Editorial
US election: What next?
Monday 9th November 2020
President Donald J. Trump was planning to paint the town red. His plan having gone pear-shaped, the Democrats are doing that. Joe Biden has emerged the winner in the US presidential race. He had won 279 electoral votes and Trump 214, at the time of going to press. President Trump’s allegations of electoral frauds, undue delays in vote counting and other such issues have taken the gloss off the Democratic win to some extent.
This is not the first time there have been allegations of fraud and intimidation anent a US presidential election. Such incidents were widespread in some parts of the US including Louisiana and South Carolina, during the closely contested 1876 presidential election, and both Democrats and Republicans were responsible for them, according to historians.
Interestingly, Trump, whom Russia is accused of having made the President, has been brought down by what he calls the China virus, among other things. The Democrats were hoping for a walk in the park, on 03 November, but Trump put up a good fight; if not for the pandemic, which has plunged the US into chaos, Trump would perhaps have been able to secure a second term. The Republicans have performed impressively in the Senate and House races, which went alongside the presidential election.
The American polity is riven with deep divisions. The biggest challenge before President elect Biden will be to make the American democracy great again, and reunite the United States. He addressed the nation very eloquently and undertook to do so. However, the proof of the pudding is said to be in the eating. He will have to preside over one of the worst crises in the history of the US as well as the world. The US topped 125,000 daily COVID-19 infections on Friday, and this portends serious trouble for the new administration to be formed. Trump chose to keep the country open despite the rapid increase in infections, and his modus operandi has not worked. He fought shy of closing the country as he did not want the economy to suffer. Lockdowns will entail huge economic, political and social costs. How does Biden propose to get on top of the situation?
The Democrats have defeated the nationalistic forces that rallied behind Trump. But whether they will succeed in managing their electoral gains hinges on Biden’s ability to deliver. Will he and Kamala Harris be able to live up to the Americans’ expectations? We are reminded of the 2015 regime change in this country. It was also considered a setback for nationalism and saw the coming together of a docile President and a self-assertive second-in-command. What happened thereafter is now history.
Meanwhile, the process of electing the US president is not yet over. What is known as the general election has been completed, for all practical purposes, although the final result has not yet been announced. The people have voted for 538 electors in favour of Biden and Trump, and the exact number of electoral votes each of them has secured will be known soon. Thereafter, it is up to the electors to vote for either Biden or Trump when they meet as the Electoral College, on 14 Dec. 2020. Their votes are sent to the Congress for the final tally, which is scheduled to be announced on 06 January 2021.
The Founding Fathers expected electors to be ‘men capable of analyzing’ presidential candidates, but the members of the Electoral College are today bound by their party allegiances more than anything else. The electors are thus party loyalists, but not all of them are legally bound to vote for the candidates they have publicly declared their allegiance to. There been instances of ‘faithless’ electors voting for candidates other than those they were pledged to. Following the conclusion of the 1948, 1960 and 1968 presidential elections, when the Electoral College met, third parties received electoral votes, much to the disappointment of the voting public and the main candidates. After the presidential elections in 1976, 2004 and 2016, faithless votes changed the final tallies but had no impact on the outcomes of those races.
In 2016, Republican Candidate Trump lost two electoral votes (out of 306 elected) and his Democratic contender Hillary Clinton five (out of 232 elected), owing to faithless candidates. Some States have legislated for the cancellation of faithless votes, and the electors who cast them are penalised in five States, but those from other places face no such legal barriers.
Faithless electors have not changed the outcome of a US presidential election so far. They are not a problem in an Electoral College blowout situation, but the fact remains that they have the potential either to change the apparent winner or to send a presidential election to the Congress. The US polity is polarised as never before. Even armed Trump supports were sighted near some counting centres. President Trump, having declared himself the winner falsely, is ready to do whatever it takes to retain power, and anything is, therefore, possible. Trump has not conceded defeat, and a representative of his legal team has said that much could happen between the election and the inauguration of the President due on 06 January 2021.
