouldn’t they be made to do likewise after the expiration of the first two and a half years of the term of Parliament? The opponents of the executive presidency maintain that the President should be stripped of the power to dissolve Parliament prematurely. This argument has some merits.

The fact that the President has to have control over Parliament to ensure smooth governance points to a serious flaw in the Constitution. The Prime Minister becomes more powerful than the Executive President to all intents and purposes when they happen to represent two different political parties, and they tend to clash. This constitutional anomaly can lead to political instability mainly due to Sri Lankan political leaders’ insatiable quest of self-aggrandisement and unwillingness to cooperate for the sake of the country.

Some political commentators are of the view that both the presidential election and the parliamentary polls should be held simultaneously. But the possibility of two different parties securing the presidency and control of Parliament cannot be ruled out. The way out is for the political leaders to learn to respect the mandates they receive at presidential and parliamentary elections separately and act in the interest of the country.

It is up to the public to elect, as their MPs, only the individuals who have the national interest at heart, at the upcoming general election. Otherwise, political instability is likely to set in, taking its toll on the economic recovery process in case of a party other than the NPP gaining control of the legislature or the next Parliament becoming hung by any chance.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Editorial

Justice must be balanced

Published

on

Saturday 12th April, 2025

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake will appoint a committee to decide on instituting legal action against those named in the report of the Batalanda Commission, which probed extrajudicial killings, torture, etc., in the Batalanda detention centre, in the late 1980s, Leader of the House and Minister Bimal Ratnayake has said. The commission report has also been referred to the Attorney General for action, according to media reports quoting Ratnayake.

Parliament had a debate on the Batalanda Commission report on Thursday. The government MPs and their Opposition counterparts, true to form, traded allegations and abuse liberally, and it is doubtful whether their debate left the public any the wiser.

The Executive President is vested with powers to appoint committees like the aforesaid one, but such presidential action in respect of the Batalanda Commission report will be seen to be tainted with prejudice, for President Dissanayake is the leader of the JVP, which has prejudged those named in the commission report, especially their erstwhile chum, former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, and is calling for punitive action against them.

There is no guarantee that the presidential committee to be appointed will be different from the Parliamentary Select Committee that probed Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake and prepared the grounds for her wrongful impeachment in 2013. After all, the JVP/NPP has rejected out of hand the findings and recommendations of the Alwis committee, which has held two former high-ranking police officers accountable for their serious lapses which, among other things, led to the Easter Sunday carnage. So, matters concerning the Batalanda Commission recommendations should be left to the Attorney General although he is not completely independent of the Executive.

It will not be possible to build a strong case against Wickremesinghe on the basis of the Batalanda Commission report, whose recommendations lack specificity, according to legal experts. However, one cannot but agree with the JVP/NPP that all those who committed savage excesses in the name of counterterror operations to crush the JVP’s second uprising in the late 1980s must be brought to justice. Similarly, the heinous crimes the JVP committed must also be probed, and the perpetrators thereof must be made to face the consequences of their actions.

The Batalanda Commission report itself has revealed the JVP’s crimes. The JVP carried out hundreds of political assassinations, committed a large number of armed robberies including bank heists, destroyed state assets worth billions of rupees, such as Agrarian Service Centres, tea factories, Paddy Marketing Board storage facilities, buses, trains and countless CEB transformers, attacked military camps and police stations and grabbed a large number of firearms, most of which have not been recovered. The JVP unleashed mindless terror purportedly to extricate Sri Lanka from what it described as the tentacles of India, which it likened to an evil, giant octopus. Its reign of terror crippled the economy so much so that the then President Ranasinghe Premadasa offered to negotiate with it unconditionally. Today, the JVP leaders are eating out of the Indian leaders’ hands and entering into undisclosed MoUs with the ‘evil, giant octopus’, as it were.

All those who were involved in JVP terror in the late 1980s must be held accountable for their crimes, as former JVP presidential candidate and General Secretary Nandana Gunathilake has rightly said. Justice must not be lopsided, and both sides that unleashed mindless terror and committed brutal crimes in the name of counterterror, plunging this country into a bloodbath, must be made to face the full force of the law.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Trump in a china shop

Published

on

Friday 11th April, 2025

US President Donald Trump has made another U-turn––a historic one. He has suspended unprecedented tariff hikes he announced the other day; he vowed that he would neither pause nor waive them under any circumstances. The 90-day tariff reprieve he has opted for has gladdened many hearts and made stock markets soar across the word, but a global recession is looming with a fierce tariff war between the US and China intensifying.

Trump has jacked up tariffs on all Chinese goods to a whopping 125%. China has stopped dilly-dallying and increased its tariff on imports from the US to 84%. The White House is reported to have said those who do not retaliate will be rewarded. Trump may have expected the Chinese leaders also to bow and scrape before him, asking for a tariff reduction.

Meanwhile, President Trump will have a hard time repairing relations with the traditional US allies in Europe. He did not mince his words, when he said, while announcing the new US tariffs, the other day, that many Americans thought Europe was a friend but it had actually ripped off the US. He has shown, albeit unwittingly, that Europe cannot trust the US as an ally. Besides, Der Spiegel, a German magazine once revealed that the CIA had been operating a global network of 80 eavesdropping centres, including 19 listening posts in Europe.

