Features

Apportioned Seats in Parliament and the “National List”

Published

4 years ago

2022/07/3

by Prof. Savitri Goonesekere

The recent appointment of well known entrepreneur and businessman Dhammika Perera to a seat in Parliament on the resignation of former minister Basil Rajapakse was challenged in several petitions in the Supreme Court. These petitions mainly alleged a violation of the fundamental right to equality, nondiscrimination, and non arbitrary decision making in the filling of a vacancy created in regard to a seat in Parliament occupied (not through election,) but APPORTIONMENT of seats, based on the votes cast at a General election. This concept of apportionment of 29 of the total number of seats in the electoral system of proportional representation was introduced into the Constitution’s provisions governing elections and the Peoples’ franchise, by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in 1988.

The appointment of Mr. Perera to Parliament on an apportioned seat, in the midst of an unprecedented and grave political and economic crisis generated public controversy. Some considered his appointment a welcome effort to bring entrepreneurial experience into government at this time. Others viewed the appointment negatively and challenged its validity in these petitions in the Supreme Court. Mr. Basil Rajapaksa’s appointment had not been challenged in this manner. Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka had also held an apportioned seat, which had been challenged unsuccessfully in Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) v. Kabir Hashim in SC Appl. 54/2016. The possibility of bringing experts into Parliament through the apportioned seat process on the national list has been discussed even recently as a useful response to the current crisis.

The current petitions are of public concern, as they raised an important issue on the People’s right to franchise, and the meaning of Constitutional and legal regulations applicable to apportionment of seats in Parliament, on the basis of the Peoples’ exercise of their voting rights. The case was an opportunity to clarify the law and practice on this important topic relating to the franchise, as well as the eligibility of persons to occupy 29 apportioned seats in Parliament.

The petitions in the Dhammika Perera case were dismissed by the Supreme Court, at the preliminary procedural stage of granting leave to proceed with the litigation. No reasons were given for the decision, though the court heard arguments of Counsel in support of and in opposition to the petition. However the Court clarified that the refusal of leave to proceed was a split decision, with one dissent in a bench of three judges. Since no reasons were given, the approach of the majority and the dissenting judge to the legal issues raised by Counsel in regard to appointments to apportioned seats in Parliament, remains unknown to the public.

The decision of the court not to write a judgment and give reasons for refusing leave after hearing Counsel in the Dhammika Perera case at this preliminary procedural stage, follows the practice of the Court in exercising the discretion given in Article 126 (2) of the Constitution. The right to obtain relief for violation of a fundamental right is a right guaranteed by Article 17 and Articles 126 (2) and (4). The Supreme Court has been given a discretion by Article 126 (2) to decide whether it will grant leave to proceed with the application for relief and remedy for alleged violations of fundamental rights. This follows a tradition in Common law jurisdictions to ensure that courts are not overburdened in litigation, also reflecting a policy approach on avoiding unnecessary costs of litigation. Yet there is also jurisprudence in the Supreme Court indicating a different approach to the granting of leave to proceed.

In the Shirani Bandaranyake Appointment to the Supreme Court Case (1997 1 SLR 92 ) the Chief Justice decided that the case raised an important issue of “general and public importance” and referred the applications to a bench of seven judges. Justice Mark Fernando speaking for the court said that “having regard to the complexity and gravity of the questions involved, Counsel for both the petitioners and respondents were heard in support of and opposition to the petitions.” (p 93). Justice Fernando and Justice Perera wrote separate judgments, in a unanimous decision of the Court to refuse leave to proceed, creating important jurisprudence on this subject.

If this approach articulated by Justice Mark Fernando guides the Supreme Court, and is clarified in Rules of the Supreme Court, petitioners and the public will know the basis on which the Supreme Court refuses leave to proceed with a Fundamental Rights Application, relating to an important issue of public concern. The issue of apportionment of seats in Parliament is an issue of public concern to voters, just as appointments to high public office, as in the Shirani Bandaranayaka case also raised issues of public concern. Giving reasons can only enhance the stature of the court as an indispensable institution in the administration of justice in a Constitution that perceives the courts as exercising the “judicial power of the People” [Article 4 (c)]. This was also referred to in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Dissolution of Parliament case (2018.) Citing an American case, Baker v Car (1962), His Lordship HNJ Perera CJ said “the court’s authority possessed of neither purse nor sword ultimately rests on sustained public confidence.”(Sampanthan v AG (2018) p 69).