It may be recalled that in 1877, the Congress had to appoint an ad hoc electoral commission to sort out a dispute when both Democratic and Republican candidates who contested the 1876 presidential election—Samuel J. Tilden and Rutherford B. Hayes, respectively—claimed victory with South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana being in doubt. The election results were revised, and the Congress, following a stormy session, announced, on 02 March 1877, that Hayes, who had almost conceded defeat a few months before, had been elected the President.
Editorial
Prez in the dock
The US has acted decisively to rein in a runaway Executive, as it were. The House of Representatives has passed a resolution curbing President Donald Trump’s powers to attack Iran without congressional authorisation. Four Republicans joined Democrats to ensure the passage of the landmark bill in a vote of 215 to 208. However, the actual enforcement of this legislative measure will have to clear several hurdles, with the White House remaining determined to undermine it. But the Congress’s message to Trump is loud and clear. The War Powers resolution is bound to hang like the sword of Damocles above Trump’s head. The congressional action to keep the Executive in check is proof of institutional robustness, which helps safeguard the separation of powers, among other things, in the US.
Sadly, in Sri Lanka it is virtually impossible to restrain the Executive President, especially when his or her party has control over the legislature. The subservience of Parliament to the President largely owing to the numerical inferiority of the Opposition has created a situation where civil society organisations and professional associations have to lead a countervailing force against the Executive and help protect democracy.
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) and the Colombo High Court Lawyers’ Association (CHCLA) have moved in to bolster the ongoing efforts to frustrate a questionable government bid to increase the retirement ages of the judges of the Superior Courts arbitrarily. They have issued well-reasoned statements opposing the proposed move.
Pointing out that the retirement ages of the judges of the Court of Appeal (CA) and the Supreme Court (SC) have been constitutionally fixed at 63 and 65, respectively, the two associations have very convincingly demolished all arguments for the proposed government move, stressing the need for the Executive to act with restraint. The Opposition has also put forth cogent arguments against the government bid at issue. Former Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs Prof. G. L. Peiris was perhaps the first to take up the issue and alert the public, and galvanise the lawyers’ associations, etc., into putting up stiff resistance.
The proposed move to extend the retirement ages of CA and SC judges has come as a surprise because there is no dearth of qualified judicial officers in this country. What the government ought to do urgently is to take action to fill all existing judicial vacancies, the CHCLA has said, pointing out that any attempt by the Executive or the Legislature to amend the constitutional provisions governing the retirement of judges, without a compelling rationale and without following the prescribed process, would constitute “an act of the gravest constitutional impropriety”.
It has warned that “the impact of an upward revision of the retirement ages of Judges of the Superior Courts will produce “immediate, concrete, and deeply unjust consequences for the dedicated officers of the Judicial Service of Sri Lanka, who have devoted their professional lives to the service of the administration of justice”. It goes on to argue that the proposed extension of the retirement ages of the Superior Court judges, in the absence of any transparent, constitutionally grounded, and publicly articulated justification could risk “the public perception that the Executive seeks to secure the continued service of particular Judges whose disposition may be regarded as favourable to the interests of the State in litigation before the Superior Courts”.
It is also deeply troubling that the proposed government move smacks of a sinister attempt to undermine the doctrine of the separation of powers. Having come to power, promising to abolish the executive presidency, the JVP/NPP should be ashamed of its deplorable attempts to enhance the executive powers of the President through questionable means. It has made a mockery of its commitment to upholding the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers.
The government has chosen to remain silent on questions being raised about its deplorable move at issue. The only way President Anura Kumara Dissanayake can put the matter to rest is to do the following, as requested by the CHCLA: immediately withdraw and abandon the proposal to enhance the retirement age of the judges of the CA and the SC; direct the competent constitutional authorities to take immediate and decisive steps to fill all existing vacancies in the Superior Courts in accordance with the constitutional process and without further delay; affirm, by word and by deed, the government’s unequivocal commitment to the independence of the judiciary as guaranteed by the Constitution of Sri Lanka, and to the full and faithful observance of the constitutional provisions governing the tenure and conditions of service of the Judges of the Superior Courts, and engage the legal profession, the Judicial Service Commission, and other relevant stakeholders in any future discussion of matters affecting the judiciary, in a spirit of transparency, constitutionalism, and mutual respect for the rule of law. The BASL has also asked the President to deep-six any plan to raise the retirement ages of the judges of the Superior Courts and help preserve the integrity, independence and dignity of the judiciary and reinforce public confidence in the judicial service.
