The world’s oldest constitutional democracy turned 250 on the Fourth of July, two weeks ago. It is a rather quirky coincidence that in the 250^th year of its largely successful existence, America should be having as its president the most unfitting person in history, and that in keeping with the American trait for mixing serious purposes with fun and play, it should also be hosting perhaps the largest edition of the World Cup Football Tournament. The triple coincidence – the anniversary, Trump presidency and the World Cup – is not without some meaning.

The essence of the Trump presidency has been to recast America in the mould of Trump’s own vulgar and outlandish presuppositions about who belongs in America and what the rest of the world owes to America. Internal exclusions and external isolation have always been a part of American history, but Trump’s project has been to make them America’s sole and permanent purpose. Make America great again by making it more intolerant and more imperfect, as opposed to pursuing the country’s founding purpose of striving towards a “more perfect union.”

Trump is also giving a new meaning to America’s exceptional isolationism by slashing immigration, deporting American residents whom he and his Maga cabal don’t like for the vilest of reasons, withdrawing from global agencies that America created and closing down American agencies providing global services, imposing tariffs on every country and deeming them as payment for America’s past generosity under weak presidents, and threatening neighbours with annexation while militarily attacking others.

2007: Lionel Messi holding baby Lamine Yamal

He got his nose bloodied after listening to Netanyahu and starting a fight with Iran, made a fool of himself by first announcing that he will provide safe passage to ships through the Strait of Hormuz and charge them 20% of their cargo value, and immediately withdrawing it after being told that it was a lamebrained and impractical idea. The Iranian Foreign Minister tweeted that it is a good approach but 20% is too high! The reality is that Iran has effectively closed the strait again, after Trump said his ceasefire with Iran is over, and there is nothing the might of America can do about it – thanks solely to Trump.

The world, not to mention America, are back to where it was soon after February 28. And Trump is back to February 28, with more attacks on Iran while telling Israel to keep out of it and hoping that Iran will soon come to the table. The Iranian regime is insisting that it is Trump and not Iran who will have to blink first again. For the rest of the world and the people of America, fuel and fertilizer prices are again rising along with the prices of goods and services that depend on them.

Meanwhile, the Fourth of July marking America’s 250^th Anniversary of American independence has come and gone. Every year, Americans cheer and celebrate the Fourth of July as a civic festival in their local communities. Families take their children to Washington, Philadelphia, Gettysburg and other historical sites to learn and appreciate their history. The state hardly gets involved and there are no military parades or flights of fighter jets. Trump changed it last year by holding a military parade in Washington but it did not excite anyone. The army had to go to extraordinary lengths to protect the city roads from cracking up while parading its massive tanks. This year Trump’s efforts to turn the 250^th anniversary celebration into a personal vanity affair spectacularly backfired and what was becoming a national damp squib. Not so ironically, it was rescued by the 2026 World Cup tournament that began on Thursday, June 11 and will end on Sunday, July 19.

World Cup Down to the Wire

The 23^rd FIFA World Cup hosted by America, Mexico and Canada with matches played in 16 cities – 11 in the US, three in Mexico and two in Canada – became a significant occasion for the US. It provided an antidote to Trump’s vain and unsuccessful usurpation of the country’s 250^th anniversary, even as it became an occasion to show the world that there is still much more likeable about America in spite of all the ugly MAGA makeover that Trump has been giving it from the White House.

What is unique about America is that it is the first and the only immigrant country to become a superpower in world history. An open door country with a melting pot ethos, America has consistently struggled at every stage of its evolution to defy the homogeneity of the privileged, and to celebrate across-the-board heterogeneity in every aspect of the human condition. If the purpose of Trump’s presidency has been to break this arc of American history, the World Cup became an occasion to demonstrate that the arc will continue in spite of Trump.

The World Cup was an eye opener to both resident Americans and visiting football worshippers. Except for the Olympics sporting events, competitive sports in America are dominated by (American) Football, Baseball, Basketball and (Ice) Hockey, and the competitions are all limited to American teams along with some Canadian teams especially in Hockey. The extent of any international connection is limited to allowing players from Central America and Japan for Baseball, and from Canada and Eastern Europe for Hockey. In other words, American notions of exclusivity and self-sufficiency seamlessly extend to the world of sports from the universe of politics and economics.