The unresolved constitutional issue of appointments to Parliament on apportionment, and the National List.

Article 99A introduced by the 14th Amendment is very clear on the persons eligible to occupy apportioned seats after a general election. The meaning of this Article, in the context of the statute law also regulating elections i.e. the Parliamentary Election Act No. 1 of 1981 was the crux of the case argued by Counsel for the petitioners in the Dhammika Perera case. Geoffrey Alagaratnam PC former President of the Bar Association and other eminent lawyers who supported the petitions drew attention to the need to clarify the law on this important issue of public concern, because of a seeming conflict between the Constitutional provision (Article 99A) and Section 64 (5) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (1981).

Article 99A of the Constitution clearly states that persons allocated apportioned seats in Parliament based on the votes cast at a general election must be persons eligible to be MPs, whose name appears on a list submitted within the period of nominations, to the Commissioner of Elections. This list is now popularly known as the “National List,” from which a person may be nominated to hold a seat on the basis of apportionment and votes cast at the general elections. Article 99A also includes another category of persons who can hold such a seat. This is a person whose name is on an electoral list. Article 99A does not indicate that there is any other requirement of eligibility. It is therefore clear from Article 99A of the Constitution that both defeated candidates and persons on the National List are eligible to occupy apportioned seats.

The issue of defeated candidates occupying these seats is therefore an ethical rather than a legal or Constitutional issue. Consequently Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe is lawfully occupying the seat apportioned to the UNP, though he was defeated at the General Elections (2019) and also publicly stated that candidates defeated at a General election should not occupy seats apportioned to the party. However Article 99A as argued by Counsel in the Dhammika Perera case does not permit persons who are NOT on the National list submitted at the time of nominations, to be allocated apportioned seats in Parliament. The procedure set out in Article 99A is for the Commissioner of Elections to request a Secretary of a party to nominate persons to fill an apportioned seat. The language of 99A does not enable persons outside these categories to be considered eligible to hold these apportioned seats.

The popular idea that a party in Parliament, particularly at this time of a national crisis, can bring to Parliament professionals and others with special expertise, does not conform to the eligibility criterion set out in Article 99A. Therefore, persons who occupied these apportioned seats, whether Basil Rajapaksa or Sarath Fonseka also did not satisfy the Constitutional provision on eligibility to fill an apportioned seat. Article 99A seems to have been ignored in discussions on appointments to Parliament on the national list.

It is also clear that this Article 99A in the Constitution casts a duty and responsibility upon the Commissioner of Elections and the Secretary of a Political Party who nominates a person to an apportioned seat to abide by Article 99A. The Commissioner is a public servant, and he can be sued in a fundamental rights violation case relevant to wrongful allocation of an apportioned seat. The Secretary of a Political party is a Non-State actor but becomes liable for a wrong decision since our courts connect him to the inaction of the State or government agency in ensuring conformity to the Constitution. (Faiz v. AG (1995 1 SL 372).

The PROVISIONS in the Parliamentary Elections Act 1 of 1981 on VACANCIES to one of the 29 APPORTIONED seats in Parliament

The Parliamentary Elections Act (1981) Section 64 was amended consequent to the 14th Amendment in 1988. This provision in the principal enactment of 1981 dealt with filling of vacancies in seats in Parliament. When the 14th Amendment provided in Article 99A for a National list, and apportionment of seats, a new provision Section 64 (5) was introduced into the principal legislation, the Parliamentary Elections Act, to cover the procedure for filling vacancies to these apportioned seats. Section 64 (5) enacted by an amendment of 1988, i.e. the same year as the 14th Amendment, uses the words “Notwithstanding anything in the previous provisions” (ie on vacancies in regard to ordinary seats in the principle enactment of 1981), and sets out a PROCEDURE for filling vacancies in the special APPORTIONED seats created by Article 99A of the 14th Amendment. This 1988 provision Section 64 (5) added to the Parliamentary Elections Act indicates that in the case of persons occupying these apportioned seats, a vacancy is filled by “the Secretary General of Parliament informing the Commissioner of Elections who then requires the Secretary of the Party or leader of the relevant independent group apportioned a seat to nominate a member of such party ” to fill the vacancy. It is this language on PROCEDURE in filling vacancies to apportioned seats, that is now being used to argue that the Secretary of a party or leader of an independent group has complete discretion to appoint a person of his/ her choice to fill a vacancy.

