Friday, October 30, 2020

Contradicting the sentiments of ethnocentric nationalist forces


The President went to Ruwanweliseya to take oaths and said that he was elected mainly from Sinhala Buddhist votes


History repeats itself. The phenomenon we have experienced soon after the 2010 election was repeated at the passing of the 20A in the Parliament. 

The Presidential Election of 2010 was fought on the lines of war victory. The question was who the war hero was, whether it was Commander-in-Chief Mahinda Rajapaksa or Commander of Army Sarath Fonseka. 

The majority of the Sinhalese decided that the Commander-in-Chief was the war hero. Ironically Tamil nationals who were at the receiving end of the war were forced to vote for the Commander of the Army who fought the war against LTTE which represented the political rights of the Tamils, since they did not have a choice. 

 



Ranaviruwo

Soon after the end of the Presidential Elections the ex-Commander of the Army and the defeated opponent candidate was arrested and dragged along the floor when he refused to surrender to a junior officer. Along with him several service personnel in uniform along with ex-service men were arrested. 

This treatment to the Ranaviruwo, as they were elevated in the social rank, was a shock to many; especially under the circumstances that the war victory was the main component of the election victory and the war veterans and even the ordinary soldiers were treated with respect and dignity, it was a shock. This mentality was partially inherent from the masses and partially was put into their heads in election propaganda.

There were many requests from society especially from the Bhikkus to pardon Fonseka since he played a pivotal role in war but the rulers did not listen. By their very act they undermined the status of the society to the Ranaviruwa which was created by themselves to their advantage.

At the Presidential Election 2020, the election campaign was carried out on many issues including security, but eventually it was reduced to ethnic and religious lines. The voting pattern was sharply divided on the ethnic lines. There was no marked difference in the General Election. 

The President went to Ruwanweliseya to take oaths and after the General Election the Cabinet took oaths at the Magul Maduwa at Dalada Maligawa premises. The President after taking oaths said that he was elected mainly from the Sinhala Buddhist votes. He also said that he would be the President of all who voted for him as well as who voted against him. However, President was giving strong signals that he would listen to the advice of Maha Sangha.

 

20A

When the 20A came one of the major issues for the ethnocentric nationalist forces was dual citizenship issue. Ministers G.L. Peiris and Ali Sabry argued in the Parliament at the 20A debate that citizens of Sri Lanka even though they were dual citizens they should have the full rights of a citizen and otherwise it was unfair. This is not the case all the time. 

The United States is a country which allows dual citizenship, but those who become dual citizens have to renounce allegiance to the other country. Moreover under Section 1 of Article II of the US constitution no person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the age of 35 years, and been 14 years a Resident within the United States.  

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is a citizen of US as well. He was born in US so that if he spent 14 years in US, he will be eligible to become US President. There are more than 50 countries which accept the dual citizenship.

 

Ethnocentric nationalist mindset

The most dangerous part of the 20A is that it allows the President to interfere with the activities of the Parliament and the Judiciary, the other two main arms of democracy. This was not addressed by the ethnocentric nationalist forces. They were caged in the petty ethnocentric nationalist mindset and concerned on the issues such as dual citizenship.

Their problem is that either in the Parliament or in the Judiciary there can be minorities but in the executive arm there can be only a Sinhala Buddhist so that they do not mind to divulge whatever the power to that individual since he or she would be an “our man or woman”. What if that person is a citizen of another country as well? They cannot simply allow that to happen.

In India there were several Prime Ministers from different minority ethnic and religious groups. The USA produced its first black President few years back. The present Prime Minister of UK is a citizen of USA as well. The power enjoyed by the leaders of these countries are always subject to appropriate checks and balances.

Rational arguments were put forward by many Bhikkus including the General Secretaries of Ramanna Nikaya and Amarapura Nikaya and the Catholic Bishops Conference against the 20A.

 

Visible contradiction

The Government finally had to rely on the Opposition minority Muslim MPs to get the 20A passed while many Bhikkus who supported the establishment of this Government opposed it. The Government and the ethnocentric nationalist forces who supported and ideologised the winning formula of the Government at the elections intentionally created a hatred towards the minorities, especially towards Muslims. Those very Muslims were needed to support the 20A which was opposed by those very ethnocentric nationalist forces.

That is the visible contradiction. This is similar to what happened after 2010 Presidential Elections. Although those are visible contradictions, those are not so in reality. They are just tools in the game to secure and establish power. 

