Who will guard the guards?

Tuesday 8th April, 2025

The Opposition has been protesting against what it describes as a veiled threat issued by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, at a recent NPP Local Government (LG) election rally. The United Republican Front led by former Minister Champika Ranawaka has complained to the Election Commission (EC) that President Dissanayake has made a statement, implying that his government will make financial allocations expeditiously only to the local councils the NPP will win in the upcoming LG polls, and others will find it difficult to obtain state funds.

One can argue that it is not legally possible for a government to deprive the local councils controlled by the Opposition of funds, but threats of fund cuts or restrictions, made by the President himself, could demoralise the people who intend to vote for parties other than the NPP in next month’s LG polls. Political power takes precedence over the law, ethics and morals, in this country, and therefore anything is possible.

In politics, words can be as impactful as actions, shaping public opinion and influencing decisions. One may recall that in 2015, the then President Maithripala Sirisena, as the SLFP leader, queered the pitch for his bete noire, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was contesting that year’s general election as the prime ministerial candidate of the SLFP-led UPFA. In the run-up to that crucial election, Sirisena said in a television interview something to the effect that Rajapaksa would not be appointed Prime Minister even if the UPFA won enough seats to form a government. His statement had a devastating impact on the morale of UPFA supporters who wanted to make Rajapaksa Prime Minister. The rest is history. Besides, former Minister S. B. Dissanayake was sentenced to prison for contempt of the Supreme Court over a derogatory remark he made, at a public rally in 2003, about the judiciary and its rulings.

Meanwhile, there are numerous questionable practices pertaining to Sri Lankan elections. Political leaders in power, such as the President, the Prime Minister and Ministers, conduct election campaigns at a substantial cost to the state coffers, as we have argued over the past so many years. When the Presidents and other government leaders stump for their parties, across the country, the public has to bear the cost of their travel, security, etc. The Presidents and Prime Ministers even travelled in the Air Force helicopters for campaign purposes. The state-owned media outfits are misused as propaganda organs of the party in power although they belong to the people who hold diverse political views. A large number of meetings of state officials are held on some pretext or another, ahead of elections, to give a boost to the ruling party’s campaign. These practices are not only unethical but also tantamount to violations of the election laws, as they place the ruling party at an advantage at the expense of its rivals in elections. All Presidents, namely J. R. Jayewardene, R. Premadasa, D. B. Wijetunga, Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Maithripala Sirisena, Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe unflinchingly used state resources for election campaigns. The public expected a radical departure from the past when they voted the JVP-led NPP into office last year. But what is unfolding on the political front does not offer much hope.

As for presidential statements, it was while speaking at a temple ceremony in the South in 1989 that the then President Premadasa announced his decision to ask India to withdraw the IPKF (Indian Peacekeeping Force) from Sri Lanka. Thus, the Executive Presidents’ statements should not be taken lightly, no matter where they are made.

How can a level playing field be ensured in the upcoming LG polls when the incumbent President himself goes around, issuing a veiled threat that the local councils will face fund cuts or restrictions unless they are controlled by his party––the NPP? It has been revealed in Parliament that at the height of a rice shortage, a few months ago, the NPP government did not supply some popular varieties of rice to the cooperative societies won by its rivals. Such action amounts to collective punishment meted out to the public for defeating the NPP in elections. So, the presidential threat in question, albeit veiled, cannot be dismissed as mere platform rhetoric. The JVP has demonstrated that it is capable of far worse things than fund cuts. The EC therefore must act on the complaints the Opposition has lodged in respect of the presidential statement if it is to arrest the erosion of public trust and confidence in the electoral process. That is also the only way the EC can prevent the public from thinking less of it.

As for President Dissanayake’s statement at issue and the EC’s alleged lukewarm response thereto, Juvenal’s famous question comes to mind: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? — Who will guard the guards themselves?