Our Constitution has a controversial Article 16 (1) that has been consistently criticized, which does not permit judicial review of legislation once it is enacted by Parliament. Even in jurisdictions like India, South Africa and Canada, that permit judicial review of legislation for non-conformity with the Constitution, there is a legal concept of “Presumption of Constitutionality of legislation” and “reading down” legislation in order to follow a “purposive” interpretation that seeks to harmonize the basic law of the land, a country’s Constitution and legislation enacted by Parliament.

In Sri Lanka in the in the cases AG v Sampath SC Appeal 17/2013 and SC Ref 3/2008 the Supreme Court refused to follow a provision in the amended Penal Code of 1995 that provided for minimum sentences on the ground that the legislation could not be interpreted as restricting the judicial discretion of the Courts. Both these judgments held that the power of interpretation of law is embedded in the judicial power recognized in Art 4 (c) of the Constitution. This could not be restricted by ordinary law (in this case the amended Penal Code) since the Constitution is the Supreme Law. While this decision may be critiqued as in conflict with the restricted power of post enactment judicial review of legislation in our Constitution, the decisions indicate that there is a rationale for interpretations that seek to give predominance to the Constitution as the basic law of the land.

As Mr. Alagaratnam PC and other Counsel for the petitioners argued in the Dhammika Perera case, interpreting section 64 (5) of the Elections Act as giving an absolute discretion to the Secretary of a Party or the leader of an independent group apportioned a seat, to fill a vacancy in that seat, means that he/she can ignore completely the criterion on eligibility for apportioned seats, so clearly set out in the 14th Amendment, when it introduced a concept of apportioning 29 seats. This is surely a situation where an interpretation must be adopted that recognizes rather than undermines the significance of basic Constitutional provisions on eligibility to occupy a seat in the legislature.

In CPA vs Kabir Hashim, Sripavan CJ delivered a short judgment, when refusing leave to proceed in a petition challenging the nomination of Sarath Fonseka to a vacancy in an apportioned seat. His Lordship held that the issue of filling vacancies was not considered in Article 99A of the Constitution (on apportioned seats). This was regulated by the procedures detailed in Section 64 (5) of the Parliamentary Elections Act which, His Lordship said, gave a discretion to the secretary of the party or the leader of an independent group to nominate the person to fill a vacancy in an apportioned seat. His Lordship did not, with respect, address the substantive requirements for eligibility to occupy an apportioned seat, that were set out in Article 99A, when the 14th Amendment to the Constitution created this new category of seats in our Parliament. His Lordship’s opinion also takes a different approach to ordinary law vis- a-vis the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land,” in the cases referred to earlier.

It is with respect difficult to consider the decision in CPA v. Kabir Hashim as a judicial precedent that binds the Supreme Court, and prevents the matter being considered again in light of the specific language in Article 99A of the Constitution on eligibility to occupy an apportioned seat in Parliament. The Supreme Court has not followed a strict approach to the concept of “stare decisis” or binding precedent in a context where the structure of our courts has changed through both statutes and post independence Constitutions. The capacity of a superior court to contribute to development of the law without being fettered by previous decisions is reflected in important decisions of judges like Basnayaka CJ in Bandahamy v. Senanayake (1960) 62 NLR 313 and Wanasundere J in Walker Sons v Gunathilleke (1978- 19801 SLR 231.

Conclusion

It is in the public interest that the meaning of Article 99A and the policy on apportioning 29 seats in Parliament is clarified and addressed in any further amendments to the Constitution. Giving a complete discretion to a non-State official like a Party Secretary to choose persons entitled to fill vacancies in apportioned seats based on electoral votes, undermines voting rights. There is also the public interest in having persons qualified to occupy these apportioned seats being nominated initially, or in filling vacancies that are created later. More specific criterion of eligibility to take apportioned seats will also address the public interest in bringing a diverse range of experience to the legislature of the country through the National list. Such an amendment should also clearly make defeated candidates not eligible to occupy such seats.