Therefore, ethnocentric nationalist forces should realise that their sentiments are being capitalised repeatedly by the shrewd political leaders. They should realise that in order to sustain our democracy, the multi ethnic and multi religious phenomenon of our society should be reflected there and there should be appropriate checks and balances at the top so that one arm of the democracy is not too powerful than its other two arms. That is the winning formula for Sri Lanka.

Published in Daily FT onOctober 30, 2020

http://www.ft.lk/columns/Contradicting-the-sentiments-of-ethnocentric-nationalist-forces/4-708243

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

Making Difficult But Necessary Choices

 By Harsha Gunasena –

Harsha Gunasena

The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is scheduled to visit Sri Lanka on Tuesday October 27 after visiting India. Thereafter he will visit Maldives and Indonesia. 

He visits Sri Lanka after the recent visit of high-powered Chinese delegation, led by senior Chinese leader and top foreign policy official Yang Jiechi, who is a member of the Communist Party of China’s Politburo and the director of the Central Committee’s Foreign Affairs Commission.

As a pre-curser of the visit, Dean Thompson, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs of the State Department said that “We urge Sri Lanka to make difficult but necessary decisions to secure its economic independence for long-term prosperity” to which Chinese officials responded that it was cold war mentality and bullying the weak nations.

His visit comes a week before the US presidential election where President Donald Trump repeatedly emphasizing that he is being tough on China. Therefore, this visit can be a part of the election campaign as well.

During the early part of the Trump presidency the trade war with China was started violating the norms of World Trade Organization and now it has gone to the level of cold war. After resurrection in 2017 the alliance called Quad comprising of India, Japan, Australia and the US, emphasized the liberal rule based international order which was undermined by China and now it is openly anti-China.


The foreign policy of US is an extension of its defence policy. The US at present seems to be perceived that the existence of China is a threat to the US. Therefore, with the increasing relationships with China, Sri Lanka is likely to get trapped between the US and China unless Sri Lanka acts cautiously.

China entered into Sri Lankan foreign policy back in the 1960s. Neville Jayaweera, top civil servant in his autobiographical reflection on the ethnic conflict, Jaffna, Exorcising the past and holding the vision, comments as follows about the then powerful Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Defence and External Affairs N.Q. Dias.

“Dias also unfolded to me a brand-new foreign policy he was working on. He was of the view that basically Sri Lanka had no coherent foreign policy and was consequently too dependent on the West and trusted the bona fides of India which he said was a huge mistake. He emphasized the need for Sri Lanka to veer away from India and forge new alliances. He said that to this end he was planning to open up closer relations with China as a countervailing force against India and to set his project in motion, was plaining to send Mrs. Bandaranaike on an official visit to Beijing.”


“As for my role as GA of Jaffna, Dias said that while facilitating the construction of the propose military camps girdling the Northern Province, I should be “unrelenting” towards Tamil demands, and wherever possible “force confrontations” with them and established the government’s “undisputed ascendancy” (Pages 74-75)

The plan of Dias was to encircle Northern Province with a chain of military camps to contain a future Tamil revolt and the new GA Jaffna had to facilitate the construction.

Dias was trying to harass Tamils and made plans to contain a future revolt in the capacity of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence and at the same time was trying to move away from the West and from India and trying to build up close relationship with China in the capacity of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs. This was the root cause of our subsequent dilemma in foreign policy.

When President Jayewardene moved towards the West ignoring India in 1980s when India was aligned with Soviet Union during the cold war, he was advised by the US to settle matters with India since US did not want to interfere with the affairs of a country which was in the backyard of India. Eventually India trained Tamil militants who revolted against the state, making the plans of Dias a flop. When the war dragged on, the West did not support Sri Lanka since there was a strong ethnic issue against Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka had to rely on Pakistan for the supply of arms. Eventually when the LTTE killed Rajiv Gandhi and became a power with naval and air force, the West supported to defeat the LTTE, but the arms came mainly from China. India also did not interfere as it did in Rajiv-JR era.

After the end of the war Sri Lankan government did not fulfil the promises made to India during the war related to a political settlement to the ethnic issue, which were helpful to neutralize India during the war. When the Indian pressure was building up Sri Lanka turned to China. 

In 1980s Ralph Buultjens said that the pivotal point of Indo-Lanka relationship was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. This was changed with the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi but the Center of India cannot ignore the sentiments of the Tamil Nadu towards the Tamils of Sri Lanka.