The arrival of the World Cup, 32 years after America hosted its first and only World Cup in 1994, was an eye opener to American sports fans and the general public. This was international sports at their doorstep and an occasion to live through the experience of witnessing the world’s best exponents of the game fiercely displaying their talents in friendly competitions. The visiting fans who thronged the games brought life and diversity and retail spin offs to the cities where the games were played. The visitors to a person, both players and fans, were enthralled by the magnificence of America’s sporting facilities and the range of amusement and entertainment the host cities offered.

The tournament also became a smorgasbord of different nationalisms from around the world but manifesting pride and passion in support of national football teams and not boastful belligerence about national militaries. The teams were also more equal on the pitch than their governments are at the UN podium. The better teams of the day won in the end but every team made each game as competitive as it could. Small countries from West Asia, Africa and little Atlantic islands went boot-to-boot with European and South American giants and kept everyone guessing until the final whistle. The really big Asian countries – China, India, Indonesia etc. – could not qualify for admission, while Asia’s two industrial giants – Japan and South Korea – acquitted themselves well even though they were unlucky not to go beyond the group stage.

The team that America fielded should not have been allowed to represent the country based on Trump’s executive negation of all DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) programs in government and in federal hiring. But it did and the US team would have made the 1960s promoters of cross-racial ‘rainbow’ alliances proud. Similar rainbow teams have become the norm of almost all West European countries and England.

Players of colour have become superstars in western football teams and have quite clearly internalized natal nationalism as opposed to being assimilated by them. They are all descendants of birthright citizens of the old empires, a legal tradition that is more universal and anterior to the abolition of slavery and the 14^th Amendment in the US, as Chief Justice John Roberts reminded the Trump Administration in overturning its executive order to end the recognition of birthright citizenship in America. A practice that is shared by three dozen countries.

The US Team at the World Cup began as a promising outfit playing with flair and freewheeling style and could have gone as far as the Quarter Finals to play Spain. The team was undone prematurely by Trump’s sleazy intervention with FIFA bosses to suspend the Red Card penalty ban of a US player, Folarin Balogun, for a foul he had committed in an earlier match. Trump’s role and the penalty suspension created a public uproar and in the upshot an inspired Belgium trounced the US whose players performed very poorly perhaps under the weight of the embarrassment that their President had inflicted on them.

The World Cup tournament itself is now down to the final match, the 104^th of the tournament, on Sunday, July 19^th, between the reigning World Cup champions, Argentina, and Spain, the current Euro Cup holders. The match for the Third Place will be played on Saturday (July 18), between France who lost 0-2 to Spain in a surprisingly one-sided game, and England who went down in a heartbreaking 1-2 defeat to Argentina after leading 1-0 up till five minutes before the final whistle.

The French were the tournament’s cracking team till they came up against Spain who had been belabouring until then. The English team had bestirred all of England back home with their gritty win against Mexico in its national stadium full of 85,000 spectators, but once again came up short in the penultimate game.

The final between Argentina and Spain will feature the 39 year old Argentinian maestro, Lionel Messi, looking to win his second World Cup, and the 19 year old Spanish prodigy, Lamine Yamal. The football internet is abuzz with a 2007 photograph showing then 20 year old Messi carrying Yamal as an infant during a photo session in Barcelona, Spain, where Messi played club football. On Sunday, in New York/New Jersey, they will face each other in a spirited encounter for the biggest prize in sports.

by Rajan Philips

 Spanish Israeli entrepreneur Simon Max Astandoust, a fourth-generation member of the renowned Astan fishing family, has endured years of legal battles, business setbacks and the loss of millions of dollars after investing in Sri Lanka’s fishing industry. Yet, despite the challenges, he has chosen to stay and rebuild.

 In an interview with the Sunday Island, the founder and CEO of Seamax Ceylon (Pvt) Ltd speaks about his struggle, the restoration of his state-of-the-art factory vessel Astan II, and his plans to introduce cutting-edge seafood technology to Sri Lanka.

 Q: You began operations in Sri Lanka in 2018. What was your original vision and investment?

 A: We started operations in 2018 with an initial investment of around US$1 million. Over time, that investment grew into several million dollars because we believed Sri Lanka had enormous potential in the fishing industry.