The Dhammika Perera case raises once again an issue of public concern in regard to filling vacancies in the 29 apportioned seats in Parliament, either through the national or electoral list. Clarifying the law can be done without delay through the contemplated current Constitutional reforms. If this is not done, it seems important for the Chief Justice to appoint at least a Divisional Bench to provide a clear interpretation of Article 99A of the Constitution or point to the important need for clarity on this matter through a Constitutional amendment.

Litigation in the courts and ground realities indicate that there are many important unresolved issues that require constitutional reform. Even within the current Presidential system, the cumbersome procedure for impeachment of a President and also judges of the Supreme Court, and appointments on the National List, clearly require significant review and reform. And yet, ad hoc constitutional reform efforts like the 19th Amendment, 20th Amendment and the proposed 21st Amendment, seem to ignore public concern for reforms in these important areas. There should be public advocacy to ensure that all these areas are addressed immediately in the current constitutional reform process.

All News Advertisement

Features

Immediate industrial reforms critical for Sri Lanka’s future

Published

12 hours ago

2026/02/2

Thilina Walpola

Sri Lanka’s industrial sector has historically been an engine of growth, employment, and exports. Yet today, many industries face structural challenges, outdated practices, and intense global competition. Immediate and comprehensive policy reforms are, therefore, both urgent and essential—not only to revive growth but also to secure the future prosperity of the country.

Strengthening economic growth and diversification

Industries contribute significantly to GDP and export earnings. They create value-added products, reduce import dependency, and improve trade balances. Sri Lanka’s economy remains overly reliant on a few traditional sectors, such as garments and tea. Industrial reforms can encourage diversification into higher-value manufacturing, technology-driven production, and knowledge-based industries, increasing resilience against global shocks.

Job creation and social stability

The industrial sector is a major source of formal employment, particularly for youth and women. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) provide both direct and indirect jobs. Without reforms, job creation is limited, pushing young people to seek opportunities abroad, which drains talent and exacerbates social and economic inequality. By modernising industries and supporting SME growth, the country can create high-quality, sustainable employment, reduce migration pressures, and promote social stability.

Competitiveness and export expansion

Sri Lanka faces stiff competition from countries such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, and India in textiles, garments, and other manufacturing exports. Many local industries struggle with outdated technology, high production costs, and weak supply chains. Urgent reforms—such as improving industrial infrastructure, incentivising technology adoption, and simplifying trade regulations—are critical to enhancing competitiveness, retaining market share, and expanding exports.

Attracting domestic and foreign investment

Investors require clarity, stability, and efficient regulatory processes. Complex licensing, bureaucratic delays, and inconsistent policies deter both domestic and foreign investment. By implementing transparent and predictable industrial policies, the government can attract capital, encourage innovation, and accelerate industrial modernisation. Investment is not just about funding production—it is also about transferring technology and upgrading skills, which is essential for long-term industrial development.

Promoting innovation and technological upgrading

Many Sri Lankan industries continue to rely on outdated production methods and low-value processes, limiting productivity, efficiency, and global competitiveness. Comprehensive industrial reforms can incentivise research and development, digitalisation, automation, and adoption of green technologies, enabling local industries to move up the value chain and produce higher-value goods. This is particularly urgent as global competitors are rapidly implementing Industry 4.0 standards, including AI-driven production, smart logistics, and sustainable manufacturing. Without modernisation, Sri Lanka risks not only losing export opportunities but also falling permanently behind in technological capabilities, undermining long-term industrial growth and economic resilience.

Strengthening supply chains and local linkages

Effective industrial reform can improve integration between agriculture, services, and manufacturing. For example, better industrial policies can ensure that local raw materials are efficiently used, logistics systems are modernised, and SMEs are integrated into global supply chains. This creates multiplier effects across the economy, stimulating productivity, innovation, and competitiveness beyond the industrial sector itself.

