Connect with us

Features

The Collapse of the Old Guard and the Wait for the Young Turks

Published

on

by Rajan Philips

President Wickremesinghe’s political days are numbered in more ways than one. There are virtually none left for Mahinda Rajapaksa. The oldest of them, R. Sampanthan, is under pressure to formally retire. Vasudeva Nanayakkara has not been heard in a while, but he too belongs to the cohort of politicians who entered parliament in 1970 or 1977. They respectively came from Colombo, Hambantota, Galle/Kiriella and Trincomalee, and belonged to the UNP, the SLFP, the TULF and the LSSP – four parties that spanned the entire political spectrum of Sri Lanka in the 20th century.

Vasudeva Nanayakkara was 30 years old, and Mahinda Rajapaksa was 25, when they entered parliament in 1970. Ranil Wickremesinghe was 28 and Sampanthan was 44 when they entered parliament seven years later in 1977. As they are on their way out they are also symptomatic of the state of their political parties, if not the state of politics in the country. Not to mention the economy.

Not many are waiting in the wings to replace them. The public focus is on two men: Anura Kumara Dissanayake (55) and Sajith Premadasa (56). The latter leads the SJB with a larger representation in parliament and is the leader of the opposition. The former has only two JVP/NPP MPs with him in parliament, but is steadily rising in political popularity in the country. Both are untested in national leadership, and they are waiting for their turn at a time when the country is waiting to overcome the most trying challenges it has ever faced in its modern history.

Historical Parallels

Historical parallels may not mean much but are useful to assess the seriousness of the current challenges and the scarceness of national capacity to meet them. Politics in 1970 and 1977 was both energizing and optimistic with two opposing visions that were advocated by impressively talented leaders. The public was engaged and had clear alternative choices. Neither is the case now. That does not mean either Dissanayake or Premadasa cannot mobilize their organizations and rise to the occasion. It only means that the onus is on them to show what they are made of and what teams they will assemble for the next parliament – teams with depths of talent and dedication, and nothing of the corrupt and the incompetent. The time for demonstration is now, well in advance of whatever election that comes first sometimes next year.

Another parallel can be drawn from the time of independence when political competition was between DS Senanayake, who was emerging as the elder statesman – from being nobody to somebody, as Kumari Jayawardena has chronicled, and the young Turks of the time – SWRD Bandaranaike, GG Ponnambalam and Philip Gunawardena. For nearly 15 years preceding independence, the three men, with remarkable abilities and even more remarkable ambitions, had been stalking DS Senanayake to wrest control of the country’s political leadership. Each was on his own path that was exclusive to himself either egotistically or ideologically. Yet their politics was of a high order.

SWRD was the centrist of the three, jostling for position both within and outside the orbit of DS Senanayake, discreetly building his independent base through the Sinhala Maha Sabha, and being strategically ambivalent in confronting colonial rule. GG Ponnambalam was unabashedly pro-colonial and was trying to project himself as the representational champion of the minorities with his technically sound but politically untenable 50-50 cry. Philip Gunawardena was the implacable anti-imperialist, cantankerous by nature, but yet the inspirational leader of Sri Lanka’s first political party, the LSSP.

What was common to all three men was that each was convinced that he was far more able and equipped for political leadership than DS Senanayake during what were clearly the twilight years of colonial rule. But the wily old Senanayake bested them all. Bandaranaike and Ponnambalam became Ministers in the first Senanayake cabinet, although Mr. Bandaranaike would soon leave to set up his own political party, the SLFP that became his vehicle to power in 1956. Ponnambalam dazzled for a while, but his fortunes dwindled soon after DS Senanayake’s sudden death in 1952. Philip became isolated even within the left movement and except for a brief cameo as a consequential cabinet minister in 1956, his early promises gradually evaporated.

Contrast DS Senanayake and his detractors with Ranil Wickremesinghe and his rivals. Nothing more needs to be said. Or contrast the promises of that time with the predicaments of today. The predicaments that our current contenders for power, Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Sajith Premadasa, have to deal with had their origins in the political questions that preoccupied the time of independence and the years after it. The 20th century legacies of the constitution, the ethnic question and the economy are haunting us still.