The situation Sri Lanka faces today is an complicated extension of the duel policy of N.Q.Dias. It is complicated because of the cold war of US and China. President Jayewardene also faced the same situation but during that time the Chinese factor, the other component of Dias’s formula, was not there.

It was evident that the US supported authoritative regimes around the world when those regimes supported to counter the overall defence concerns of the US. In those instances, the US was not concerned whether those regimes supported the liberal and democratic values, which were propagated by the US around the world. For the US, defence comes first and then the liberal and democratic values. Therefore, as a tradeoff at the negotiations it may be possible that the US may forgo the pressure to Sri Lanka to its commitment to the reconciliation process in exchange of the loyalty to the US against China. If so, Sri Lanka would not be able to come up as a Nation for generations to come. However, this is unlikely due to the concerns of India towards Sri Lankan Tamils. Sri Lanka would be stronger in the negotiations if we have resolved the ethnic conflict which means taking away the second component of Dias’s formula.

The other aspect is cash. Minister Cabraal said that at this juncture of the history China is the most cash rich country. During the war China supplied arms on loan. Thereafter China funded several projects where there were no economic returns in the short run. China is alleged of debt diplomacy around the world. Sri Lanka is a country which had inappropriate financial management for a long period. Sri Lanka turns to China at this point due to the same reasons a rural farmer turns to a local money lender instead of a bank. Therefore, choices for Sri Lanka is difficult so as the decisions to be made.

Published in Colombo Telegraph on October 28, 2020

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/making-difficult-but-necessary-choices/

Monday, October 26, 2020

Different Signals Given By The Autocratic Power Which Were Perceived As Contradictory

 By Harsha Gunasena –

Harsha Gunasena

There are similarities of some incidents happened after the 2010 Presidential Election and at the Parliament when 20th Amendment was approved.

The Presidential election of 2010 was fought in the lines of war victory. The question was who was the war hero, whether it was Commander-in-chief Mahinda Rajapaksa or Commander of Army Sarath Fonseka. Majority of the Sinhalese decided that the Commander-in-chief was the war hero. Ironically Tamil nationals who were at the receiving end of the war were forced to vote for the Commander of the Army who fought the war against LTTE which represented the political rights of the Tamils,  since they did not have a choice. Soon after the end of the Presidential elections the ex-commander of the Army and the defeated opponent candidate was arrested after dragging down him on the floor when he refused to surrender to a junior officer. Along with him several service personal in uniform along with ex-service men were arrested. 

This treatment to the Ranaviruvo, as they were elevated in the social rank, was a shock to many. Especially under the circumstances that war victory was the main component of the election victory and the war veterans and even the ordinary soldiers were treated with respect and dignity, it was a shock. This mentality was partially inherent from the masses and partially was put into their heads in election propaganda.

There were many requests from the society especially from the Bhikkus to pardon Gen. Fonseka since he played a pivotal role in war but the rulers did not listen.  By their very act they undermined the status of the society to the Ranaviruva which was created by themselves to their advantage.

At the Presidential Election 2020, the election campaign was carried out on many issues including security but eventually it was reduced to ethnic and religious lines. The voting pattern was sharply divided on the ethnic lines. There was no marked difference in the General Election. The President went to Ruwanveliseya to take the oaths and after the General Election the Cabinet has taken oaths at the Magul Maduwa at Dalada Maligawa premises. The President after taking oaths said that he was elected mainly from the Sinhala Buddhist votes. He also said that he would be the President of all who voted for him as well as who voted against him. However, President was giving strong signals that he would listen to the advice of Maha Sangha.

When the 20A came one of the major issues for the ethnocentric nationalist forces was dual citizenship issue. Ministers G.L. Peiris and Ali Sabry argued in the Parliament at the 20A debate that citizens of Sri Lanka even though they were dual citizens they should have the full rights of a citizen and otherwise it was unfair. This is not the case all the time. United States is a country which allows dual citizenship, but those who become dual citizens have to renounce allegiance to the other country. Moreover under Section 1 of Article II of the US constitution no person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.  

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is a citizen of US as well. He was born in US so that if he spent 14 years in US, he will be eligible to become US President. There are more than 50 countries which accept the dual citizenship.