Environmental sustainability and resilience

Global trends demand green and sustainable industrial practices. Sri Lanka cannot afford to ignore climate-friendly production methods, energy efficiency, or waste management. Reforms that promote sustainable manufacturing, circular economy principles, and renewable energy adoption will future-proof industries, improve international market access, and ensure compliance with global trade standards.

Institutional capacity and governance

Industrial reforms are not just about incentives; they require strong institutions capable of policy design, monitoring, and enforcement. Weak governance, policy inconsistency, and politicisation have historically undermined industrial development in Sri Lanka. Strengthening industrial institutions, simplifying bureaucracy, and ensuring accountability are essential components of meaningful reform.

Responding to global technological and trade shifts

The industrial landscape is rapidly changing due to digitalisation, automation, AI, and new global trade patterns. Sri Lanka must adapt quickly to benefit from global industrial trends rather than risk falling behind regional competitors. Immediate reform will allow industries to adopt modern production systems, integrate with global value chains, and improve export competitiveness.

Conclusion

Industrial policy reforms in Sri Lanka are urgent because delays threaten employment, competitiveness, and investment. They are important because a modern, resilient industrial sector is crucial for economic growth, export expansion, technological advancement, social stability, and environmental sustainability. Strategic, forward-looking reforms will not only save existing industries but also position Sri Lanka for a prosperous, resilient, and inclusive future.

(The writer is a former senior public servant and policy specialist.)

BY Chinthaka Samarawickrama Lokuhetti

Features

How to insult friends and intimidate people!

Published

12 hours ago

2026/02/2

Thilina Walpola

Trump in Davos

US President Donald Trump is insulting friends and intimidating others. Perhaps. Following his rare feat of securing a non-consecutive second term, one would have expected Trump to be magnanimous, humble and strive to leave an imprint in world history as a statesman. However, considering the unfolding events, it is more likely that he will be leaving an imprint but for totally different reasons!

From the time of his re-election, Trump has apparently been determined to let the world know who the ‘boss’ is and wanted to Make America Great Again (MAGA) by economic measures that were detrimental even to his neighbours and friends, totally disregarding the impact it may have on the world economy. Some of his actions were risky and may well have backfired. Businessmen are accustomed to taking risks and he appears to behave as a businessman rather than as a politician. There was hardly any significant resistance to his arbitrary tariff increases except from China. He craved for the Nobel Peace Prize, claiming to have ended and prevented wars and, and unashamedly posed for a picture when the Nobel Peace Prize was ‘presented’ to him by the winner! To add insult to injury, Trump demonstrated his ignorance by blaming the Norwegian Prime Minister for having overlooked him for the Nobel Peace Prize. He should surely have known, before the Norwegian PM pointed out, that the awardee was chosen by a non-governmental committee.

Trump’s erratic behaviour reached its climax in Davos. He came to Davos determined to railroad the European leaders into accepting his bid to acquire Greenland and seemed to do so by hurling insults left, right and centre! Even before he started the trip to Davos, Trump had already imposed a 10% tariff on imports from seven European countries including the UK, increasing to 25% from the beginning of February, until he was able to acquire Greenland. In a rambling speech, lasting over an hour, he referred to Greenland as Iceland on four different occasions.

Exaggerating the part played by the US in World War II Trump proclaimed “Without us right now, you’d all be speaking German and a little Japanese”. After making a hideous claim that the US had handed Greenland to Denmark, after World War II, Trump said, “We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it. You can say yes and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no and we will remember”. A veiled threat, perhaps!

However, the remark that irked the UK most was his reference to the war in Afghanistan. He repeated the claim, made to Fox News, that NATO had sent ‘some troops’. but that they ‘had stayed a little back, a little off the front line’. On top of politicians, infuriated families of over 500 soldiers who sacrificed their lives in the front-lines in Afghanistan, started protesting which forced the British PM Keir Starmer to abandon the hitherto used tactic of flattery to win over Trump, to state that Trump’s remarks were “insulting and frankly appalling.” After a call from Starmer, Trump posted a praise on his Truth Social platform that UK troops are “among the greatest of all warriors”!