An immediate course correction, in line with the fervent appeals of legal professionals, is the least President Dissanayake can do to dispel the public perception that he too has failed to resist the autocratic tendencies embedded in the executive presidency.
Editorial
Beyond tragedy that shook the nation’s conscience
Saturday 6th June, 2026
Tuesday’s tragedy at Anguruwatota, where a fire engulfed an elders’ home, claiming 13 lives and seriously injuring several others, has shaken the conscience of the nation. Equally shocking are the allegations that the residents of the care centre had been mistreated; among them were persons with disabilities, and some of them had been restrained with chains, according to eyewitnesses. The police have said they found the charred body of a resident in chains. It has now been revealed that the care home was not registered. The question is why the authorities did not take any legal action against it.
The Director of the gutted elders’ home has been remanded and the police will press charges against him. However, the Anguruwatota tragedy is not a problem that should be addressed in isolation. It should be examined in the context of a wider socio-economic issue.
There are other elders’ homes across the country, and they number about 250, according to media reports. They are run by a mix of government institutions, provincial councils, religious organisations, NGOs, and private operators. Some of them are reportedly under-resourced, and poorly-regulated. These institutions can accommodate only a fraction of the country’s elderly population needing assistance. Most of them, however, are basic residential care facilities rather than fully developed geriatric care centres, often functioning more as shelters than as medically supported long-term care institutions, which the country badly needs.
Sri Lanka has already reached a rapidly ageing phase of its demographic transition, with the proportion of citizens above 60 years increasing. About 18 out of every 100 Sri Lankans are aged 60 or above. This proportion has risen sharply from about 12.4% in 2012. It is doubtful whether successive governments have addressed this issue adequately, much less formulated a strategy to face challenges arising from an ageing population. This shift has placed increasing pressure on many families that are struggling to make ends meet and therefore cannot provide full-time care for their elderly members and relatives. Hence the need for policymakers to intensify their focus on structured elderly care for those without family support or social security.
While action is taken to ensure that the existing elders’ homes are run properly, it is incumbent upon policymakers to devise ways and means of facing the problems associated with an ageing population. Experts have pointed out that a national elderly care strategy to address these issues need to integrate several components. First, it should strengthen community-based care models that allow elders to remain in their homes for as long as possible, supported by home visits, mobile health services, and social workers. Second, it should develop a graded system of care homes, ranging from basic shelters to medically supported nursing facilities, all under proper regulatory supervision. It was a chronic lack of oversight and poor regulation that led to the Anguruwatota tragedy. Third, local government authorities should be formally involved in identifying vulnerable elders, coordinating welfare benefits, and ensuring minimum care standards at community level. Fourth, financial protection mechanisms such as social pensions, subsidised care, and public-private partnerships should be expanded to reduce the burden on low-income families.
It is hoped that Tuesday’s tragedy will jolt politicians and policymakers into addressing the long-felt need for a coherent national strategy to enable the elderly to spend their twilight years in comfort and dignity.
Editorial
Emperor’s new clothes
Friday 5th June, 2026
The Opposition’s propaganda mill is in overdrive, manufacturing various stories about a split in the JVP-NPP government. Mighty governments collapse not because their political enemies regain lost ground and turn the tables on them. They fall largely because the arrogance of power blinds their leaders to reality while their members dare not speak truth to power. Government members sing hosannas to their leaders and even defend the latter’s wrongdoing, committing collective political hara-kiri in the process. The incumbent JVP-NPP government has its fair share of acolytes who try to defend the indefensible.
