Connect with us

Features

IMF at last! LG Elections on April 25 or when-never!

Published

on

by Rajan Philips

In his relatively salad days, President JR Jayewardene was known to be a superb after-dinner speaker and ballroom dancer. He was not so swift in political dancing, and had to wait for the longest time to have his last dance. And what a dance it turned out to be. We do not know anything about President Wickremesinghe’s after-dinner toast-mastery or ballroom skills. Neither of them is in as much vogue now as they used to be in the old millennium. But when it comes to political dancing, Mr. Wickremesinghe is in a class of his own. His moves are unconventional, he plays his own drum, blows his own trumpet, and his partners do not last long. His dance moves as parliamentary president have been predictably unpredictable and more than occasionally bizarre. On the economy and the IMF, it hasn’t been much of a dance; rather, periodical monologues. On the local government (LG) elections, however, the President’s moves have been subjectively arrogant, but objectively pathetic.

The latest presidential monologue on the economy came last Tuesday (March 7), when President Wickremesinghe told parliament that at long last the IMF deal was ready to be finalized, likely before the end of the month. On the same day, the National Election Commission reportedly announced that it was “recommending April 25 as the most suitable date for the local government elections,” after its original scheduling of the elections for March 09 was scuttled by government machinations. The fount of all machinations is to be found at the apex of government power – the presidency, and in the person of President Wickremesinghe. Nowhere else.

Slimiest of Speeches

On February 23, the President made the slimiest of all speeches ever made in Sri Lanka’s parliament – on the controversial status of the LG elections. He falsified every known fact on the baseless premise that the Election Commission had not taken, or could not have taken, an official decision on a date for the LG elections. Therefore, he argued, it would be mischievous to suggest that the government was trying to postpone the elections when “there was no election in the first place for it to be postponed.” He called people names and asked parliament to appoint a select committee to present the true facts to the Supreme Court. If the speech was meant to show presidential cleverness, it only turned out to be politically pathetic.

The Supreme Court has had enough of having to put out government fires any time and every time. On Friday, March 3, the Court gave an interim order against government withholding funds needed for conducting LG elections. After the court ruling, opposition parties insisted that the Commission go ahead with elections as originally planned on March 9, or on March 19, the last date for the elections since the first gazette notification. But the EC seems to have become wiser and more cautious after its recent experience, and has chosen to recommend April 25 as the most suitable for new LG elections, which were last held in February 2018.

In his speech to parliament on the IMF deal, on March 7, the President made no mention of the Supreme Court or LG elections. He was all about the economy, recounting his government’s salvaging efforts and the importance of securing the IMF agreement. He appealed to the opposition parties to rise above political differences and work with him on the economy. The opposition parties would have none of it. They are all about LG elections and have nothing to say about the IMF or the economy. All of that can be looked after later, and only after the people are allowed to exercise their franchise in the local elections, which many pundits view as the local-government fraction of national sovereignty. If sovereignty is supposedly inalienable, it should also be whole and not fractionable. Even if sovereignty were fractionable, no one cares about the provincial fraction that is permanently left in abeyance. But we don’t need that distraction now.

The IMF and the LG have, or should have, no connection between them. No one has suggested that the IMF bailout is needed to fund the local elections. That said, or not said, insofar as Rs. 10 billion has become the upset figure for elections cost, it would have been a simple matter for the President to ask the IMF to add the small change of Rs 10 million as a democratic gift to the IMF’s pound of flesh of USD 2.9 billion. That way, the country would have found money for the election without having to print it, and the President could have justified election postponement until he had the additional change from the IMF.

He could have also reinforced his pitch for local democracy in Sri Lanka, by asking for the intercession of the three women – the Finance Minister of India Nirmala Sitharaman, the US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Kristalina Georgieva – who were apparently “instrumental in helping Sri Lanka during its turbulent period,” and who were given honourable mention by the President in his statement to mark the International Women’s Day on March 8. Kudos to President Wickremesinghe, for regardless of everything else he has come a long way in recognizing women’s roles, if not rights, after being a Minister in a government that beat up and jailed Vivienne Gunawardena and her comrades who were marching in Kollupitiya to mark the March 8 International Women’s Day in that consequential year of 1983. Alas for Ranil Wickremesinghe, it is always a case of a single step forward and several stumbling steps backward. A dancing genre of its own. But this is no time for dancing.