The resistance to Trump’s attempts at reverting to ‘unconstrained power of Great Powers’, which was replaced by the ‘rule-based-order’ after World War II, was spearheaded from an unlikely quarter. It was by Mark Carney, financier turned politician, PM of Canada. He was the Governor of the Bank of England, during the disastrous David Cameron administration, and left the post with hardly any impact but seems to have become a good politician. He apparently has hit Trump where it hurts most, as in his speech, Trump stated that Canada was living on USA and warned Carney about his language!

Mark Carney’s warning that this was a moment of “rupture” with the established rules-based international order giving way to a new world of Great Power politics and his rallying cry that “the middle powers” needed to act together, need to be taken seriously. What would the world come to, unless there is universal condemnation of actions like the forcible extraction of the Venezuelan President which, unfortunately, did not happen maybe because of the fear of Trump heaping more tariffs etc? What started in Venezuela can end up anywhere. Who appointed the US to be the policeman of the world?

With words, Trump gave false hope to protesters rebelling against the theocracy in Iran but started showing naval strength only after the regime crushed the rebellion by killing, according to some estimates, up to 25,000 protesters. If he decides to attack, Iran is bound to retaliate, triggering another war. In fact, Trump was crass enough to state that he no longer cares for peace as he was snubbed by the Nobel Peace committee! Trump is terrorising his own people as is happening in Minnesota but that is a different story.

Already the signs of unity, opposing Trump’s irrationalities, are visible. Almost all NATO members opposing Trump’s plans resulted in his withdrawal from Greenland acquisition plans. To save face, he gave the bogus excuse that he had reached an ever-lasting settlement! Rather than flattery, Trump’s idiosyncrasies need to be countered without fear, as well illustrated by the stance the British PM was forced to take on the Afghan war issue. For the sake of world peace, let us hope that Trump will be on the retreat from now.

Mark Carney’s pivotal speech received a well-deserved and rare standing ovation in Davos. One can only hope that he will practice what he preached to the world, when it comes to internal politics of his country. It is no secret that vote-bank politics is playing a significant role in Canadian politics. I do hope he will be able to curtail the actions of remnants of terrorist groups operating freely in Canada.

by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

Features

Trump is a product of greed-laden American decadence

Published

12 hours ago

2026/02/2

Thilina Walpola

One wonders why the people of the US, who have built the most technologically and economically advanced country, ever elected Donald Trump as their President, not once, but twice. His mistakes and blunders in his first term are too numerous to mention, but a few of the most damaging to the working people are as follows:

Trump brought in tax cuts that overwhelmingly favour the wealthy over the average worker. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) signed into law, at the end of 2017, provides a permanent cut in the corporate income tax rate that will overwhelmingly benefit capital owners and the top one percent. His new laws took billions out of workers’ pockets by weakening or abandoning regulations that protect their pay. In 2017 the Trump administration hurt workers’ pay in many ways, including acts to dismantle two key regulations that protect the pay of low- to middle-income workers. These failures to protect workers’ pay could cost workers an estimated $7 billion per year. In 2017, the Trump administration—in a virtually unprecedented move—switched sides in a case before the US Supreme Court and fought on the side of corporate interests and against workers.

Trump’s policies on climate change could ruin the global plans to cut down emissions and reduce warming, which has already affected the US equally badly as anywhere else in the world. Trump ridiculed the idea of man-made climate change, and repeatedly referred to his energy policy under the mantra “drill, baby, drill”. He said he would increase oil drilling on public lands and offer tax breaks to oil, gas, and coal producers, and stated his goal for the United States to have the lowest cost of electricity and energy of any country in the world. Trump also promised to roll back electric vehicle initiatives, proposed once again the United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and rescind several environmental regulations. The implementation of Trump’s plans would add around 4 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2030, also having effects on the international level. If the policies do not change further, it would add 15 billion tons by 2040 and 27 billion by 2050. Although the exact calculation is difficult, researchers stated: “Regardless of the precise impact, a second Trump term that successfully dismantles Biden’s climate legacy would likely end any global hopes of keeping global warming below 1.5C.” ( Evans, et al, 2024). Despite all these anti-social policies Trump was voted into power for a second term.