20th Century Legacies

First, there was and there is, the constitution. Independence arrived on the back of a new constitution, the Soulbury Constitution; rather, the Jennings Constitution. Dr. Nihal Jayawickrama recently described it as the finest of the three constitutions we have had over 75 years. The late Newton Gunasinghe, Marxist and Socialist, used to say the same thing. Here we are today debating the possibility of reverting back to parliamentary democracy that characterized the Jennings Constitution, and jettisoning the current presidential system that is enshrined by the Jayewardene Constitution.

Second, and inextricably tied to the constitution was, and is, the ethnic question. The Jennings Constitution was predicated on what AJ Wilson called the “communal compact,” a supposed understanding between the leaders of the different ethnic communities about the constitutional safeguards for minority rights.

The safeguards were primarily Section 29 of the Constitution, public sector hiring, and the formula for political representation based on population and electoral areas. As it turned out, the safeguards were breached almost from the morrow of independence. The judiciary was independent, but often sided with the government on constitutional questions.

The first breach was the disenfranchisement of the estate Tamils soon after independence. The mass of stateless people in the estates along with the mass of settlers from the south colonizing the eastern province, totally invalidated the constitutional formula for minority representation in parliament. Then came the language question and the opening of the floodgates first in public sector hiring and later in university admissions. The 1972 and 1978 constitutions simply removed the pretense of safeguards that the 1947 constitution had included in its provisions.

The 13th Amendment to the current Constitution belatedly addressed the earlier breaches, but there is more debate about 13A-plus than there is real commitment to implementing what is already part of the constitution. In addition to the 13th Amendment, the citizenship question of the estate Tamils has also been ‘resolved.’ There was never going to be an equitable resolution after nearly half the estate population was repatriated to India, but there is now some finality to it.

It so happens that this month of November marks the bicentenary of the first arrival of the ancestors of the estate Tamils as indentured labourers from Tamil Nadu. The have been commemorations and celebrations throughout this year under the rubric, “Naam 200” (We are 200), but the most recent one at the Sugathadasa Stadium in Colombo would seem to have bordered on the farcical.

The event was organized under the auspices of Jeevan Thondaman in his capacity as Minister of Water Supply and Estate Infrastructure Development (another instance of Ranil Wickremesinghe’s bizarre mixing of ministerial portfolios). More famously, the young Thondaman is the grandson of the CWC patriarch, the late S. Thondaman. The event had more to do with who was invited and who was excluded, and less to with the people on the estates. And the invitations were selectively extended to the BJP in India and the BJP put on a better show in Colombo than it could ever do in Chennai.

The resolution of the citizenship of the estate Tamils, the emergence of territorially defined Muslim political parties, and the exodus of Sri Lankan Tamils, have transformed the ethnic question from what it was for most of the 20th century. The Sri Lankan Tamils are no longer the ‘majority’ in the minority question. The tri-lingual fluency of the Muslims and the estate Tamils is also transforming the linguistic landscape of the island. The retirement of the TNA leader, R. Sampanthan will create its own unique vacuum. President Wickremesinghe tried to fast track reconciliation, but his efforts were undone because his motives were self-serving.

It was known then that it was Sampanthan who persuaded Ranil Wickremesinghe to support Maithripala Sirisena as the common opposition candidate for the 2015 presidential election. Now, there are no indications as to which way the minority political parties will sway, and what offers will be made by Anura Kumara Dissanayake or Sajith Premadasa to make them (minorities) sway their way.

The elephant in the room of course is the economy. It was the most promising of all the prospects at the time of independence. Today it is biggest burden on the country and its future. Ranil Wickremesinghe often brags about the state of the economy under DS Senanayake, even though much of the economy at that time was leftover from colonial rule. Anura Kumara Dissanayake, on the other hand, once blamed the entire political history after independence for the economic mess that Gotabaya Rajapaksa singlehandedly created.

Mr. Dissanayake’s rhetoric was obviously over the top although it was understandable in the context of his insisting two years ago that the JVP/NPP was ready to take over the leadership of the country. Now that Mr. Dissanayake is becoming a real contender for power, the people will expect to hear from him as much substance as political rhetoric. There will be similar expectations and pressure on Sajith Premadasa who is currently trailing the JVP leader by some distance in opinion polling. It is always a long way to power. The journey is still starting.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

New mediation law for smarter dispute resolution of civil and commercial disputes – I

Published

on

The Mediation (Civil and Commercial Disputes) Bill  was passed by the Parliament on Thursday, June 11, 2026.  Harshana  Nanayakkara, Minister of Justice and National Integration, introduced the Bill, and explained its provisions and value for Sri Lanka and global developments in the use of mediation. Encouragingly, it was passed unanimously.

Sri Lanka’s commitment to provide legislative support for the use of mediation is timely and most welcome. Given that the backlog of cases pending before courts is over a staggering 1.1 million, it is clear that Sri Lanka is yet another country that remains challenged to find responses to make  dispute resolution more efficient. The impact of laws delays is serious and damaging not only to the disputants personally, but also for businesses and the economic development of the country. The delays in concluding cases impacts the economy adversely, both directly and indirectly,  but are often seen only as an access to Justice concern. This is unfortunate. In many jurisdictions across the globe, alternative dispute resolution processes (ADR), such as mediation, have been introduced to alleviate laws delays. While Sri Lanka enacted legislation (1988) to provide for mediation in respect of minor community disputes of a low monetary threshold, the enactment of the new law heralds a commitment to provide for the recognition of a disciplined regime for its use for higher value civil and commercial disputes.

The new law provides for the recognition of mediation as a dispute resolution option that can be voluntarily selected by parties, and for a governance regime to ensure that mediations are conducted in compliance with certain standards which are globally accepted. It provides statutory recognition to the principle that a mediated settlement agreement that has been signed by the disputants, is valid in law. It does not provide for any management control by government or establish entities. In addition to the voluntary reference by parties, a  court can also refer a dispute in an action before it, to mediation, at its discretion, after considering all  circumstances and if considered appropriate.  The voluntary nature of the process is not affected because, while the court can refer the dispute to mediation and the parties must then engage in the mediation, there is no compulsion for the parties to settle against their will.

The law sets out the obligations of Mediators, disputants and the Service Provider. Certain categories of disputes cannot be referred  to mediation.  These are disputes the settlement of which requires the inclusion of terms that can be given effect to, only on a decree of court, such as the termination of a marriage or a declaration of nullity of marriage or the adoption of a child or the partition of land to obtain rights in rem.  A schedule sets out eleven (11) categories of actions that cannot be settled by mediation. However,  matters relevant to such disputes may be mediated for the purpose of submitting terms of settlement to court for consideration of incorporation in a judgement, decree or order in compliance with applicable law.

The new law also provides that in a mediation, certain  key principles of the process must be complied with. These include the  confidentiality and the without prejudice rule in respect of matters discussed at the mediation; the  rule that Mediators must be neutral and impartial; the party centric nature of the process that provides primacy to the wishes of the disputants including that it is they that determine the outcome and that a settlement is reached only if all disputants agree to the terms; the noncoercive role of the mediator whose duty is to facilitate and manage the process using mediation specific skills and techniques, but is debarred from imposing a decision. Although a settlement agreement is valid in law, provision is included to obtain a decree of court, based on the terms of the settlement. A mediated settlement agreement can be set aside on an application made to court, on specific limited grounds which are provided for, including that it is offensive to the public policy of the country. If the parties are unable to agree on a settlement, a certificate of non-settlement is issued. The provisions of the law are based on international best practices and principles articulated in the 1988 UN Mediation Convention  (the Singapore Convention) and the UNCITRAL model law.

The popularity of mediation has grown for its value in being time efficient, cost effective and party centric. Parties have control over the outcome and have the space to discuss their concerns, fears and interests and need never agree to settle unless fully satisfied that settlement terms address their interests. Disputants are free to walk out of a mediation process at any time, if dissatisfied with the progress. The discussions are confidential and a valuable feature is that the process offers an opportunity to reduce acrimony which is prevalent in most disputes, and to restore fractured relationships which is very important in family  and  business related disputes. This benefit and the prospects for governments to reduce the cost of the administration of justice, by using mediation,  is articulated in the preamble to the 2018 UN Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (2018) which states that the use of mediation results in significant benefits.

 Pursuant to the interest generated within the country regarding the value of using Mediation for commercial dispute resolution, and heralding what we like to see as the initial steps of a Mediation boom in the country, several positive advancements have taken place –

*    Parties have opted to include mediation in the dispute resolution clause in contracts;

*    Given that mediating disputes requires  very specialised techniques and skills, many professionals, including predominantly Lawyers, have engaged in training programmes offered by international training bodies that offer accreditation;

*    Trained Mediators are engaged in an effort to form themselves as a professional Organisation;

*    Mediation  Advocacy training programmes have been held to train Lawyers on their niche role in the mediation process. That role is distinctly different to that of a court Lawyer who’s obligations are centred on an adversarial approach where the dispute is adjudicated in terms of the law alone.  Hence lawyers need training to be useful within a non-adversarial process which is party centric and has a focus on reaching a settlement, based on the interests of disputants.

*    Sri Lanka enacted the Recognition and Enforcement of International Mediated Settlement Agreements Act No. 5 of 2024 (the UN Mediation Convention Act) and ratified the Convention becoming the 14th country to do so. Sri Lanka will be seen as an investor friendly country in respect of dispute resolution where mediation is used, since it offers an enforcement regime which is recognised universally.

*    The landmark determination of the Supreme Court (SC SD 22 of 2025) in the challenge by the Bar Association to the constitutionality of the Mediation (Civil and Commercial Disputes) Bill, found that none of the provisions of the Bill were unconstitutional and gave a judicial sign off to statutory provisions that seek to ensure that mediation services are provided in this country, in a disciplined manner in compliance with universally accepted standards.

*    Perhaps, inspired by the statutory obligation imposed on judges to attempt pretrial settlement of disputes, in terms of the Small Claims Court Act and the Small Claims Court Procedure Act (both of 2022) and the Civil Procedure Code provisions on Pretrial Conference and Pretrial Orders, 125 District Judges were recently trained (with support from the ADB) in Mediation. The training provided a dual benefit – it provided training in  skills that are required to settle disputes and equally importantly, provided a comprehensive understanding of how mediation will function when judges themselves refer disputes for settlement by private mediators.

*    Trained Mediators are already conducting mediations with success.

*    A not-for-profit guarantee company, the International ADR Centre – www.iadrc.lk ) was established in 2018  as a joint venture of the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce and the Institute for the Development of Commercial Law & Practice (ICLP) to promote ADR and is actively engaged in promoting mediation through training, disseminating information and creating awareness among stakeholders, including the business sector.   In addition to the International ADR Centre, “Udecide”  is a project that promotes training of mediators and other activities that enrich the mediation culture.

*    Commercial Mediation has been included in the Masters level programme at the Colombo University;

*    The Sri Lanka Law College offers a component on Mediation in the Post Attorney Diploma programme, which commenced recently.

The private sector was actively engaged in the drafting of the  Mediation Bill under the leadership of the International ADR Centre, which held many stakeholder consultations to obtain feedback from those that were conversant with the subject. The Centre had previously assisted the government to draft the UN Mediation Convention Act (Act No. 5 of 2024).

Several international Organisations that previously provided for resolution of disputes by arbitration, have provided for institutional rules to provide mediation services. These include WIPO and the ICC. Specifically, in relation to Investor State dispute resolution (ISDR), the  International Bar Association (IBA) adopted its  Mediation  Rules in 2012 and ICSID (of the World Bank group) adopted its Mediation Rules in 2022.  UNCITRAL, which is currently working on reforming  ISDR, promotes mediation, observing that the use of mediation could reduce the costs of ISDS and also preserve relationships between the investor and the State. UNCITRAL has formulated provisions on and Guidelines for, Mediation for investor state dispute resolution.

(To be continued)

by Dhara Wijayatilake
Attorney-at-Law; Former Secretary to the Ministry of Justice; Director and Secretary General of the International ADR Centre.

Continue Reading

Features

A Testament to the Sri Lankan family

Published

on

The passing of Dr. Devanesan Nesiah a few days ago brought back memories that spanned more than four decades. Devanesan signed the witness register at my marriage in 2002. It was a year of hope. The Ceasefire Agreement between the government and the LTTE had brought a respite from a war that had devastated the country for nearly two decades. The possibility of peace seemed real. It was fitting that Devanesan should be present on that occasion because his entire life was dedicated to building bridges across divides and seeking rational and humane solutions to conflict. He was a friend, mentor, and guide whose life embodied values that Sri Lanka, indeed the world, needs today.

In reflecting on Dr. Nesiah’s life, we need to be reminded that the forces that unite us as a people in Sri Lanka are stronger than those that divide us, and that the bonds of human affection can transcend even the deepest divisions of ethnicity, history and politics. I first met him in 1984. I had just had my very first newspaper article published in the Jaffna-based Saturday Review. The editor was Gamini Navaratne, a Sinhalese. This was a reminder that even during the darkest period of ethnic conflict, the bonds between communities remained strong. The article I had written was based on my encounters with the anti-Tamil violence of July 1983.

At that time, Dr Nesiah was the Government Agent of Jaffna. Tens of thousands of Tamil people who had fled violence in the south had been transported to the north by a government that had failed to protect them. He came up to me at an event, introduced himself, and told me that he liked what I had written. He also said that he would soon be leaving for Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and that we could meet there. Over the next three years, Devanesan and his wife Anita adopted me into their family.  I used to visit them two or three times a week, not only to be given meals by Anita but to discuss matters with Devanesan.  These included the academic papers and newspaper articles that were written. Later, Anita earned her PhD in religion and served on the boards of many civic organisations, including the National Peace Council.

Practical Solution

In 1992, we had both returned to work in Sri Lanka when Devanesan invited me to accompany him to Jaffna to celebrate the eightieth birthday of his father, K Nesiah, the distinguished educationist affectionately known as Professor Nesiah. The older Nesiah had been a leading member of the Jaffna Youth Congress. This remarkable movement championed complete independence from British rule, national unity, and the eradication of social inequalities based on caste and communal identity.

At a time when many feared that independence would lead to majoritarian domination, the leaders of the Youth Congress chose instead to place their faith in a shared Sri Lankan future. They believed that people from different communities could build a common nation while preserving their distinctive identities. So did Devanesan.  This vision remains relevant today. It needs to be actualized.

The tragedy of Sri Lanka’s post-independence history is not that diversity exists. Diversity exists in every society. The tragedy is that we often allow diversity to become a source of fear, though we share many of the same values of family, hospitality, respect for elders and compassion towards others. During our visit to Jaffna in 1992, we met representatives of the LTTE administration, including Raheem. The discussion turned to the controversial issue of merging the Northern and Eastern Provinces. Dr Nesiah argued that if the merger could not be achieved due to political opposition, it might be more rational to seek greater powers for provincial councils instead. Raheem disagreed.  Devanesan was interested in finding practical ways to achieve justice and coexistence. That was characteristic of him.

Devanesan Nesiah was a student of conflict and strategy. He became a doctoral student of Professor Thomas Schelling, who would later receive the Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on conflict and cooperation. Schelling’s insight was that even in the midst of conflict, there are usually common interests that adversaries share. Even adversaries locked in a struggle usually depend on each other for the outcome they each want. The challenge is to identify those common interests and build upon them. Conflict is not simply a contest between enemies. It is also a search for ways to coexist. Together as students and peace practitioners, we applied those theories to the Sri Lankan context to understand what was going on and to share that understanding with the Sri Lankan people.