Government Paralysis

The IMF deal and the LG elections have exposed the huge political chasm between the government and the opposition. Stuck in the middle to the point of paralysis is the government machinery. The state of the government machinery and the manner of its working have come into depressing reliefs in the transactions over LG elections and over decision making in the energy sector. The public spats between the Energy Minister and the PUCSL are a terrible spectacle. Not to mention the National Audit reports on widespread public sector corruption and news stories about the Irrigation Department, once the pride of Civil Engineering in Sri Lanka, becoming a den of thieves.

True to form, the President plays the economic card whenever he is politically cornered and blames the opposition for not co-operating with him. And he gets into political corners through no fault of anyone else, and solely through the machination games he has become addicted to playing over an admittedly long time in politics. The opposition, for its part, prefers to duke it out in the corners and stays clear of the largely vacant space for economic discussions.

The worrisome upshot is that in spite of the President’s numerous monologues, there is no broad political consensus on the general direction and the specific measures that are needed, and needed to be identified in detail, to deal with the unabating economic crisis. The opposition is leaving the void open without contributing anything significant to the economic discussion with any consistency. Sajith Premadasa is apparently beefing up his economic vocabulary to impress international lenders in future mendicant missions. Anura Kumara Dissanayake made a big splash before the business community, but has since crawled back into the local government shell. The vast void is being filled in tiny portions by currency board luddites and central bank haters, on the right, and IMF decriers and state-corporation worshippers, on the left. The uninitiated majority in the middle have nobody to listen to and nothing to follow.

The IMF deal is not the end of the story. It is not even the end of the beginning. At most it is less than a necessary initial treatment. The economic crisis is such a multivariant beast and there is no silver bullet solution to it. It will require a thousand cuts painfully administered over a painfully long time. President Wickremesinghe may have got the timespan right – 2048, for final deliverance, but he has offered nothing solid about what needs to be done between now and the expected date of delivery. Only puff and fluff. The opposition’s timespan stops at local government elections. They will not see, hear or speak of anything beyond. This, frankly, is irresponsible and even imbecilic.

False Enthusiasm

The SJB’s and the JVP’s enthusiasm for LG elections springs from the experience of the February 2018 LG elections that propelled the Rajapaksas to their second coming in their new vehicle, the SLPP, and eventually to the seats of power in over a span of two and a half years. But it is impossible for either the SJB or the JVP to emulate the SLPP’s feat in 2018. To do so, one of them will have to crushingly reduce the electoral wins of the other, which is not likely. At most they may get wins close to one another but that will not be as sweeping as the 2018 victory of the SLPP. Coming close to or even surpassing the SJB will be a huge achievement for the JVP, but it also runs the risk of suffering a setback if its tally falls below everyone’s expectations.

The general risk in all the hype over the LG elections is the real possibility of a low voter turnout. President Wickremesinghe will be immensely happy, but after all the hype and Rs. 10 billion, the country will be back to the same square one where it last was with Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Even if there were to be a good voter turnout and a decisive outcome, nothing will automatically change at the national level. Just as it was in 2018. The difference this time will be the questioning of the legitimacy of the Wickremesinghe presidency which will become vehement and strident after a decisive LG election.

The uncertainty and even the danger this time will be the way in which President Wickremesinghe chooses to respond if protests were to surface after a decisive election outcome. His predecessor, the ex-army man kept his men on a tight leash against the protesters. President Wickremesinghe has been sending quite the opposite signals from the time he became president. There was nothing illegitimate about Mr. Wickremesinghe succeeding Gotabaya Rajapaksa as President, but his legitimacy has been eroding steadily entirely due to his political machinations. It would be a grave and dangerous dance move if he were to partner the army to stave off political protests.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Educational reforms under the NPP government

Published

on

PM Amarasuriya

When the National People’s Power won elections in 2024, there was much hope that the country’s education sector could be made better. Besides the promise of good governance and system change that the NPP offered, this hope was fuelled in part by the appointment of an academic who was at the forefront of the struggle to strengthen free public education and actively involved in the campaign for 6% of GDP for education, as the Minister of Education.