 My original intention was to develop a project through the Board of Investment (BOI) and introduce new technology to the country. However, the Government at the time encouraged us to work directly with it instead. We believed that this partnership would help us move forward faster and create something unique for Sri Lanka.

Overhauled Astan II

 Our goal was to operate within the harbour and establish a modern fishing operation centred around advanced technology and sustainable seafood processing.

 Q: What challenges did you face after starting operations?

 A: Around eight to 18 months after we began our investment, COVID-19 hit. The pandemic created enormous difficulties. In countries such as Spain and the United States, governments provided financial support to help businesses survive. Here, the Government itself was facing a difficult economic situation and was unable to provide similar assistance.

 Initially, we were told that there would be a grace period and that we would not be pressured for payments as long as we maintained our workforce and kept the operation alive. But later, that understanding changed, and demands for payments began despite the fact that we had a 15-year agreement.

 That was the beginning of the major conflict.

 Q: How did the change of Government affect your operations?

A: When a new Government came into power, the 15-year agreement signed with the previous administration was not recognized. The factory was closed and legal action was initiated against us.

 This was extremely difficult because we had invested heavily based on a long-term agreement. We had built infrastructure, brought in technology and created employment opportunities.

 During this period, while the vessel was caught up in legal disputes, a group of people attempted to take control of the ship. One of the most painful experiences was that some lawyers who had been working for us changed sides and supported those attempting to take the vessel.

Simon Max Astandoust

 The legal battle continued for years and only concluded in 2025.

 Q: Your vessel, Astan II, is central to your investment. What happened to it during this period?

 A:  Astan II is not just a fishing vessel. It is a huge factory vessel with a complete processing facility inside. It was designed to bring a completely new level of technology to Sri Lanka’s fishing industry.

 Unfortunately, because it remained idle during the legal proceedings, it suffered significant damage. Ships cannot simply sit in a harbour for months or years without proper operation and maintenance. The Sri Lankan weather conditions are particularly harsh on vessels.

The vessel deteriorated badly, but after we regained control, we decided to completely restore it. It was overhauled.

 Q: How much did the restoration cost and what work was involved?

 A:  The restoration cost approximately US$1.5 million and took about one year, beginning in 2025. The vessel was almost a complete rebuild. One of the biggest technical challenges was repairing the three generators. Because the harbour did not provide electricity, these generators had been running continuously to maintain the vessel. Over time, this caused significant wear and tear.

 Finding replacement parts was another major challenge. Many of these parts are not imported into Sri Lanka, so every component had to be sourced from different countries and brought in individually.

 A team of around 14 to 20 people worked on the restoration, including a Sri Lankan chief engineer and local professional deck crew. Their expertise and dedication were extremely important.

 Today, the vessel is in brand-new condition.

 Q: You mentioned that the absence of diplomatic representation made your struggle more difficult. Why?

 A: I hold Spanish and Israeli citizenship, and neither Spain nor Israel has an embassy in Sri Lanka. Normally, when a foreign investor faces serious difficulties, an ambassador can engage with authorities and help protect the investor’s interests.

 In my case, I had to face everything alone. I had to deal directly with government institutions and the legal system through my lawyers. Having diplomatic support would have made a significant difference. But ultimately, I had to rely on the courts and the legal process.

 Fortunately, the maritime judges understood the complexity of the situation and the importance of maritime law. Their fair approach restored some of my confidence.

 Q: Your vessel uses unique -70°C “Ultra-Fresh” technology. Can you explain how it works?

 A:  This is one of the most exciting parts of our project. The technology comes from Japan and is only about two years old. Traditional freezing methods often affect the quality of fish because the freezing process is slower and damages the texture. This technology works differently. It uses a glazing process where the fish is frozen from the outside, creating a protective layer.

Within approximately two hours, the fish is completely frozen. This process eliminates bacteria and preserves the quality of the fish.

When the fish is later defrosted using the correct method, it is almost exactly like fresh-caught fish from the ocean. The taste, texture and quality are preserved. At present, nobody else in Sri Lanka is carrying out this type of ultra-fresh freezing technology onboard a fishing vessel.

 Q: What advantage will this technology give Sri Lanka?

