Monday 7th October, 2024

The process of submitting nominations for the 14 Nov., general election is currently underway. It is popularly thought that a person who wins the presidency stands a much better chance of steering his or her party to victory at a subsequent general election. But anything is possible in politics, where upset wins are not uncommon. What if a party other than President Dissanayake’s NPP wins the upcoming parliamentary polls?

Dissanayake has been one of the bitterest critics of the executive presidency, which his party, the JVP, has condemned as a wellspring of evil. But he chose to do what his predecessors had done, after being sworn in as the President; he exercised the much-despised executive powers of the President to dissolve Parliament prematurely in a bid to secure control thereof and consolidate his position.

There is a compelling argument that the last Parliament had to be dissolved as the NPP, which had only three members in it, needed to secure legislative power in a general election to carry out President Dissanayake’s policies. But the question is whether a mandate given to a President takes precedence over that of a political party which controls Parliament. There is another argument in favour of the premature dissolution of the last Parliament; the SLPP government, which was full of undesirables, lost legitimacy to remain in power when President Gotabaya Rajapaksa (GR) and Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa resigned due to mass protests. One cannot but agree that the SLPP government was full of misfits, but ironically the majority of the people who, unable to make proper judgements, made the mistake of electing those undesirables in the 2020 general election, voted for Dissanayake overwhelmingly at the recently concluded presidential election!

True, the SLPP government mismanaged the economy and inflicted unbearable suffering on the public, who were left with no alternative but to rise against that regime. But if mass protests can delegitimise popularly elected administrations, future governments, including the one President Dissanayake is planning to form, will also lose legitimacy in case of continuous mass protests against them.

Interestingly, Dissanayake, who successfully harnessed the forces that ousted President GR to realise his presidential dream, said in the run-up the 21 Sept. presidential election that President GR was a victim of what Ranil Wickremesinghe’s reckless borrowing from external sources to the tune of USD 13.5% billion during the Yahapalana government (2015-2019). The biggest beneficiary of the 2022 uprising, which the JVP infiltrated and manipulated, was Wickremesinghe, the ‘reckless borrower’; he became the President! Thus, Dissanayake and the JVP/NPP are doubly at fault.

If the political parties/alliances that form governments after obtaining popular mandates can be dislodged on the basis of the outcomes of presidential elections or according to the whims and fancies of the Executive Presidents, then what are general elections there for? In 2015, following the election of President Maithripala Sirisena, the UPFA ceded control of Parliament to the UNP, allowing President Sirisena to appoint Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister. The UNP did likewise in 2019, after GR secured the presidency. In 2004, the then President Chandrika Kumaratunga sacked the UNP-led UNF government, which had obtained a popular mandate about two years after the 1999 presidential election.

In 2018, President Sirisena made an abortive bid to sack Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and then dissolve Parliament. Last month, the SLPP government stepped down, following the election of President Dissanayake, allowing him to appoint a three-member Cabinet before dissolving Parliament. The Presidents who have either dissolved Parliament or wrested control thereof, immediately after being sworn in, came to power promising to abolish the executive presidency or to curtail the presidential powers that help undermine the legislature. Their actions have facilitated the emergence of an unhealthy political culture devoid of co-operation and coexistence between the Executive and the Legislature, unlike in mature democracies.

There is a constitutional provision preventing the President from dissolving Parliament before the expiration of two and a half years of the term of Parliament. In other words, if the President and the Prime Minister happen to be elected from different parties, they will have to co-operate for at least two and a half years to prevent the country from descending into chaos. If so, why shouldn’t they be made to do likewise after the expiration of the first two and a half years of the term of Parliament? The opponents of the executive presidency maintain that the President should be stripped of the power to dissolve Parliament prematurely. This argument has some merits.

The fact that the President has to have control over Parliament to ensure smooth governance points to a serious flaw in the Constitution. The Prime Minister becomes more powerful than the Executive President to all intents and purposes when they happen to represent two different political parties, and they tend to clash. This constitutional anomaly can lead to political instability mainly due to Sri Lankan political leaders’ insatiable quest of self-aggrandisement and unwillingness to cooperate for the sake of the country.

Some political commentators are of the view that both the presidential election and the parliamentary polls should be held simultaneously. But the possibility of two different parties securing the presidency and control of Parliament cannot be ruled out. The way out is for the political leaders to learn to respect the mandates they receive at presidential and parliamentary elections separately and act in the interest of the country.

It is up to the public to elect, as their MPs, only the individuals who have the national interest at heart, at the upcoming general election. Otherwise, political instability is likely to set in, taking its toll on the economic recovery process in case of a party other than the NPP gaining control of the legislature or the next Parliament becoming hung by any chance.

Even before the ‘indelible’ ink marks placed on the left little fingernails of those who voted at the September 21 presidential election had faded or washed off, the concerned authorities last Friday began receiving nomination for the November 14 parliamentary election that follows. This process will continue till October 11 when the picture will become clearer. Questions already in the minds of voters, apart from the vital one of which party and what candidates they will choose, include whether figures prominent in the contemporary political picture will bow out. Former President Maithripala Sirisena’s son, Daham’s entry into Dilith Jayaweera’s party last week, is a clear indication that Sirisena Senior is retiring from politics at least for the moment. After defeating Mahinda Rajapaksa for the presidency in 2015, Sirisena opted to return to parliament under Rajapaksa colours, indicating his desire to remain in the game as a mere MP after being President of the Republic.

Will figures like Sarath Fonseka and Wijayadasa Rajapakshe follow Sirisena’s example and keep off the race? At present, many political figures of recent, and not so recent vintage, appear well and truly stranded. Given the manner in which several active figures in contemporary politics aligned with runners they favoured in the presidential contest, it was obvious that they were positioning themselves for the parliamentary election that has come earlier than some of them expected. While the NPP/JVP made clear that the first executive act of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake would be to dissolve parliament, neither Sajith Premadasa nor Ranil Wickremesinghe went public with what they planed to do had they emerged winners. As a result various arrangements would surely have been place in return for support in the presidential race.

The way the game is played in this so-called democratic socialist republic of ours, all kinds of deals including candidates who will run (and from where), national list slots, diplomatic appointments, corporation chairmanships and much more are demanded, and granted, in return for support. Delivery ability, of course, depends on electoral outcomes. Diana Gamage, for example, was able to negotiate a national list seat for herself in the last parliament with Sajith Premadasa in return for the recognized political party she claimed she “owned.” Of course Premadasa lost the August 2020 general election but was able, thanks to proportional representation, to accommodate Gamage on the SJB national list. It was not long before she jumped ship in return for a state ministry in the ruling government. Despite the challenge of her right to sit and vote in the legislature on account of her purported British citizenship, she enjoyed more than one crowded hour of glorious fame.

We wager it would be hard for the ordinary voter to keep track of who jumped from which party to the other in the run-up to the last presidential poll. Last week’s news was that there was no possibility now of an SJB – UNP alliance for the upcoming parliamentary election, although the two parties were in talks. Simple arithmetic on the presidential election results would have made abundantly clear to both Premadasa and Wickremesinghe that such an arrangement would have been advantageous to both sides. But that was not to be. While RW, predictably, was ever willing to let Sajith Premadasa be the prime ministerial candidate of such an alliance, he was unwilling to concede the leadership of the UNP to his one time deputy. He apparently insisted on retaining the party leadership and would not be fobbed off with a ceremonial elder statesman role in the party. So once again there will be no elephant symbol on the ballot paper and the gas cylinder will prevail.

As we have often said in this space, winning an election is a major advantage for the winner if another contest follows, especially as closely as this one. The pithy Sinhala idiom, vaasi paththata hoiya, (hurrah for the winning side) explains it all. With AKD’s comfortable win, although he did not clear the 50 percent plus one vote hurdle to be declared winner at the first count, he was way ahead of both Premadasa and Wickremesinghe with Namal Rajapaksa trailing behind a poor fourth. So that advantage is clearly with the NPP/JVP. The favourable post-election noises already made by the victors are most likely to have won that party more support than they commanded at the presidential election. Only its three MPs in the last parliament and a few other leaders have been visible to the public in the past. The constituents of its powerful Politbureau and Central and Executive Committees is little known. As a result the party’s candidates’ list for the parliamentary election will be most revealing. Voters would eagerly await its publiction to get acquainted with the future movers and shakers of government.