Reforms in the education sector are underway including, a key encouraging move to mainstream vocational education as part of the school curriculum. There has been a marginal increase in budgetary allocations for education. New infrastructure facilities are to be introduced at some universities. The freeze on recruitment is slowly being lifted. However, there is much to be desired in the government’s performance for the past one year. Basic democratic values like rule of law, transparency and consultation, let alone far-reaching systemic changes, such as allocation of more funds for education, combating the neoliberal push towards privatisation and eradication of resource inequalities within the public university system, are not given due importance in the current approach to educational and institutional reforms. This edition of Kuppi Talk focuses on the general educational reforms and the institutional reforms required in the public university system.

General Educational Reforms

Any reform process – whether it is in education or any other area – needs to be shaped by public opinion. A country’s education sector should take into serious consideration the views of students, parents, teachers, educational administrators, associated unions, and the wider public in formulating the reforms. Especially after Aragalaya/Porattam, the country saw a significant political shift. Disillusionment with the traditional political elite mired in corruption, nepotism, racism and self-serving agendas, brought the NPP to power. In such a context, the expectation that any reforms should connect with the people, especially communities that have been systematically excluded from processes of policymaking and governance, is high.

Sadly, the general educational reforms, which are being implemented this year, emerged without much discussion on what recent political changes meant to the people and the education sector. Many felt that the new government should not have been hasty in introducing these reforms in 2026. The present state of affairs calls for self-introspection. As members affiliated to the National Institute of Education (NIE), we must acknowledge that we should have collectively insisted on more time for consultation, deliberations and review.

The government’s conflicts with the teachers’ unions over the extension of school hours, the History teachers’ opposition to the removal of History from the list of compulsory exam subjects for Grades 10 and 11, the discontent with regard to the increase in the number of subjects (now presented as modules) for Grade 6 classes could have been avoided, had there been adequate time spent on consultations.

Given the opposition to the current set of reforms, the government should keep engaging all concerned actors on changes that could be brought about in the coming years. Instead of adopting an intransigent position or ignoring mistakes made, the government and we, the members affiliated to NIE, need to keep the reform process alive, remain open to critique, and treat the latest policy framework, the exams and evaluation methods, and even the modules, as live documents that can be made better, based on constructive feedback and public opinion.

Philosophy and Content

As Ramya Kumar observed in the last edition of Kuppi Talk, there are many refreshing ideas included in the educational philosophy that appears in the latest version of the policy document on educational reforms. But, sadly, it was not possible for curriculum writers to reflect on how this policy could inform the actual content as many of the modules had been sent for printing even before the policy was released to the public. An extensive public discussion of the proposed educational vision would have helped those involved in designing the curriculum to prioritise subjects and disciplines that need to be given importance in a country that went through a protracted civil war and continue to face deep ethno-religious divisions.

While I appreciate the statement made by the Minister of Education, in Parliament, that the histories of minority communities will be included in the new curriculum, a wider public discussion might have pushed the government and NIE to allocate more time for subjects like the Second National Language and include History or a Social Science subject under the list of compulsory subjects. Now that a detailed policy document is in the public domain, there should be a serious conversation about how best the progressive aspects of its philosophy could be made to inform the actual content of the curriculum, its implementation and pedagogy in the future.

University Reforms

Another reform process where the government seems to be going headfirst is the amendments to the Universities Act. While laws need to be revisited and changes be made where required, the existent law should govern the way things are done until a new law comes into place. Recently, a circular was issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) to halt the process of appointing Heads of Departments and Deans until the proposed amendments to the University Act come into effect. Such an intervention by the UGC is totalitarian and undermines the academic and institutional culture within the public university system and goes against the principle of rule of law.

There have been longstanding demands with regard to institutional reforms such as a transparent process in appointing council members to the public university system, reforms in the schemes of recruitment and selection processes for Vice Chancellor and academics, and the withdrawal of the circular banning teachers of law from practising, to name a few.

