The ‘Crisis’ in Sri Lanka: Is there a threat to tourists?

“As for our majority…one is enough” – Benjamin Disraeli

by Dharshan Weerasekera

Sri Lanka is in an unprecedented economic crisis. Prices of basic goods have skyrocketed and there are long lines for petrol, gas and cooking oil. The people are justifiably enraged and protests have erupted in Colombo and elsewhere. Unfortunately, some of these protests have turned violent. In this situation, a number of foreign governments have issued travel advisories and there has been a sharp reduction in tourist arrivals to this country.

This is regrettable because tourism is one of the few remaining means through which Sri Lanka can attract foreign funds and it has been on the rebound during the past few months after the country gradually opened following COVID-19 lockdowns. It is therefore vital that there should be fair and balanced commentary on the protests so that potential tourists could make informed decisions about whether or not to visit. Thus far, the coverage of events, including in the foreign media, has tended to focus on the sensational aspects of the protests.

In this article, I briefly discuss the context to the crisis and also the constitutional situation vis a vis the demands of the protesters and opposition Parliamentarians that the President resign and/or appoint an ‘interim government’ pending a general election. I argue that, though the Sri Lankan Constitution guarantees the right to protest and the right to express ones views, these things should not be used as a pretext for violence and as tools to overthrow the government. If people wish to change the government, it should be done within the four corners of the law, that is to say, through constitutional and not extra-constitutional means.

The Context to the Crisis

The present crisis did not arise in a vacuum and must be seen in the context of economic, social and political developments since independence but especially the last two years and the devastating impact on the economy following the Easter bombings of April 2019 as well as the COVID-19 pandemic since early 2020. One must also consider economic and political developments, including the ongoing war in Ukraine.

The three main staples of the Sri Lankan economy, in terms of foreign exchange earners are: a) tourism, b) remittances from overseas workers mainly in the Middle East and c) exports, especially in garments. All three were devastated over the last two years: tourism because of the Easter bombings, the other two because of COVID-19 lockdowns and related restrictions in travel and manufacturing.

Meanwhile, the government has had to spend an enormous amount of money to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes, among other things, maintaining quarantine centres and other facilities to treat patients, an accelerated vaccination campaign, providing financial assistance to low-income families during lockdowns, etc. A 2021 report by UNICEF says,”Prior to the crisis Sri Lanka was already facing challenges. In 2019, annual economic growth was 2.3 percent. Government revenues declined to 3.4 percent of GDP in 2020 the largest annual fall reported while government expenditures increased due to COVID-19 related expenses.” (Sri Lanka: Case Studies, October 2021, www.unicef.org).

Finally, the war in Ukraine has hit the Sri Lankan economy hard. It has hurt the tourist industry, tea exports and most importantly, because of the rise in oil prices, compelled the government to spend its dwindling foreign reserves. So, this is the context for the crisis. It is important in assessing the reasonableness of the demands of the protesters and opposition Parliamentarians.

The Constitutional Situation

The protesters and opposition Parliamentarians are demanding that the President resign and/or appoint an ‘interim government’ pending a general election. Are these demands reasonable? In my opinion they are not due to the following reasons.

Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence that the protesters and opposition Parliamentarians who are calling on the President to leave, speak for the majority of the country’s population.

It may be true that a majority of Sri Lankans are unhappy with the President at this moment because of the hardships they have to endure. However, it does not follow that all these people also wish him gone. For one thing, the President has invited any political party of coalition that can show 113 seats in Parliament to form a government. So far, there are no takers suggesting that the Opposition continues to be fractured and there is no consensus on a way forward. This would not be the case if they represented the will of the majority of the people.

Secondly, under our Constitution the President has the power to call for a referendum “on any matter which in the opinion of the President is of national importance.” (Article 86.) The threshold for winning a referendum is 50% of valid votes cast. If the protesters and opposition parliamentarians are confident that they have the backing of at least 50 percent of eligible voters they can ask the President to call for a referendum on whether or not he should resign. To my knowledge, they have not done this.

This suggests three things: a) they have not thought of this option, b) they do not think that they can muster 50% of the votes and c) they fear a referendum for some other reason. The first is unlikely because among the protesters and opposition parliamentarians are eminent lawyers and others who are experts on the Constitution. That leaves the other two options which amounts to the same thing, namely, they are afraid to take their case to the people.

Thirdly, if the President resigns precipitously it could create a power vacuum that can be exploited by interested parties. One cannot forget the lessons from Libya, Somalia, Sudan and elsewhere. The President has a duty to protect the Constitution which also implies protecting the national security and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. It would be tantamount to dereliction of duty for the President to resign if there is the slightest possibility that it would compromise the national security and territorial integrity of this country.

Finally, to turn to the demand that the President appoint an ‘interim government’ pending a general election, the Sri Lankan Constitution does not provide for such an option. If a party or coalition cannot show a majority in parliament, the President can dissolve parliament and call for general elections. However, to the best of my knowledge the present government has shown that it has a majority, at least by a few. Therefore, the option of dissolution does not arise.

The President has appointed three of the most eminent experts on financial matters available to Sri Lanka to advise him on necessary fiscal policies and reforms including a proposed IMF bailout. Meanwhile, it is reported that a high-level delegation from the Finance Ministry has left for meetings with the IMF. In these circumstances, reason and common sense suggest that he should be granted time and space to show results.

Is there a threat to Tourists?

From the point of a tourist who may be thinking of visiting Sri Lanka, the most important question is whether the crisis would ruin one’s trip. To put it another way, the question is whether the crisis is a temporary convulsion that the Sri Lankan people will resolve in due time through the relevant constitutional processes or whether there is a potential for it to spin out of control ending in a horrendous bloodbath or some other calamity.

All indications are that the crisis is temporary. To digress a moment, on a personal note, this writer drove through Colombo on 09 April and though it is true that there were protests in some areas, in others the streets were bustling with people shopping for the Sinhala and Tamil New Year. It is difficult to reconcile such scenes with the dire pronouncements made by the critics of the government?

It is also important to place the events in Sri Lanka in perspective with similar events in other countries. Confrontational politics is fast becoming the order of the day. For instance, in January 2021, a mob attacked the US Capitol. In Canada, in February 2022 protesting truckers brought the entire country to a virtual standstill forcing Prime Minister Trudeau to invoke emergency powers in order to help restore order.

Meanwhile, in New Zealand, in early March 2022 people protesting against vaccine mandates stormed the Parliament. In September 2021, French President Macron was pelted with eggs by an irate member of the public and in Britain, in September 2021, a fuel crisis caused long lines at fueling stations reminiscent of the 1970s leading at times to mass protests. The list goes on.

To my knowledge, on none of these occasions did anyone suggest that it was unsafe to visit the countries in question or that the majority of the people of these countries support the tactics of the protesters or endorse a change of government through anything but the proper constitutional processes. The same presumption must be accorded to Sri Lankans.

Conclusion

Foreigners who are thinking about visiting Sri Lanka should not change their plans if they have any love or regard for the people of this country. For one thing, they would bring in much-needed dollars that would help resolve the present crisis. For another, they would be informal ‘ambassadors’ who could inform their respective governments as well as fellow citizens of the real situation on the ground in the island and thereby help correct some of the misperceptions about this country that continue to proliferate in the international media.

The writer is an Attorney-at-Law and a consultant to the Strategic Communications Unit of the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute)