Connect with us

Editorial

Alleged plot to derail presidential contest

Published

on

Tuesday 13th February, 2024

Speculation is rampant in political circles that the SLPP-UNP government is planning to put off the presidential election on the pretext of amending the Constitution to scrap the executive presidency. SJB and Opposition leader Sajith Premadasa has said he sees a government hand in the ongoing campaign against the executive presidency.

Neither the government nor the Opposition can be expected to tell us the truth, which they are notorious for stretching to serve self-interest. However, the SLPP-UNP regime has demonstrated that it is ready to go to any extent to avoid elections. Last year, it shamelessly starved the Election Commission of funds for the local government elections, which had to be put off indefinitely, as a result. However, presidential polls are different from other elections.

There is no constitutional provision for postponing a presidential election, and the government is without a two-thirds majority to amend the Constitution. Some legal experts have argued that such a constitutional amendment will require approval by the people at a national referendum besides ratification by Parliament with a special majority if it is to become law. But if the despicable manner in which the Online Safety Bill was rushed through Parliament last month is anything to go by, the incumbent government is no respecter of judicial decisions, especially in respect of Bills it moves to compass its political ends.

Opinion is divided on the executive presidency. Its critics consider it a wellspring of evil, which has to be done away with to save democracy. Its proponents however argue that the country needs a strong leader to safeguard national security and territorial integrity. But the ordinary people have other issues to contend with.

Nobody takes politicians’ pledges to scrap the executive presidency seriously, for those who vow to abolish it during presidential election campaigns renege on their promises after securing it and savouring immense power vested therein.

President J. R. Jayewardene had no politics left in him when he completed his second term, and therefore he did not want to change the Constitution to remove the presidential term limit or abolish the executive presidency with a view to clinging on to power. President Ranasinghe Premadasa was assassinated before he completed his first term. President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, during her second term, sought to change the Constitution, abolish the executive presidency and continue to be in power as the Executive Prime Minister. Her plan came a cropper. Having introduced the 18th Amendment, which did away with the two-term limit, President Mahinda Rajapaksa, after his re-election in 2010, dreamt of winning a third term. He therefore did not try to abolish the executive presidency. Maithripala Sirisena, who pledged to abolish the executive presidency during his presidential election campaign did not honour his promise after his victory in 2015. He has again pledged his support for the abolition of the executive presidency! Why didn’t he initiate action to do so while he was the President?

The current Constitution is seriously flawed. Despite the overconcentration of power in the executive presidency at the expense of the other branches of government, the President becomes a mere figurehead to all intents and purposes when he or she loses control over Parliament. The Prime Minister becomes more powerful than the President in such a situation, and the government becomes dysfunctional with the President and the Prime Minister being at loggerheads. Worse, the Constitution allows a defeated candidate or even a person who has never contested any election to become a National List MP and go on to secure the executive presidency in case of the elected President ceasing to hold office. There are several other constitutional flaws which are detrimental to democracy, and they need to be rectified, but an attempt to amend the Constitution must not stand in the way of elections.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Editorial

Ranil’s advice

Published

on

Saturday 21st December, 2024

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe has urged the SJB-led Opposition to act responsibly and help ensure the continuity of the IMF bailout programme, which has enabled the economy to regain some stability. He has also thanked the NPP government for having kept the IMF programme on course.

Wickremesinghe’s exhortation to the Opposition and unsolicited advice to the government are timely but not devoid of politics. He is seeking the credit for what the country has achieved through the ongoing IMF programme, which got underway in earnest under his presidency. In fact, it is doubtful whether any other President would have had the courage to make a host of unpopular yet essential decisions to address the economic crisis. So, Wickremesinghe is not without a moral right to ask the government and the Opposition to act prudently and help the country make the most of the IMF programme. It is hoped that the Opposition and the government will heed Wickremesinghe’s advice and act accordingly.

Sadly, the SJB has chosen to play to the gallery, asking the government to renegotiate the IMF programme. It could not even sort out an internal dispute over its National List appointments, and one of its constituents resorted to legal action. So, how can such a political party claim to be able to make the IMF bend to its will? It is obviously trying to earn brownie points with the public by bellowing rhetoric.

The IMF programme is no economic panacea, but it will surely help Sri Lanka gain economic stability in the short-term. It has already yielded some tangible results. Much more remains to be done to ensure Sri Lanka’s long-term economic wellbeing, and it is up to the current dispensation as well as future governments to develop the economy and achieve debt sustainability.

Nobody likes IMF bailout conditions, which can be extremely harsh, but they are a prerequisite for a bankrupt country’s economic recovery. If Sri Lanka managed its economy properly, it would not have had to ask for IMF help, which comes with constricting conditions. However, what the IMF has prescribed is what Sri Lanka should have done on its own a long time ago.

When a country spends more than it earns and goes on borrowing recklessly from external sources to meet its revenue shortfall, it runs the risk of facing an economic crisis. The Mahinda Rajapaksa government indulged in wasteful expenditure; it spent a great deal of borrowed money on Ozymandian projects. The UNP-led Yahapalana government also borrowed heavily. The JVP backed that administration to the hilt. The Gotabaya Rajapaksa administration, in its wisdom, slashed taxes and tariffs, oblivious to the disastrous consequences of its harebrained action. The Covid -19 pandemic came, necessitating prolonged lockdowns, which took a heavy toll on the economy. The rest is history.

A person who falls into a well has to come out of its mouth, as a local saying goes. There is no other way out. Sri Lanka finds itself in a similar situation. Having ruined the economy, it found itself at the bottom of an economic pit. Thankfully, in answer to its pitiable pleas, the IMF threw a lifeline, which has enabled it to come halfway up. Needless to say, nothing will be stupider than for it to let go of that lifeline.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Lest watchdogs should become lapdogs

Published

on

Friday 20th December, 2024

The JVP-led NPP’s ascent to power rekindled the hopes of good governance activists for a radical break from the past and a new political culture. The incumbent government came under pressure to ensure the independence and integrity of the parliamentary Financial Committees by allowing them to be headed by Opposition MPs. But the efforts of the campaigners for good governance have been only partially successful. SJB MP Dr. Harsha de Silva has been appointed the Chairman of the Committee on Public Finance (COPF), and the government has said one of the NPP members should head the COPE (Committee on Public Finance).

The government’s position is that the COPE will conduct investigations into what happened under the previous administration and therefore an NPP MP should chair it. The Opposition’s efforts to persuade the government to change its mind have been in vain. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake himself reiterated the NPP’s position in Parliament on Wednesday in response to a request from Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa that the government reconsider its decision.

The COPE plays a pivotal role in exposing irregularities in state enterprises and has the potential to restore public trust in Parliament. According to Standing Order No. 120, the duty of the COPE is to examine the accounts of public corporations, institutions funded wholly or in part by the state and of any business or other undertaking vested under any written law, with the assistance of the Auditor-General. One of the criticisms against the COPE is that its probes do not yield the desired results, and its reports gather dust. But there have been glaring exceptions.

The COPE under Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe’s chairmanship, during the Mahinda Rajapaksa government, played an activist role, paving the way for the reversal of a questionable divestiture programme—the privatisation of Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation and Lanka Marine Services. Similarly, the COPE under D. E. W. Gunasekara’s chairmanship was bold enough to produce a damning report on the first Treasury bond scam in 2015, but the UNP had Parliament dissolved, forestalling the submission of that vital document to the House. The COPE carried out its second probe into the Treasury bond scams under the chairmanship of the then Opposition MP Sunil Handunnetti. Thus, the COPE has proved its ability to safeguard the interests of the public, and the precedents it has set should be followed. Handunnetti, who is a powerful minister in the incumbent government, ought to lend his voice to those who are demanding that an Opposition MP be appointed as the COPE chairperson.

Situations could arise warranting investigations that adversely impact the interests of the incumbent government. If the COPE chairperson is a ruling party MP, he or she, under such circumstances, will not be able to act impartially owing to his or her party loyalty. This is why the campaigners for good governance insist that the parliamentary watchdog committees should be chaired by the Opposition.

The government’s argument that it has to appoint one of its MPs as the COPE chairperson because the irregularities to be probed occurred under the previous dispensation, whose MPs are currently in the opposition, is not tenable. The vast majority of the Opposition MPs in the current Parliament were not members of the previous administration, which became a metaphor for corruption, and therefore one of them can be appointed the COPE head.

The COPE will have to probe irregularities in state institutions during the current administration as well, and a ruling party MP functioning as its chairperson will be constrained to act in such a way that he or she is seen to be biased; the integrity of the watchdog committee will be compromised in such an eventuality.

