There seems to be no end to the JVP-NPP government’s volte-face. The ruling party leaders vehemently opposed Emergency regulations while out of power, launching into tirades against the previous governments for abusing Emergency to further their political interests by suppressing the democratic rights of the Opposition and the public. But they are now practising the very opposite of what they preached; they keep on extending the state of Emergency, which was imposed in the aftermath of the landfall of Cyclone Ditwah, six months ago. It also has no qualms about using the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which it promised to do away with.

The government made a mockery of its much-touted commitment to upholding democracy once again on Thursday (07) by extending the state of Emergency. The Opposition never misses an opportunity to condemn the government for doing so, but most of its members are absent when motions seeking parliamentary approval for extending Emergency are put to the vote.

On Thursday, the motion presented by the government to extend Emergency regulations received 145 votes, with only six Opposition MPs being present in the House to vote against it. Seventy-three MPs, including 13 government members, were absent during the crucial vote. That the ayes would have it was a foregone conclusion, but the Opposition MPs should have remained in the House when a division was called on the motion. Last month 60 MPs, representing both sides of the House, were absent when a vote was taken on Emergency. The MPs’ absence during crucial debates and votes amounts to a dereliction of legislative duty and an abdication of parliamentary responsibility.

The Chief Opposition Whip and party whips are responsible for ensuring that the Opposition MPs are present during debates and votes. They only talk nineteen to the dozen in the House. A wag says it is a case of all sizzle and no steak. Shouldn’t these Opposition bigwigs, given to pontification, put their house in order before lecturing the government on how to conduct its affairs?

Our legislators parade their knowledge of Erskine May’s authoritative work, Parliamentary Practice. They however do not follow the principles enunciated by May in his seminal treatise. May has viewed parliamentary attendance not merely as a procedural obligation but also as an essential condition for representative democracy and effective scrutiny. Reflected in his writings is the traditional Westminster belief that Parliament functions properly only when its members are physically present and actively participate in debates, scrutinise government actions, serve on committees and vote.

May’s emphasis is also on the ethical dimension of the MPs’ attendance during debates. The members are expected to be present during the proceedings, listening to dissenting views and responding to questions. He has frowned on the practice of members departing immediately after delivering their speeches in the House. This is something the Sri Lankan Presidents ought to pay attention to. They have the bad habit of haranguing the MPs and hurrying out of the chamber immediately afterwards. They apparently consider it infra dig to remain in the chamber and listen to the Opposition MPs. In Westminster democracies, influenced by May, parliamentary attendance has come to symbolise political responsibility, discipline and commitment to public service. Sadly, the members of the Sri Lankan Parliament do not seem to care much about this cherished tradition.

A parliamentary sitting reportedly costs about Rs. 32.2 million, and it does not make sense to spend so much money if the MPs skip sittings. Those who do not participate in debates and votes in the House make a strong case, albeit unwittingly, for a smaller Parliament.

If Parliament can manage with about 150-170 members, as it does at present, why should the taxpayers be made to pay through the nose to maintain as many as 225 MPs besides 445 provincial council members (including 45 ministers) and more than 8,500 local councillors. No wonder there is a resurgence of anti-politics.

Saturday 9th May, 2026

An exchange of fire between the US and Iran in the Strait of Hormuz sent shockwaves across the world yesterday, and oil prices soared as a result. Thankfully, it was a brief clash. The US has claimed that it foiled Iranian attacks on three of its ships. Iran has said it came under unprovoked attacks. Ceasefires in military conflicts are never free from such shocks, and care needs to be exercised to prevent skirmishes from spiraling out of control. The international community has a pivotal role to play in ensuring that the ceasefire in West Asia lasts, and negotiations continue.

The US-Iran peace negotiations have been stuck in the Hormuz chokepoint, and they will have to progress, leading to a durable truce lest the region should face a protracted conflict. There is nary a country that has not been affected by the West Asia conflict either directly or indirectly.

About 1,500-2,000 ships and 20,000 seafarers are reportedly stranded in and around the Hormuz Strait, and this a very serious issue that the world cannot ignore. The US sought to make a naval intervention to escort commercial vessels through the chokepoint, but subsequently paused its “Project Freedom”, which would have jeopardised the fragile ceasefire.

However, so many ships and their crews must not be kept waiting indefinitely in a sea passage, and international navigation via the Hormuz Strait must resume fast but without any US military intervention, which will only make matters worse.

Many economies are reeling the world over, especially in the Global South, owing to the closure of the Hormuz Strait, through which about 20 percent of global oil supplies and about 30 percent of global fertiliser supplies pass. The impact of the destruction of oil assets in Iran and its neighbours will be felt for decades to come. Even if hostilities cease, it will not be possible to repair the damaged assets any time soon.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has repeatedly warned that prolonged disruption of fertiliser shipments through the Strait of Hormuz could trigger serious global food shortages, food inflation and reduced crop yields, as we pointed out in a previous comment. FAO officials have said that the crisis threatens global agrifood systems because up to 30–45% of internationally traded fertilisers and large volumes of energy supplies move through the strait. This alone is proof of the enormity of the problem the conflict has created for the world.