Other factors likely excite curiosity is the future of the Rajapaksa party. Will Basil Rajapaksa, long regarded not only as the pohottuwa’s founder, but also its eminence grise return to the country to organize the SLPP campaign as he had done at all recent elections? Or would he play safe? Would Mahinda Rajapaksa conclude his very long political innings and throw his hat into the ring one last time? From what appears on television screens, he appears getting frailer by the day.

The NPP/JVP will surely make a pitch for a two thirds majority in the new parliament. A simple majority, widely considered desirable in the context of past history (CBK vs. RW), is one thing. But absolute majorities such as those the country knew in 1970 and 1977 can be tyrannies. Remember Mrs. B extended the 1970 parliament by two years and JRJ the 1977 legislature by one full parliamentary term. Proportional Representation (PR) makes such majorities very difficult unlike first-past-the-post presidential elections. Hopefully there will be no two thirds. The September figures suggest this is very unlikely.

Saturday 5th October, 2024

The police top brass is reported to have held a meeting recently to discuss the progress of high-profile criminal investigations. Among the other issues taken up at the discussion attended by Secretary to the Ministry of Public Security Ravi Seneviratne, Acting IGP Priyantha Weerasuriya and other high-ranking officers from the CID, etc., were the probes that had been either delayed or derailed, we are told. Such discussions usually take place when governments change; they receive much publicity and hold out hope initially, but nothing come of them eventually. It is hoped that the aforesaid discussion will not go the same way as the previous ones.

For the first time in Sri Lanka’s post-Independence history, a government with no affiliations to the UNP or the SLFP or their offshoots, such as the SLPP, has been formed. The governments, led by those parties, did not go all out to investigate offences committed under previous administrations and bring the culprits to justice as they feared that they themselves would have to face similar consequences when out of power. This quid pro quo may explain why those who should have been imprisoned for various offences years ago remain free today. The prevailing culture of impunity is one of the reasons why the people supported the NPP in the recently-concluded presidential election.

The NPP administration will have to live up to their expectations. Its opponents argue that although the JVP, the largest constituent of the NPP, has not wielded state power previously, it was part of the SLFP-led UPFA coalition, which won the 2004 general election, and it honeymooned with the UNP during the Yahapalana government; therefore its track record is far from squeaky clean. The only way the NPP can prove its critics wrong and retain public support is to have the unsolved crimes committed under previous regimes probed thoroughly and the perpetrators thereof brought to justice.

One of the main election pledges of the NPP was to restore the rule of law and ensure that crimes would not go unpunished. The killers of Sunday Leader editor Lasantha Wickrematunge and rugby player Wasim Thajudeen are still at large. The police obviously connived with the politicians and their kith and kin blamed for those crimes, and chose to drag their feet on investigations thereinto. The mastermind behind the Treasury bond rackets has not been traced, and no serious effort has been made to have former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran extradited from Singapore to stand trial for the scams. The state coffers lost billions of rupees due to the sugar tax scam under the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government. The need for a thorough probe into that racket cannot be overstated. The politicians involved in the on-arrival visa racket have not been arrested, and they must be made to face the full force of the law without further delay.

As for the Easter Sunday carnage, there is no need for another protracted probe. The Catholic Church has categorically stated that National Thowheed Jamath leader Zahran Hashim’s handler, who called himself Abu Hind, masterminded the terror attacks; Abu Hind’s real identity is known to the current Secretary to Public Security Seneviratne and the members of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry that probed the carnage, according to Spokesman for the Colombo Archdiocese Rev. Fr. Cyril Gamini Fernando. It defies comprehension why ‘Abu Hind’ has not been arrested yet.

There is no reason why the NPP administration cannot order high-level probes into the aforesaid scams and killings posthaste. Verbalising about the virtues of justice and the rule of law won’t do. Let the new leaders be asked to fish or cut bait.