Arguments suggesting the USA is a decadent society, defined as a wealthy civilisation in a state of stagnation, exhaustion, and decline, are increasingly common among commentators. Evidence cited includes political gridlock, economic stagnation since the 1970s, demographic decline, and a shift toward a “cultural doom loop” of repeating past ideas (Douthat, 2024, New York Times).

First, we will look at the economic aspect of the matter though the moral and spiritual degradation may be more important, for it is the latter that often causes the former . The reasons for the economic decline, characterised by increase in inequality, dates back to the seventies. Between 1973 and 2000, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of US taxpayers fell by seven percent. Incomes of the top one percent rose by 148 percent, the top 0.1 percent by 343 percent, and the top 0.01 percent rose by 599 percent. The redistribution of income and wealth was detrimental to most Americans.

If the income distribution had remained unchanged from the mid-1970s, by 2018, the median income would be 58 percent higher ($21,000 more a year). The decline in profits was halted, but at the expense of working families. Stagnant wages, massive debt and ever longer working hours became their fate.

Since 1973, the US has experienced slower growth, lower productivity, and a diminished share of global manufacturing, notes the (American Enterprise Institute). Despite the low growth, the rich have doubled their wealth. In our opinion this is due to the “unleash of a culture of greed” that Joseph Stiglitz spoke about.

Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has frequently argued that the United States has unleashed a culture of greed, selfishness, and deregulation, which he blames for extreme inequality, financial crises, and environmental destruction.

Income stagnation is not the only quality of life indicator that suffered. In 1980, life expectancy in the US was about average for an affluent nation. By the 2020s, it dropped to the lowest among wealthy countries, even behind China or Chile, largely due to the stagnation of life expectancy for working-class people. With regard to quality of life the US has fallen to 41st in global, UN-aligned, sustainable development rankings, highlighting issues with infrastructure and social systems, (The Conversation). The political system is described as trapped in a “stale system” with high polarisation, resulting in inaction rather than progress, (Douthat, New York Times).

It is often the moral and spiritual degradation that causes an overall decline in all aspects of life, including the US economy. Statistics on crime, drug and alcohol addiction, suicide rate and mental health issues in the US, which are the indicators for moral and spiritual status of a society, are not very complimentary. The Crime Index in the US is 49 while it is 23 in China and 32 in Russia. Drug abuse rate is 16.8% in the US and alcohol addiction is 18%. Mental illness in adults is as common as 23%. Only about 31% follow a religion. Erich Fromm in his book, titled “Sane Society,” refers to these facts to make a case that the US and also other countries in the West are not sane societies.

Let us now look at Joseph Stiglitz’s thoughts on greed which is the single most important factor in the aetiology of moral degradation in the US society. Stiglitz has directly linked corporate greed and the pursuit of immediate, short-term profits to accelerating climate change and economic failure for the majority of Americans. He argues that “free” (unregulated) markets in the US have not led to growth, but rather to the exploitation of workers and consumers, allowing the top 1% to siphon wealth from the rest of society. Stiglitz argues that neoliberalism, which he calls “ersatz capitalism,” has fostered a moral system where banks are “too big to fail, but too big to be held accountable,” rewarding greedy, risky behaviour. He contends that US economic policies have been designed to favour the wealthy, creating a “rigged” economy where the middle class is shrinking. In essence, Stiglitz argues that the US has allowed a “neoliberal experiment” to turn capitalism into a system focused on greed, which is harming the economy, the environment, and the social fabric.

Big oil companies spent a stunning $445m throughout the last election cycle to influence Donald Trump and Congress, a new analysis has found. These investments are “likely to pay dividends”, the report says, with Republicans holding control of the White House, House and Senate – as well as some key states. Trump unleashed dozens of pro-fossil fuel executive actions on his first day in office and is expected to pursue a vast array of others with cooperation from Congress (The Guardian, Jan 2025).

Trump himself has accumulated wealth just as much as the rest of billionaires, and his poor voters are becoming poorer. He is greedy for wealth and power. He is carving up the world and is striving to annex as much of it as possible at the expense of sovereignty of other countries, the US allies, and international law.

Greed is an inherent human character which when unfettered could result in psychopathic monsters like Hitler. A new world order will have to take into serious consideration this factor of greed and evolve a system that does not depend on greed as the driver of its economy.

by N. A. de S. Amaratunga