The general consensus is that a way out is to ensure that the ongoing ceasefire and negotiations create conditions for the return of the status quo ante in the Hormuz Strait soon. However, that will be possible only if both the US and Iran soften their stands. Iran has asked the US to end its naval blockade, and this can be considered a fair demand, and if the US complies, Iran will be compelled to reopen the Hormuz chokepoint, paving the way for further de-escalation and helping bring down oil and fertiliser prices. That alone may not help resolve the conflict, which is far more complex than it looks, but the resumption of international navigation through the Hormuz Strait will give a tremendous boost to the peace process, which is said to be in the doldrums, with both sides resorting to brinkmanship.

Friday 8th May, 2026

Pity the land that needs heroes, Brecht has famously said. Some countries have gone to the extent of elevating political greenhorns to positions of power, expecting them to play messianic roles, simply because of their popularity in the tinsel world and adeptness at uttering Goebbelsian lies and making Machiavellian promises.

Tamil Nadu voted overwhelmingly for Vijay (Joseph Vijay) recently. However, his party, the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) could not secure an outright majority, and his political journey has had a bumpy start. He has been left with no alternative but to resort to political horse trading to form a coalition government. The Congress has reportedly made overtures to the TVK, and a political marriage of convenience is said to be likely.

The problem with most actors-turned-politicians in this region is that they tend to consider real world politics as a mere extension of their celluloid reality, and, worse, act accordingly. True, there are some exceptions, but they only prove the rule.

We could have ignored Vijay’s theatrics and campaign slogans, and considered them problems confined to Tamil Nadu, if not for their implications for Sri Lanka. Vijay obviously lacks experience to navigate complex political and economic issues. Tamil Nadu actors’ stunts in films defy the laws of physics and are hugely entertaining, but they are of no use in the real world vis-à-vis economic and political challenges. Among Vijay’s campaign promises that helped him garner enough popular support to win the recent election are a 2,500-rupee monthly allowance for women heads of households, six free cylinders of LPG a year for families, one sovereign gold ring each for all newborns, a 15,000-rupee education assistance allowance for mothers of schoolchildren, a 4,000-rupee monthly allowance for unemployed graduates, Rs. 5 lakh as new start-up loans, and Rs 25 lakh for biz launch loans. These promises, if ever implemented, will cost Tamil Nadu more than 50% of its annual tax revenue, according to Indian media reports. So, all signs are that most of them will go unfulfilled, and Vijay and TVK will have their work cut out to retain popular support. Trouble for Sri Lanka is bound to begin when they struggle to shore up their approval ratings.

Sri Lanka is the last resort of all failed Tamil Nadu politicians, as it were. Vijay has already called for ‘retrieving’ Katchatheevu. He is emulating his predecessors. He is likely to intensify his Katchatheevu campaign and flog the fishermen’s issue harder when the going gets tough for him so as to divert public attention from burning problems. The BJP will do everything in its power to undermine the TVK and recover lost ground in Tamil Nadu, but Vijay’s interests and those of the BJP overlap where Katchatheevu, the delayed Provincial Council elections, devolution, ethnic issues in Sri Lanka, and illegal fishing are concerned.

The JVP’s India policy has undergone a sea change over the years. Unlike in the past, when it dismissed India’s concerns about Sri Lankan issues as intentions of domination, the JVP is today subservient to India. The JVP-led government will therefore have to address the issues raised by the BJP and the TVK, devolution being prominent among them.

The JVP made short work of one Vijay in the late 1980s, as it considered him an obstacle in its path.It gunned down Vijaya (or Wijaya) Kumaratunga, popularly known as Vijay, because he led the political forces supportive of devolution and the Provincial Council system. About 38 years on, it has another Vijay to contend with, albeit in India, and the issues which it sought to resolve by killing Vijay have not gone away. The JVP-led government is under Indian pressure to implement the 13th Amendment fully and hold the much-delayed PC polls.

There have been various analyses of Vijay’s victory in Tamil Nadu and its implications for Sri Lanka. Some analysts have stressed the need for the JVP-NPP government to view challenges arising from the rise of the TVK as opportunities and strategise to enlist the support of Tamil Nadu as a development partner. This no doubt should be on Sri Lanka’s agenda. However, prudence demands that while being cautiously optimistic, Sri Lanka remain mindful of the possibility of having to deal with a more hostile Tamil Nadu under Vijay’s leadership and find ways and means of dealing with such an eventuality.