The White House has sought to help Trump save face; it has claimed that his flip-flop is part of a strategy to further US economic interests globally. But the truth is otherwise. Trump got cold feet as stock markets tumbled the world over, and protests erupted in the US itself against his new tariff policy. Initially, he, true to form, chose to dig his heels in, and even coined a new word to disparage the critics of his tariffs. On Truth Social, he called them ‘panicans’. He said: “The United States has a chance to do something that should have been done DECADES AGO. Don’t be Weak! Don’t be Stupid! Don’t be a PANICAN. Be Strong, Courageous, and Patient, and GREATNESS will be the result!” He also said, “Be cool! Everything is going to work out well. The USA will be bigger and better than ever before. On Monday, he announced from the White House that “we’re not looking at” a tariff pause …” He also bragged in a Truth Social post announcing the 90-day tariff pause, that “more than 75 Countries” had called US officials seeking to strike new trade deals. But it is clear that he had to bite the bullet and suspend the tariff hikes. The EU has put its retaliatory tariffs on hold, as a result.

The suspension of US tariff hikes has brought immense relief to the developing countries dependent on the US as a major export destination, but prudence demands that they continue with their efforts to formulate strategies to ensure the survival of their fragile economies in the worst-case scenario. They had better consider the tariff reprieve at issue only an interval in hell, as it were, and brace themselves for what is to come after three months.

Trump’s strategy of using tariffs to subdue the world has yielded some unintended benefits, the main being that it has prompted other nations, including traditional American allies, to realise the risk of being overdependent on the US as a trading partner, diversify their trade relations as well as exports, and, most of all, look for an alternative to the US. The on-going efforts to adopt an alternative international reserve currency is bound to gain a turbo boost from Trump’s abortive bid to leverage America’s hold on the global economy to undermine other nations.

The world owes President Trump a big thank you—not for jacking up US tariffs and then suspending them but for having revealed how far the US is ready to go to further its interests at the expense of the other nations, including its allies.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Cushioning tariff shock

Published

on

Thursday 10th April, 2025

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s letter to US President Donald Trump over the US tariff hikes has received much publicity. The NPP government is reportedly sanguine about a positive response from Washington to its request for lower tariff on Sri Lanka’s exports, especially apparels. Hope is said to spring eternal, and there is nothing wrong with being optimistic, but it behoves Sri Lanka to prepare for the worst-case scenario. President Trump’s mind is so elusive that it is not possible to predict his moves, much less guess what he expects the smaller economies to do if they are to qualify for US tariff reductions, if any. He is eyeing mineral resources in Ukraine in return for US military aid to that war-torn nation. Sri Lanka has no such resources to offer. Is the Trump administration trying to pressure it into going out of its way to help further Washington’s geostrategic interests in this part of the world?

China has retaliated by increasing tariffs on imports from the US thereby aggravating global economic uncertainty. Washington says its tariff increases are reciprocal, and therefore the countries affected by them may think they can gain relief by reducing duties on US exports. But the question is whether such action will help the US rectify its massive trade imbalance significantly. The demand for American exports will not increase substantially even if countries like Sri Lanka lower duties thereon, for factors such as cost and quality basically drive demand. Imports from the West, especially input materials, are not in high demand in the developing world because of the availability of cost-effective alternatives.

So, the Trump administration is likely to insist that apparel producing nations like Sri Lanka import commodities such as cotton fabric from the US so as to give a fillip to the American industries. This is what US Ambassador Julie Chung told former Minister Mano Ganeshan at a recent meeting, according to a report we published on 27 March. Such a move is bound to increase the cost of Sri Lankan apparels because US products are very expensive and will adversely affect the competitiveness of Sri Lanka’s apparels in the global market.

President Trump is hopeful that ‘jobs and factories will come roaring back’ because of the tariff hikes at issue, but he does not seem to have factored in the high cost of production in the US and increases in the prices of imports due to high tariff hikes. Tech analysts have pointed out that Apple iPhone prices would soar if they were to be made in the US, and even if the existing supply chains are maintained, their prices will increase substantially. The same may hold true for other commodities, whose prices remain low in the US at present owing to cheap labour and lax environmental laws in the other countries where they are produced.

The countries hit by the US tariff increases have adopted different strategies to cushion the blow from the drastic US action, which has led to a global stock market rout, and sparked protests in the US itself. India is seeking to strike more trade deals with other nations, according to Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, who says such measures have become necessary in view of prevailing global uncertainty. Sri Lanka can learn from how India is trying to mitigate the impact of the US tariff hikes.

Prof. C. A. Saliya, a senior banker turned academic, has pointed out in his latest column, Out of the Box, in this newspaper that if the emerging economies get their act together, they may be able to turn disruptions caused by the isolationist, protectionist, and coercive US trade practices into an opportunity to diversify their exports and trade relations, invest in technology and undertake structural reforms to ensure their economic resilience.

Meanwhile, the formulation of Sri Lanka’s strategy to navigate the new US tariff regime should arise from a tripartite effort if it is to be effective. The government, industrialists and workers should be represented in discussions on the issue. It is high time trade unions shifted their focus from their demand-oriented activism to the pressing need to play a crucial role in protecting the domestic industrial sector. The government should do everything in its power to help industrialists keep costs manageable, ensuring the competitiveness of their products in the global market, and the captains of industry must carry out their export operations in a transparent manner without resorting to sordid practices such as parking most of their export proceeds overseas.

Continue Reading

Trending