The need for a system where the evaluation of applicants for the post of Vice Chancellor cannot be manipulated by the Council members is strongly felt today, given the way some candidates have reportedly been marked up/down in an unfair manner for subjective criteria (e.g., leadership, integrity) in recent selection processes. Likewise, academic recruitment sometimes penalises scholars with inter-disciplinary backgrounds and compartmentalises knowledge within hermetically sealed boundaries. Rigid disciplinary specificities and ambiguities around terms such as ‘subject’ and ‘field’ in the recruitment scheme have been used to reject applicants with outstanding publications by those within the system who saw them as a threat to their positions. The government should work towards reforms in these areas, too, but through adequate deliberations and dialogue.

From Mindless Efficiency to Patient Deliberations

Given the seeming lack of interest on the part of the government to listen to public opinion, in 2026, academics, trade unions and students should be more active in their struggle for transparency and consultations. This struggle has to happen alongside our ongoing struggles for higher allocations for education, better infrastructure, increased recruitment and better work environment. Part of this struggle involves holding the NPP government, UGC, NIE, our universities and schools accountable.

The new year requires us to think about social justice and accountability in education in new ways, also in the light of the Ditwah catastrophe. The decision to cancel the third-term exams, delegating the authority to decide when to re-open affected schools to local educational bodies and Principals and not change the school hours in view of the difficulties caused by Ditwah are commendable moves. But there is much more that we have to do both in addressing the practical needs of the people affected by Ditwah and understanding the implications of this crisis to our framing of education as social justice.

To what extent is our educational policymaking aware of the special concerns of students, teachers and schools affected by Ditwah and other similar catastrophes? Do the authorities know enough about what these students, teachers and institutions expect via educational and institutional reforms? What steps have we taken to find out their priorities and their understanding of educational reforms at this critical juncture? What steps did we take in the past to consult communities that are prone to climate disasters? We should not shy away from decelerating the reform process, if that is what the present moment of climate crisis exacerbated by historical inequalities of class, gender, ethnicity and region in areas like Malaiyaham requires, especially in a situation where deliberations have been found lacking.

This piece calls for slowing-down as a counter practice, a decelerating move against mindless efficiency and speed demanded by neoliberal donor agencies during reform processes at the risk of public opinion, especially of those on the margins. Such framing can help us see openness, patience, accountability, humility and the will to self-introspect and self-correct as our guides in envisioning and implementing educational reforms in the new year and beyond.

(Mahendran Thiruvarangan is a Senior Lecturer attached to the Department of Linguistics & English at the University of Jaffna)

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies

by Mahendran Thiruvarangan

Continue Reading

Features

Build trust through inclusion and consultation in the New Year

Published

on

Looking back at the past year, the anxiety among influential sections of the population that the NPP government would destabilise the country has been  dispelled. There was concern that the new government with its strong JVP leadership might not be respectful of private property in the Marxist tradition. These fears have not materialised. The government has made a smooth transition, with no upheavals and no breakdown of governance. This continuity deserves recognition. In general, smooth political transitions following decisive electoral change may be identified as early indicators of democratic consolidation rather than disruption.

Democratic legitimacy is strengthened when new governments respect inherited institutions rather than seek to dismantle them wholesale. On this score, the government’s first year has been positive. However, the challenges that the government faces are many.  The government’s failure to appoint an Auditor General, coupled with its determination to push through nominees of its own choosing without accommodating objections from the opposition and civil society, reflects a deeper problem. The government’s position is that the Constitutional Council is making biased decisions when it rejects the president’s nominations to  the position of Auditor General.

Many if not most of the government’s appointments to high positions of state have been drawn from a narrow base of ruling party members and associates. The government’s core entity, the JVP, has had a traditional voter base of no more than 5 percent. Limiting selection of top officials to its members or associates is a recipe for not getting the best. It leaves out a wide swathe of competent persons which is counterproductive to the national interest. Reliance on a narrow pool of party affiliated individuals for senior state appointments limits access to talent and expertise, though the government may have its own reasons.

The recent furor arising out of the Grade 6 children’s textbook having a weblink to a gay dating site appears to be an act of sabotage. Prime Minister (and Education Minister Harini Amarasuriya) has been unfairly and unreasonably targeted for attack by her political opponents. Governments that professionalise the civil service rather than politicise them have been more successful in sustaining reform in the longer term in keeping with the national interest. In Sri Lanka, officers of the state are not allowed to contest elections while in service (Establishment Code) which indicates that they cannot be linked to any party as they have to serve all.

Skilled Leadership

The government is also being subjected to criticism by the Opposition for promising much in its election manifesto and failing to deliver on those promises.  In this regard, the NPP has been no different to the other political parties that contested those elections making extravagant promises.  The problem is that  the economic collapse of 2022 set the country back several years in terms of income and living standards. The economy regressed to the levels of 2018, which was not due to actions of the NPP. Even the most skilled leadership today cannot simply erase those lost years. The economy rebounded to around five percent growth in the past year, but this recovery now faces new problems following Cyclone Ditwah, which wiped out an estimated ten percent of national income.

In the aftermath of the cyclone, the country’s cause for shame lies with the political parties. Rather than coming together to support relief and recovery, many focused on assigning blame and scoring political points, as in the attacks on the prime minister, undermining public confidence in the state apparatus at a moment when trust was essential.  Despite the politically motivated attacks by some, the government needs to stick to the path of inclusiveness in its approach to governance. The sustainability of policy change depends not only on electoral victory but on inclusive processes that are more likely to endure than those imposed by majorities.

Bipartisanship recognises that national rebuilding and reconciliation requires cooperation across political divides. It requires consultation with the opposition and with civil society. Opposition leader Sajith Premadasa has been generally reasonable and constructive in his approach. A broader view  of bipartisanship is that it needs to extend beyond the mainstream opposition to include ethnic and religious minorities. The government’s commitment to equal rights and non-discrimination has had a positive impact. Visible racism has declined, and minorities report feeling physically safer than in the past. These gains should not be underestimated. However, deeper threats to ethnic harmony remain.

The government needs to do more to make national reconciliation practical and rooted in change on the ground rather than symbolic. Political power sharing is central to this task. Minority communities, particularly in the north and east, continue to feel excluded from national development. While they welcome visits and dialogue with national leaders, frustration grows when development promises remain confined to foundation stones and ceremonies. The construction of Buddhist temples in areas with no Buddhist population, justified on claims of historical precedent, is perceived as threatening rather than reconciliatory.

 Wider Polity

The constitutionally mandated devolution framework provided by the Thirteenth Amendment remains the most viable mechanism for addressing minority grievances within a united country. It was mediated by India as a third party to the agreement. The long delayed provincial council elections need to be held without further postponement. Provincial council elections have not been held for seven years. This prolonged suspension undermines both democratic practice and minority confidence. International experience, whether in India and Switzerland, shows that decentralisation is most effective when regional institutions are electorally accountable and operational rather than dormant.

It is not sufficient to treat individuals as equal citizens in the abstract. Democratic equality also requires recognising communities as collective actors with legitimate interests. Power sharing allows communities to make decisions in areas where they form majorities, reducing alienation and strengthening national cohesion. The government’s first year in office saw it acknowledge many of these problems, but acknowledgment has not yet translated into action. Issues relating to missing persons, prolonged detention, land encroachment and the absence of provincial elections remain unresolved. Even in areas where reform has been attempted, such as the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the proposed replacement legislation falls short of international human rights standards.

The New Year must be one in which these foundational issues are addressed decisively. If not, problems will fester, get worse and distract the government from engaging fully in the development process. Devolution through the Thirteenth Amendment and credible reconciliation mechanisms must move from rhetoric to implementation. It is reported that a resolution to appoint a select committee of parliament to look into and report on an electoral system under which the provincial council elections will be held will be taken up this week. Similarly, existing institutions such as the Office of Missing Persons and the Office of Reparations need to be empowered to function effectively, while a truth and reconciliation process must be established that commands public confidence.