 A: Sri Lanka has excellent fishing resources, but we need to move beyond simply catching fish. The future is about value addition, quality control and accessing premium international markets.

With this technology, Sri Lanka can export seafood at a much higher value because customers will receive a product that maintains the quality of freshly caught fish.

 This is not just about one company. It is about introducing a new concept to the country’s fishing industry.

 Q: After everything you have experienced, why did you decide to continue investing in Sri Lanka?

 A: I come from a family of fishermen. This is my fourth generation, and my son represents the fifth generation. Fishermen are not people who give up easily. The sea teaches you resilience. You face storms, difficulties and uncertainty, but you continue. Of course, there were moments when I lost faith. Losing millions of dollars and spending years in court is not easy for anyone.

But eventually, the justice system gave me confidence again. The maritime judges understood the situation and treated the case fairly. That showed me that there are people in Sri Lanka who understand the importance of protecting investment and respecting the law. That is why I decided to continue.

 Many people told me that, despite the difficulties, the Sri Lankan judiciary would ultimately deliver justice. At the time, after years of uncertainty, it was difficult to know what the outcome would be. But in the end, that is exactly what happened. The courts examined the facts and delivered a fair judgment.

 The maritime judges understood the complexity of the situation and the importance of maritime law. Their fair approach restored my confidence—not only in the legal system but also in Sri Lanka itself.

 Q: What are your future plans for Seamax Ceylon?

 A: Our plan is to expand significantly. We intend to bring two or three more large factory vessels to Sri Lanka, along with five local fishing vessels. We also plan to establish a new processing factory near the beach. However, this time we will work through the Board of Investment rather than entering into a direct agreement with the Government.

 The BOI provides a structured framework for investors, and we believe this is the right way forward. My son Sam, who is the CEO of our US-based company, will also return to Sri Lanka to help introduce successful business concepts and support the next stage of development.

 Q: What keeps you motivated after such a difficult journey?

 A:The answer is simple: we do not give up. I come from a family of fishermen. This is my fourth generation, and my son represents the fifth generation. Fishermen understand struggle. You cannot control the ocean, but you learn how to survive. You face storms, difficulties and uncertainty, but you continue moving forward.

 I have lost money, faced difficult times and experienced moments of disappointment. But I never stopped believing in the potential of Sri Lanka. One thing that gave me strength was the faith many people placed in the country’s judiciary. I was repeatedly told that the courts in Sri Lanka would deliver justice, and ultimately that belief was proven right. The maritime judges understood the situation and gave a fair decision based on the law.

That experience reminded me that, despite challenges, Sri Lanka has institutions and people who respect justice. That is why I decided not only to stay but also to invest again.

For me, this is not merely a business project. It is about resilience, trust and proving that when you believe in something, you continue fighting until you succeed.

by Saman Indrajith ✍️

The office of the Leader of the Opposition is today regarded as one of the indispensable institutions of parliamentary democracy. As the principal critic of the Government and the head of the alternative administration, the office occupies a central place in the Westminster tradition adopted by many Commonwealth countries. Yet in Sri Lanka, this institution did not emerge with independence. For nearly three years after the first parliamentary elections of 1947, the country functioned without a recognised Leader of the Opposition. While Parliament debated citizenship, independence and nation-building, no single person officially led the Government’s opponents. This remarkable parliamentary gap, now largely forgotten, shaped the country’s early parliamentary democracy.

No opposition by design

When the State Council was established in 1931 following the Donoughmore constitutional reforms, it lacked what we today call an Opposition. Thus, there was no Leader of the Opposition. There was no party system and candidates contested in their individual capacity. After distributing the Members – elected and appointed – into committees, a Board of Ministers, was set up, the leader of each committee being elected as a Minister. As every member belonged to a committee, there was no chance for one to officially be a member of the opposition.

In this semi-parliamentary method, among the very few who agitated against the Colonial regime and local Board of Ministers was E. W. Perera, who came to be known as the “Unofficial Leader of the Opposition.” Perera, also dubbed the “Lion of Kotte,” was effectively defeated by an unknown in the next State Council in 1936, and for the next 11 years there existed no “unofficial” or “official” opposition leader. In the meantime, D. S. Senanayake climbed the ladder and successfully negotiated a deal of Dominion Independence with Whitehall and Lord Soulbury.