Rational Empathy

Dr Nesiah spoke his mind, truth to power. He was a man of logic, rationality, and principle. His integrity came at a cost. His public service career experienced many ups and downs because he refused to accommodate irrational or corrupt demands. There were periods when he was sidelined into that administrative limbo known as the “pool” and assigned no substantive responsibilities for refusing to give in to political demands. Like the rest of his larger family, most notably the Hoole family of Jaffna, he would not abandon his principles. In 2018, to protest the action of President Maithripala Sirisena in sacking the then government he returned his Deshamanya Award (Pride of the Nation) national civil honourn which was soon thereafter overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. His commitment was not to personal advancement, but to what he believed was right.

My wife Sumadhu recalls a story he told her. One day, while travelling on official duty, he told her how he had seen a thalagoya, a monitor lizard, trussed up and being taken away for slaughter. The sight of the creature’s suffering affected him deeply. He said he saw tears in its eyes and described the moment of awakening. From that day onwards, he gave up eating meat.

The story brings to mind the biblical story of the conversion of St Paul on the road to Damascus and the Buddhist exhortation, “May all living beings be well and happy.” But the deeper significance lies not in religious comparison. It lies in the awakening of empathy.

That was the essence of Dr Devanesan Nesiah’s worldview. The prejudices that society often imposes through ethnicity, religion, caste, or gender had little hold on him. He saw them as human constructs that often served to privilege some while excluding others. Such were his values that made him an extraordinary human being. Dr. Nesiah lived according to that understanding. He showed that integrity can survive amidst conflict. He reminded us that reason and compassion are not opposites but partners, that what unites us as Sri Lankans inhabiting our common island home has always been greater than what divides us, and we need to build our institutions accordingly.

I am proud that he was my friend. I am grateful that he was my mentor.

by Jehan Perera

Continue Reading

Features

City of Dreams …Heartbeat of Colombo

Published

on

Enroute

If Colombo’s nightlife had a pulse, you’d find it 23 floors up, at Gatz, City of Dreams, Cinnamon Life.

The entertainment lounge has shed its old skin and stepped out supper-club style — think dim lights, clinking glasses, and live music that doesn’t ask you to choose between dinner and a show. You get both.

What’s more, at the new look Gatz the music never stops and it’s all happening seven nights a week … with live entertainment, and this is the scene, beat by beat:

Monday and Tuesday: Top Hats with Daniella/Naomi, from 7.00 pm onwards.

Sohan, Kamal Munasinghe (GM, Cinnamon Life) and Imran of
Funtime Entertainments

One of Colombo’s most sought-after bands is now a Monday-Tuesday ritual.

With a super repertoire, Top Hats can swing from lounge jazz to dancefloor fire. Big venues love them. Now Gatz gets to claim them.

Wednesday: Enroute with Gananath & Debbie – from 7.00 pm onwards.

Want New York at sunset? This is it. Gananath & Debbie transport you straight to the heady days of Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and Ray Charles …old-school cool, live and unfiltered.

Thursday to Sunday: Terry & the Big Spenders – from 8.00 pm onwards.

Terry & The Big Spenders

The crowd favourite. A super big band sound that owns the 70s, 80s and 90s.

If you’ve been waiting for horns, harmonies, and nostalgia with volume, Terry & the Big Spenders deliver it nightly. No wonder they’re a huge hit.

Gatz is now an entertainment lounge, in Supper Club style, with Happy Hour very day, from 6.00 pm to 8.00 pm because the night, they say, should start with a toast.

And, from July, weekends at the Gatz go global. Local and foreign guest stars will be around to entertain you. Gatz is certainly booking big.

Wow! That would be another exciting experience for those patronising the most talked about venue in town.

In charge of the new setup is our legendary entertainer/singer Sohan Weerasinghe, along with Imran of Funtime Entertainment.

The twosome, with invaluable assistance from the General Manager, Kamal Munasinghe, and the entire team at Cinnamon Life, have built Gatz into more than a venue. They have turned it into the “Heartbeat of the City.”

So come for happy hour. Stay for Terry’s horns, Sing-along with Enroute and Dance with Top Hats, all on the 23rd floor, and while Colombo sparkles below the bands will take you higher.

Remember, the heartbeat is loudest at Gatz.

Top Hats

Continue Reading

Trending