The most dangerous part of the 20A is that it allows the President to interfere with the activities of the Parliament and the Judiciary, the other two main arms of the Democracy.  This was not addressed by the ethnocentric nationalist forces. They were caged in the petty ethnocentric nationalist mindset and concerned on the issues such as dual citizenship.


Their problem is that either in the Parliament or in the Judiciary there can be minorities but in the executive arm there can be only a Sinhala Buddhist so that they do not mind to divulge whatever the power to that individual since he or she would be an “our man or woman”. What if that person is a citizen of another country as well? They cannot simply allow that to happen.

In India there were several Prime Ministers from different minority ethnic and religious groups. USA produced its first black President few years back. The present Prime Minister of UK is a citizen of USA as well. The power enjoyed by the leaders of these countries are always subject to appropriate checks and balances.

Rational arguments were put forward by many Bhikkus including the General Secretaries of Ramanna Nikaya and Amarapura Nikaya and the Catholic Bishops Conference against the 20A.

The Government finally had to rely on the opposition minority Muslim MPs to get the 20A passed while many Bhikkus who supported the establishment of this Government opposed it. The Government and the ethnocentric nationalist forces who supported and ideologized the winning formula of the Government at the elections intentionally created a hatred towards the minorities, especially towards Muslims. Those very Muslims were needed to support the 20A which was opposed by those very ethnocentric nationalist forces.

That is the visible contradiction. This is similar to what happened after 2010 Presidential Elections. Although those are visible contradictions, those are not so in reality. They are just tools in the game to secure and establish power. Therefore, ethnocentric nationalist forces should realize that their sentiments are being capitalized repeatedly by the shrewd political leaders. They should realize that in order to sustain our Democracy, the multi ethnic and multi religious phenomenon of our society should be reflected there and there should be appropriate checks and balances at the top so that one arm of the Democracy is not too powerful than the other two arms of it. That is the winning formula for Sri Lanka.

Published in Colombo Telegraph on October 24, 2020

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/different-signals-given-by-the-autocratic-power-which-were-perceived-as-contradictory/

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Sunday, October 4, 2020

From democracy to dictatorship

 I translated the book ‘From Dictatorship to Democracy – A conceptual framework for liberation’ written by Professor Gene Sharp from English to Sinhala sometime back. With the introduction of 20A the country may moving towards dictatorship from democracy. 


There was a debate on who the author of the 20A to the Constitution was. It is not a complicated document to be authored as such. The legal draftsman was instructed to undo the changes of 19A except for the limitation of the terms of the president, duration of such terms and replacing the Constitutional Council with the Parliamentary Council with limited powers. The President himself could do it. 

If the President wants to continue his down-to-earth, good, executive work of directing, guiding, and motivating the public staff, which is his own variety of President Premadasa’s mobile ministries and Minister Athulathmudali’s Exporters’ Forum, he can do it with the current powers. There is no necessity of additional powers for that. 



Shift towards despotic rule once again

The fundamental issue here is that as pointed out by many the shift towards a despotic rule once again. An absolute majority of the Parliament leads to a despotic rule. All the regimes with a two-third majority in Sri Lanka did not last too long as expected. 

The Government of Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike (Mrs. B) in 1970 lasted only to the end of its extended term. It had to face a rebellion during its term. The UNP Government which was initially headed by President J.R. Jayewardene (JRJ) lasted only three terms with all the constitutional jugglery. 

It had to face two rebellions one of which has taken the lives of the lieutenants of JRJ in front of his own eyes and the other lasted for 30 years and again has taken the lives of the possible successors of the leadership of the UNP. 

The rule of the President Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2010 also lasted only one term. Therefore, the expected result is that rulers with absolute power would not last to suit their expectations.



Move towards more democratic rule to counter social unrest

The country has faced three rebellions after the independence. This was a result of unequal treatment to various segments of the society by the State. It can be rural poor, lower strata of the society or ethnic minorities. Therefore, moving towards more democratic rule is needed to counter social unrest. 

That was the opinion of G.L. Peiris when he headed the Commission appointed by President Premadasa to find out the reasons for JVP second insurrection. G.L Peiris has forgotten all these since he has metamorphosed to a political animal. That was the sentiments expressed by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission headed by C.R. De Silva as well.

Mrs. B and JRJ have done a lot of good things as well as bad things to the country. The autocratic way of their governing style which was powered by the majority in the Parliament they enjoyed was disagreed by many. However even in that style there were positives. The way Mrs. B handled the insurrection was one example. 