Soulbury reforms and the 1947 election

The Soulbury reforms abolished the State Council and established the “House of Representatives” or what we popularly call the “Parliament (Lower House)” as well as the Senate (Upper House). Sri Lanka, like most Commonwealth countries, continued the Westminster System of Parliament. After the UNP created a coalition with a few Independents and minority parties in the first election in 1947, it became the Government and its leader D. S. Senanayake became Ceylon’s first Prime Minister. All the other parties and Independents not in the Government were identified as the “Opposition.” Everyone outside that coalition was, by definition, “the Opposition”.

The LSSP (10 seats, the largest single bloc), G. G. Ponnambalam’s All Ceylon Tamil Congress (seven), the Ceylon Indian Congress (six), Colvin R. de Silva’s Bolshevik Samasamaja Party (five), the Communist Party (three), and a scattering of independents. Accordingly, the LSSP Leader, Dr. N. M. Perera was expected to be Leader of the Opposition in 1947. However, this did not happen as expected until 1950.

In his monumental work The Constitution of Ceylon, Sir Ivor Jennings stated: “The Opposition will almost certainly be amorphous for some time, for it consists merely of those Members who, for diverse and often contradictory reasons, have no confidence in the Government. Accordingly, it is not yet true that the Opposition is ‘His Majesty’s Alternative Government’, and the tradition of the House of Commons, which assumes that one Government is ‘in’ and the other ‘out’, is not capable of application. It is nevertheless necessary for somebody to take the lead against the Government, though instead of a formal Leader of the Opposition he may be one Member on one issue and another on a separate issue.” (1949, p. 69)

However, there was no provision of the appointment and role of the Leader of the Opposition in the 1948 constitution of Ceylon drafted by Jennings himself. This absence is continued both in the 1972 and 1978 Constitutions. This omission was not accidental. Like the British constitution upon which it was modeled, the Soulbury Constitution assumed that many essential institutions of parliamentary government would evolve through convention rather than statutory enactment. The office thus emerged not because the Constitution required it, but because Parliament itself recognized its practical necessity. However, it may be worthwile for future lawmakers to consider including such provision either when the constitution is amended or when a constitution is implemented.

Why the delay?

Unlike in Britain, where the Government and Opposition had evolved within a relatively mature two-party system, Sri Lanka’s first Parliament consisted of numerous parties and independents whose ideological differences prevented the emergence of a coherent alternative government. Consequently, the absence of an Opposition Leader was not simply a constitutional omission but a reflection of the fragmented nature of early post-independence politics.

With the delay of electing an Opposition Leader, The Ceylon Daily News wrote the following in its editorial on October 3, 1947: “Political circles are now discussing the selection of a Leader of the Opposition, an office which is seemingly as difficult to fill as an episcopal see… Now the idea of an Opposition is an integral part of parliamentary government and is reflected in the very architectural design of the British House of Commons, which has afforded the model for the House of Representatives in our Parliament. The Government and its supporters sit to the right of the Speaker, the Opposition is ranged against them on his left. A gangway divides the two, and the whole set-up imposes the necessity and encourages the emergence of what is essentially a two-party system of government; that is to say, the Government party, forming the majority of the House, on the one hand, and on the other hand a block of groups opposed to the Government for debating purposes and for the ordinary business of legislation… His [Leader of the Opposition] function is ornamental, and his very existence is the spontaneous growth of the needs of an individual legislature. But what about this first legislature in Ceylon? Has there emerged from the Opposition benches one among the Opposition members who has proved his ability and naturally emerges as the best spearhead of attack in the criticism of the Government which it is the function of the Opposition to undertake?”

The Opposition of 1947 was a very weak one partly because there were so many Leftist parties who could not agree with each other. Similarly, the left-wing parties remained divided over the office of Leader of the Opposition. AJ Wilson said in October 1969 in (“Oppositional Politics in Ceylon 1947-1968” Government and Opposition, Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 56) While the LSSP, as the largest opposition party, supported its recognition, the BSP opposed it and the Communist Party dismissed it as a “reactionary British convention.” (The Ceylon Daily News, October 13, 1947)

For three years after the parliament gathered in 1947, there was no recognised Leader of the Opposition. No one in the Opposition or the Government seemed to have been concerned over this matter. Independence was received in February 1948 and the approval of the Ceylon Citizenship Act No. 18 occurred while there was no Opposition Leader in Sri Lanka. Sir Francis Molamure repeatedly drew attention to the absence of a recognised Leader of the Opposition. In early 1950, he warned that unless the Opposition elected one, he would appoint a leader himself to ensure the orderly and efficient conduct of parliamentary business.