Trust in institutions requires respect for constitutional processes, trust in society requires inclusive decision making, and trust across communities requires genuine power sharing and accountability. Economic recovery, disaster reconstruction, institutional integrity and ethnic reconciliation are not separate tasks but interlinked tests of democratic governance. The government needs to move beyond reliance on its core supporters and govern in a manner that draws in the wider polity. Its success here will determine not only the sustainability of its reforms but also the country’s prospects for long term stability and unity.

by Jehan Perera

Continue Reading

Features

Not taking responsibility, lack of accountability

Published

on

While agreeing wholeheartedly with most of the sentiments expressed by Dr Geewananda Gunawardhana in his piece “Pharmaceuticals, deaths, and work ethics” (The Island, 5th January), I must take exception to what he stated regarding corruption: “Enough has been said about corruption, and fortunately, the present government is making an effort to curb it. We must give them some time as only the government has changed, not the people”

With every change of government, we have witnessed the scenario of the incoming government going after the corrupt of the previous, punishing a few politicians in the process. This is nothing new. In fact, some governments have gone after high-ranking public servants, too, punishing them on very flimsy grounds. One of the main reasons, if not the main, of the unexpected massive victory at the polls of this government was the promise of eradication of corruption. Whilst claiming credit for convicting some errant politicians, even for cases that commenced before they came to power, how has the NPP government fared? If one considers corruption to be purely financial, then they have done well, so far. Well, even with previous governments they did not commence plundering the wealth of the nation in the first year!

I would argue that dishonesty, even refusal to take responsibility is corruption. Plucking out of retirement and giving plum jobs to those who canvassed key groups, in my opinion, is even worse corruption than some financial malpractices. There is no need to go into the details of Ranwala affairs as much has been written about but the way the government responded does not reassure anyone expecting and hoping for the NPP government to be corruption free.

One of the first important actions of the government was the election of Ranwala as the speaker. When his claimed doctorate was queried and he stepped down to find the certificate, why didn’t AKD give him a time limit to find it? When he could not substantiate obtaining a PhD, even after a year, why didn’t AKD insist that he resigns the parliamentary seat? Had such actions been taken then the NPP can claim credit that the party does not tolerate dishonesty. What an example are we setting for the youth?

Recent road traffic accident involving Ranwala brough to focus this lapse too, in addition to the laughable way the RTA was handled. The police officers investigating could not breathalyse him as they had run out of ‘balloons’ for the breathalyser! His blood and urine alcohol levels were done only after a safe period had elapsed. Not surprisingly, the results were normal! Honestly, does the government believe that anyone with an iota of intelligence would accept the explanation that these were lapses on the part of the police but not due to political interference?

The release of over 300 ‘red-tagged’ containers continues to remain a mystery. The deputy minister of shipping announced loudly that the ministry would take full responsibility but subsequently it turned out that customs is not under the purview of the ministry of shipping. Report on the affair is yet to see the light of day, the only thing that happened being the senior officer in customs that defended the government’s action being appointed the chief! Are these the actions of a government that came to power on the promise of eradication of corruption?

The new year dawned with another headache for the government that promised ‘system change.’  The most important educational reforms in our political history were those introduced by Dr CWW Kannangara which included free education and the establishment of central schools, etc. He did so after a comprehensive study lasting over six years, but the NPP government has been in a rush! Against the advice of many educationists that reforms should be brought after consultation, the government decided it could rush it on its own. It refuses to take responsibility when things go wrong. Heavens, things have started going wrong even before it started! Grade Six English Language module textbook gives a link to make e-buddies. When I clicked that link what I got was a site that stated: “Buddy, Bad Boys Club, Meet Gay Men for fun”!

Australia has already banned social media to children under 15 years and a recent survey showed that nearly two thirds of parents in the UK also favour such a ban but our minister of education wants children as young as ten years to join social media and have e-buddies!

Coming back to the aforesaid website, instead of an internal investigation to find out what went wrong, the Secretary to the Ministry of Education went to the CID. Of course, who is there in the CID? Shani of Ranjan Ramanayake tape fame! He will surely ‘fix’ someone for ‘sabotaging’ educational reforms! Can we say that the NPP government is less corrupt and any better than its predecessors?

by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

Continue Reading

Trending