A constitution for all

The 13A to the Constitution which came with the Indian influence and with the sole decision of JRJ was the only legislative provision from independence for decentralisation of power.

It was said that 20A is an interim amendment and a new constitution is on the way. Rulers with a two-third majority cannot and will not make a constitution acceptable to all. Mrs. B could not do it and her Constitution marked the origin of Tamil rebellion. JRJ could not do it either. As he has pointed out in retirement his Constitution would be defended by those in power and opposed by those who are not in power. In addition to the power the present ruling party has, with the strong bias of the President towards the ideology of Sinhala Buddhism, it is extremely unlikely that they can produce a constitution acceptable to all which is a must of a constitution of a country.

Both the 17A and 19A to the Constitution which curtailed the despotic powers of the President were passed by minority governments with the support of the oppositions. The constitution making process initiated by the previous Government was supported by the Opposition as well, although there were differences of opinion of the basic issues. The process failed since the leaders of that Government did not take the leadership of the process.

There were comments whether the Prime Minister would approve curtailing of his power. The fact would be that the family has decided sometime back the extent of authority the ruler should have and the succession plan. Things are happening based on that blueprint. Therefore, there is no question of a power struggle between the President and the PM.

If the President decides that 20A should be passed in the Parliament as it is it will be passed irrespective to the opposition to it within the ruling party. The MPs we have are not strong enough. In Parliamentary history there were only few exceptions such as opposition to JRJ’s one man show of Gamani Jayasuriya and M.D.H. Jayawardena. As a result, they had to leave politics. 



Two-third majority

It is generally commented that people have given the ruling party a two-third majority and now people have to face the consequences. It is not correct to say that the people have given them the two-third majority. 

JRJ came into power in 1977 with five-sixth majority of Parliament as a result of the despotic rule of Mrs. B. It was a vote against the then Government rather than a vote for JRJ. Similarly, if the previous Government played its role well the present Government would have not come to power. However, the two-third majority was given to them on a platter by the UNP leadership. 

Sajith Premadasa (SP) polled 5.5 million votes in the Presidential Election. If it is assumed that the people who voted for SP in the Presidential Election have voted for the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), Tamil National Alliance, Tamil National People’s Front headed by Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam, United National Party, Muslim National Alliance, Tamil Peoples National Alliance headed by C.V. Vigneswaran, All Ceylon Makkal Congress headed by Rishad Bathiudeen and Sri Lanka Muslim Congress in the General Election, total number of votes for all of them was 3.6 m. Therefore, there was a shortage of 1.9 m votes. 

At the General Election although there was 0.27 m increase of the total voters compared to the General Election there was an overall reduction of one million of total polled. Out of the polled the increase of rejected votes compared to the Presidential Election was 0.6 m. Total of the voters who did not turn up to vote and those who casted rejected votes was 1.6 m. There is a difference of 0.3 m between this figure and the reduction of votes to SP in the General Election which was 1.9 m.

At the Presidential Election there were 0.3 m voters who cast their vote to other candidates other than the main two. Sri Lanka People’s Freedom Alliance (SLPFA) together with its supportive parties, Eelam People’s Democratic Party, Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal headed by Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan alias Karuna Amman, Sri Lanka Freedom Party, National Congress headed by A.L.M. Athaullah and Our Power of People’s Party obtained 7.1 m votes which is an increase of 0.2 m votes obtained by Gotabaya Rajapaksa in the Presidential Election. This explains the shortage of 0.3 m votes of SP to a certain extent.

If SJB together with the parties who voted SP in the Presidential Election managed to get the same amount of votes, there will not be a two-third majority to the ruling party now. The difference was made by the voters who voted for SP in the Presidential Election and either did not vote or cast a rejected vote. 

This happened since neither SJB nor UNP was able to get the voters to vote for them. The main reason for this was the division of the party at that crucial hour. Party Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe should take the sole responsibility for this. Therefore, it is not appropriate to say that the people have given the ruling party two-third majority. 

People who voted them did not give that majority and that majority was given by the people who did not vote for them. That was the irony of that. So if you have voted for SP at the Presidential Election and refrained from voting at the General Election or if you have intentionally made your vote rejected at the General Election you are responsible for the plight of the country today. 



Going back and forth 

The issue is that the country is going back and forth in respect of the basic document of the country which is the Constitution. Since independence we have gone back and forth in respect of economic policy. We have gone to the two extremes, to closed economy and then to open economy. We have moved to nationalisation of private assets and then to privatisation of the same. 