Former Public Security Minister Sarath Weerasekera (SW), in his response to a recent editorial in this newspaper, has sought to lay the blame for the failure of the Gotabaya Rajapaksa (GR) government on others. In his letter published on the opposite page, today, he insists that the Rajapaksas had the national interest at heart. He implies that they never engaged in dynastic politics, and the 2022 economic crisis was due to factors other than the mismanagement of the economy.
The economy went into a tailspin during the GR government not solely due to the economic consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic and the repayment of foreign loans obtained by the Yahapalana government. Economists have pointed out that the pandemic did not cause bankruptcy on its own, but it acted as a major trigger that exposed pre-existing weaknesses such as high debt, weak foreign reserves, and overdependence on exports and tourism. All governments pay back loans obtained by their predecessors.
The GR government should have sought IMF help at the first signs of trouble. One may recall that acting on Central Bank (CB) advice, the Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR) government (2005-2010) secured IMF assistance and managed an emerging forex crisis, which would have derailed the war effort. If the GR government had heeded CB advice and taken action to increase tax revenue and shore up the country’s foreign currency reserves with IMF help, the 2022 economic crisis could have been averted.
Sri Lanka had to opt for a soft default and seek IMF assistance in 2022. The choice it had was between a soft default and a hard default, which would have ruined its chances of borrowing from external sources again. Sri Lanka was bankrupt, and that fact had to be announced.
The UPFA and SLPP administrations during MR’s second presidential term (2010-2015) and GR’s presidency (2019-2022) were in fact governments of the Rajapaksas by the Rajapaksas for the Rajapaksas. In the GR government, the number of key ministries held by the Rajapaksas increased to five. The share of government expenditure linked to the ministries controlled by them was more than 50% between 2010 and 2015 and between 2019 and 2022, according to political commentators. The other members of the MR government (2010-2015) became so disgruntled that a group of prominent UPFA MPs including ministers voted with their feet in 2014, and General Secretary of the SLFP Maithripala Sirisena went on to challenge MR in the 2015 presidential contest and secure the presidency. As many as 41 SLPP MPs broke ranks with the GR government in early 2022.
Aragalaya,
which crippled the Rajapaksa rule, began as a genuine, leaderless protest campaign against economic hardships, especially prolonged fuel shortages and power cuts. Some political forces infiltrated it subsequently, but it was losing steam when a group of SLPP goons set upon peaceful protesters at Galle Face in May 2022, and triggered a spree of retaliatory violence, which led to the ouster of the Rajapaksas, and paved the way for the 2024 regime change.
As for reconciliation, a retired Major General known for his distinguished military career and respected leadership, writing under a pseudonym––‘Old Soldier’––recently had this to say in his letter critical of the way the government handled this year’s War Heroes’ commemoration, which was the topic of the editorial comment under discussion: “Reparations are claimed by the winners in wars between nations. After civil conflicts there should be reconciliation. There should be no humiliation. When will commemoration of the dead be national in Sri Lanka?”
If the SLPP is to make a comeback, its leaders and their apologists must shed their aversion to self-criticism. The same applies to their equally self-righteous counterparts in other Opposition parties.
-
News6 days agoLankan duo emerge winners in Latin dance championship held in Blackpool, UK
-
Business7 days agoIMF’s unstated rate:Sri Lanka’s $695m loan costs about 5.33% per annum
-
Latest News4 days agoKusal Mendis, Pathum Nissanka, bowlers put Sri Lanka 1-0 up
-
News4 days agoNew US tariffs proposed on 60 countries, including Sri Lanka
-
Business7 days agoSri Lankan scientist-innovator Milinda Edirisinghe introduces AI-integrated gem testing system to gemological world
-
Features3 days agoPower crept into the Sangha and is now tearing it apart
-
News6 days agoSri Lankan teen killed in Chennai clash; three arrested
-
News7 days agoUNP challenges NPP move to amend Vihara – Devalagam Act