One can only hope that the NPP will change its position and let an Opposition MP be appointed as COPE head.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Hobson’s choice and U-turns

Published

on

Thursday 19th December, 2024

The JVP-led NPP government is quite upbeat about President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s India visit. However, if the joint statement Dissanayake and Prime Minister Narendra Modi issued on Monday (16 Dec.) is anything to go by, the NPP administration has endorsed what its leaders used to flay President Ranil Wickremesinghe for having undertaken to do at the behest of India, much to the interests of Sri Lanka’s interests. Wickremesinghe has thanked Dissanayake for endorsing the Economic and Technological Cooperation Agreement (ETCA) to be signed between India and Sri Lanka. This can be considered a backhanded compliment.

As for the projects of strategic importance mentioned in the joint statement, PM Modi has said nothing new; he has only reiterated what he expected the previous Sri Lankan governments to do. He has highlighted his government’s desire to see the completion of some vital projects such as the supply of LNG to Sri Lanka, a high-capacity grid connection between the two countries, a petroleum pipeline from India to Sri Lanka, and the further development of the Trincomalee oil tank farm. It is a case of Hobson’s choice for Sri Lanka.

The joint statement also mentions some benefits to Sri Lanka in areas such as energy development, education and technology and agriculture.

PM Modi and President Dissanayake have agreed to continue discussions on the development of airports in Sri Lanka. One can only hope that Sri Lanka will not come under Indian pressure to award contracts for airport development to the Adani Group, which is under a cloud. Congress MP Rahul Gandhi has accused the Modi government of ‘tweaking rules’ regarding India’s airport privatisation programme in favour of the Adani Group.

Meanwhile, PM Modi said at a joint press conference with President Dissanayake on Monday that they had discussed reconstruction and reconciliation in Sri Lanka, and he hoped that the Sri Lankan government would fulfil the aspirations of the Tamil people and its commitment to implementing the Constitution of Sri Lanka (read the 13th Amendment) fully, and conduct the Provincial Council elections. PM Modi also said he and Dissanayaka were in full agreement that ‘our security interests are interconnected’, his message being that Sri Lanka has to be mindful of India’s security concerns.

The biggest challenge before the NPP government is to justify the numerous about-turns of its main constituent, the JVP, which signals left but turns right erratically, and provides grist to the Opposition’s mill, in the process. JVP leaders are doing exactly the opposite of what they advocated as regards some crucial issues during their opposition days; their policy contradictions are legion. They have made U-turns on the IMF bailout programme, rice imports, taxes, tariffs, petroleum prices, the MPs’ perks and privileges, and a host of other issues.

Addressing a seminar under the theme, ‘Trading, Sacrifice and ETCA’, in Colombo in Sept. 2016, JVP leader Dissanayake said the agreement, if signed, would pave the way for an influx of ‘low-grade Indian IT professionals’ here at the expense of the Sri Lankan youth. According to a report published on the JVP’s official website (23 Feb. 2016), Dissanayake had this to say about ETCA, at the first of a series of seminars held under the theme ‘Denounce ETCA that sacrifices our economy to India!’: “There is a political gamble here. India is trying to intervene in politics in our country. Already, there are many RAW spies in Jaffna. Before our country is made a political playground India wants to gobble our economy. Already India has a monopoly in the vehicle, medicine and construction sectors. Already, they are controlling our economy. Through that they manipulate politics in our country. It is this political need that jumps out of Ranil’s mouth. We would never allow this agreement to be signed.”

The question is what those ‘RAW spies’ in Sri Lanka were doing during this year’s presidential and parliamentary elections.

In a video (dated 19 September 2023) doing the rounds on the Internet these days, Dissanayake opposes the Indo-Lanka connectivity project; he says the proposed projects such as the grid connection, the petroleum pipeline, etc., are detrimental to Sri Lanka’s independence.

It will be interesting to see what the opponents of ETCA, especially the professionals, who backed the NPP to the hilt in the presidential and parliamentary elections this year, have got to say about the incumbent government’s about-turns and acquiescence to India’s demands.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath is heard speaking of ‘bondages’ between India and Sri Lanka, during a brief television interview in New Delhi. Was it a mere lapsus linguae or a Freudian slip reflecting the JVP leaders’ subconscious antipathy towards what they once perceived as India’s suzerainty or hegemonistic interests?

Continue Reading

Trending