N. M. Perera breaks the deadlock

It was only after the LSSP and BSP merged in June 1950 that there was agreement to elect a Leader of the Opposition although the Communist Party continued to object. At the meeting on July 5, 1950, C. Suntheralingam (MP for Vavuniya) successfully moved that the office be created, with only Pieter Keuneman, the Communist Party whip, voting against the motion before walking out in protest. Suntheralingam then proposed Dr. N. M. Perera for the post and was seconded by Wilmot Perera (MP for Horana), leader of the Maha Jana Peramuna. The motion was carried unanimously by the remaining members, including Florence Senanayake and Kusuma Gunawardene, formally recognising Dr. N. M. Perera as the first Leader of the Opposition.

This was the first time that Sri Lanka had an Opposition Leader. The office of the Leader of the Opposition, though today regarded as an essential institution of parliamentary democracy, is a comparatively recent development in many countries. Even in the United Kingdom–the birthplace of the Westminster system–the office received formal statutory recognition only in 1937 through the Ministers of the Crown Act, despite having existed by convention for decades. Other Commonwealth democracies followed gradually. However, Australia recognized the office in the 1920s, New Zealand in 1936. What is less known and discussed is that Sri Lanka was the first Asian country to have a formal office of the Leader of the Opposition and that Dr. N. M. Perera was Asia’s first Opposition Leader.

Ironically, India recognised the Office of Leader of the Opposition (in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha) only in 1969. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Singapore, Maldives adopted the office much later. Countries such as Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Indonesia have never had an Opposition Leader. In this context, Sri Lanka occupies a notable position in democracy. Sri Lanka was the first country in Asia and among the earlier Commonwealth nations to provide formal recognition to the Leader of the Opposition.

An estranged Government and Opposition

However, the Communist Party continued to make statements opposing the office of Leader of the Opposition. Pieter Keuneman opposed the post stating that it was “based on the convenient theory for the ruling class that the opposition should be part and parcel of the Government, fundamentally accepting the continuance of the existing social order but only disagreeing about the best method of continuing it.” (The Ceylon Daily News, June 22, 1950).

The Communist Party’s reluctance to recognise Parliament as the supreme forum for determining the nation’s affairs prompted the UNP to adopt a firm stance towards its parliamentary representatives. This position was clearly articulated by Sir John Kotelawala, then Minister of Transport and Works, during a parliamentary speech on June 9, 1950. “Our Opposition today is an Opposition which does not believe in the democratic system. That is why the Government finds its task so difficult. We have to fight the Opposition not as an Opposition but as enemies of the State…once they got in they would not get out. There is no guarantee you would ever have a chance to go to the ballot again.” (The Ceylon Daily News, June 12, 1950).

Accordingly, since the 1947 general election, a deeply strained relationship existed between the UNP Government and the left-wing opposition. Viewing the Marxist parties with suspicion, the Government was often reluctant to consult them on parliamentary affairs, while the Left frequently responded with boycotts and public protests.

At the same time, the Left sought to unite its fragmented forces in the hope of presenting a credible alternative government. The merger of the Bolshevik Samasamaja Party and the Lanka Sama Samaja Party in June 1950 was a significant step, although it was soon weakened by Philip Gunawardena’s breakaway to form the Viplavakari Lanka Sama Samaja Party. Despite periodic attempts at cooperation, ideological differences prevented lasting unity among the Marxist parties. Subsequently G. G. Ponnambalam and C. Suntheralingam defected to the Government and were made Ministers in the Cabinet of D. S. Senanayake. Those of the Ceylon Tamil Congress Party who were against Ponnambalam’s move formed the Federal Party and remained in the Opposition.

A decisive shift occurred in July 1951 when S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, Minister of Health and Local Government, resigned from the UNP Government and crossed the floor. His dissatisfaction with the Government’s approach to language, religion, and social policy culminated in the formation of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party in September 1951. Presenting itself as a moderate alternative between the UNP and the Marxist Left, the SLFP quickly attracted support from those dissatisfied with both camps. The Left, recognizing Bandaranaike’s growing appeal, signalled its willingness to cooperate electorally, while simultaneously attempting to preserve its own identity by advocating a united left front and pursuing parliamentary means to achieve political power.

The office comes of age, yet weak opposition

These developments fundamentally altered the character of the Opposition and laid the foundations for a more organised challenge to the UNP in the years ahead. None of the opposition parties were a match for new UNP leader, Dudley Senanayake, who gained public sympathy with the death of D. S. Senanayake. However, even if Senanayake had lived, none of the Left parties or the SLFP were planning to win the election. The SLFP fielded just 48 candidates for the 95 constituencies in 1952. Even had the SLFP won all 48 constituencies, it would have been a hung parliament.

Ultimately, the UNP won 54 seats and the SLFP and LSSP won nine seats each. The other parties including the CP and ACTC won under five seats. Therefore, just as 1947, the Opposition was a weak one. As the SLFP had just over 55,000 votes more than the LSSP, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike was elected Opposition Leader without much delay. N. M. Perera, Pieter Keneuman, and Philip Gunawardena served in the Opposition, while Colvin R. de Silva lost his seat. With the UNP regime both under Dudley Senanayake and later Sir John Kotelawala losing public support and the creation of the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna by S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, a strong opposition out of parliament was created for the first time.

In 1956, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike’s Mahajana Eksath Peramuna comprehensively defeated the UNP at an election where the MEP and the left parties had a no contest pact. The UNP regime was completely out of touch with the demands and needs of the grassroots. Bandaranaike’s MEP rose to the front with its pro-Sinhala nationalist stance and swept the polls, winning 51 seats. The UNP had fewer seats (eight) than the LSSP (14 seats) and Federal Party (10 seats). Thus, N. M. Perera was elected Opposition Leader again. On this occasion, he did not have to wait for three years!

Just as in 1947, the Opposition under N. M. Perera was a weak one. Divided with the other Leftist parties, the UNP, ACTC, Federal party, etc., it bore little challenge to the government. However, the UNP led by J. R. Jayewardene, later joined by Dudley Senanayake from 1957 onward, started campaigning to rebuild the UNP. By mid-1959, the Bandaranaike regime despite having a majority was disintegrating within. At the height of all the turmoil, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike was assassinated. W. Dahanayake, who succeeded him, was perhaps aiding the opposition and not his government, when he repeatedly sacked most of his ministers and later resigned from the SLFP forming his own party with the government about to be oust,

Dahanayake dissolved the parliament in late 1959. In the March 1960 election, the UNP was both satisfied and disappointed. Despite winning 50 seats, it had no majority. Dudley Senanayake, who became Prime Minister again realized his regime was short lived. The specialty of this election was that for the first time a single Opposition Party had more than 15 seats. The SLFP led by C. P. de Silva had no fewer than 46 seats. Thus, the UNP lost the throne speech and a new election was called in July. By then, Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike had emerged as the SLFP leader. A wave of sympathy plus a no contest pact with the left aided her to win 75 of 151 seats (the electorates were increased significantly in 1960).

Though the UNP won a plurality of the overall vote, it retained just 30 seats. Mrs. Bandaranaike managed to secure support of some minority parties and later the LSSP, making three of its members including N. M. Perera, Cabinet Ministers. This period, 1960-64, was the first time in Sri Lanka since independence that an opposition that could rightfully call itself an “alternative government” was formed.

Dudley Senanayake was elected Leader of the Opposition. The UNP, both in and out of parliament, played a major role in policy matters and successfully created among voters the perception of an alternative through them. By late 1964, the Government was weak with a string of manipulative and shrewd strategies led by J. R. Jayewardene, the Government lost its mandate by just one parliamentary vote. It was the first time in independent Sri Lanka that a Government was ousted by an Opposition coalition. Thereafter, each government other than the UNP regime of 1977, did have a strong Opposition within the chambers of the parliament.

By Avishka Mario Senewiratne, Editor, The Ceylon Journal