The job of the governments in power was to undo the work of the previous government. In the economic front the differences between the two sides was narrowed very much compared to the situation in 1950s to 1980s. Now we have started to play with the Constitution, which is a more basic point than the economic policy. We may continue to go back and forth in these basics while the other countries are moving fast bypassing us.

The checks and balances created by 19A to counter the absolute power of the President will be taken away by 20A. Those checks and balances were aimed to counter social unrest which created three armed rebellions in the country. Therefore, there can be new set of checks and balances outside of the Constitution as we experienced earlier.

It may include armed struggle, political defiance (this is non-violent struggle applied defiantly and actively for political purposes), international pressure, pressure within the party and pressure from the family. The wish of all of us is to avoid any armed struggle. Finally, everything should be borne by the people.

Published in DailyFT on October 2, 2020

http://www.ft.lk/columns/From-democracy-to-dictatorship/4-706867

The Beginning Of The End

 By Harsha Gunasena –

Harsha Gunasena

There was a debate on who was the author of the 20th Amendment to the constitution. It is not a complicated document to be authored as such. The legal draftsman was instructed to undo the changes of 19A except for the limitation of the terms of the president, duration of such terms and replacing the Constitutional Council with the Parliamentary Council with limited powers. The President himself could do it. 

If the President wants to continue his down to earth, good, executive work of directing, guiding, and motivating the public staff, which is his own variety of President Premadasa’s mobile Ministries and Minister Athulathmudali’s Exporters Forum, he can do it with the current powers. There is no necessity of additional powers for that. 

The fundamental issue here is that as pointed out by many the shift towards a despotic rule once again. An absolute majority of the parliament leads to a despotic rule. All the regimes with 2/3rd majority in Sri Lanka did not last too long as expected. Government of Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike (Mrs.B) in 1970 lasted only to the end of its extended term. It had to face a rebellion during its term. The UNP government which was initially headed by President J.R. Jayewardene (JRJ) lasted only three terms with all the constitutional juggleries. It had to face two rebellions one of which has taken the lives of the lieutenants of JRJ in front of his own eyes and the other lasted for 30 years and again has taken the lives of the possible successors of the leadership of the UNP. The rule of the President Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2010 also lasted only one term. Therefore, the expected result is that rulers with absolute power would not last to suit their expectations.

The country has faced three rebellions after the independence. This was a result of unequal treatment to various segments of the society by the state. It can be rural poor, lower strata of the society or ethnic minorities. Therefore, moving towards more democratic rule is needed to counter the social unrest. That was the opinion of G.L. Peiris when he headed the Commission appointed by President Premadasa to find out the reasons for JVP second insurrection. G.L. Peiris has forgotten all these since he has metamorphosized to a political animal. That was the sentiments expressed by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission headed by C.R. De Silva as well.

Mrs. B and JRJ have done a lot of good things as well as bad things to the country. The autocratic way of their governing style which was powered by the majority in the parliament they enjoyed was disagreed by many. However even in that style there were positives. The way Mrs.B handled the insurrection was one example. The 13A to the constitution which came with the Indian influence and with the sole decision of JRJ was the only legislative provision from independence for decentralization of power.

It was said that 20A is an interim amendment and a new constitution is on the way. Rulers with 2/3rd majority cannot and will not make a constitution acceptable to all. Mrs. B could not do it and her constitution marked the origin of Tamil rebellion. JRJ could not do it either. As he has pointed out in retirement his constitution would be defended by those in power and opposed by those who are not in power. In addition to the power the present ruling party has, with the strong bias of the President towards the ideology of Sinhala Buddhism it is extremely unlikely that they can produce a constitution acceptable to all which is a must of a constitution of a country.

Both the 17A and 19A to the constitution which curtailed the despotic powers of the President were passed by minority governments with the support of the oppositions. The Constitution making process initiated by the previous government was supported by the opposition as well, although there were differences of opinion of the basic issues. The process failed since the leaders of that government did not take the leadership of the process.

There were comments whether the Prime Minister would approve curtailing of his power. The fact would be that the family has decided sometime back the extent of authority the ruler should have and the succession plan. Things are happening based on that blueprint. Therefore, there is no question of a power struggle between the President and the PM.


If the President decides that 20A should be passed in the Parliament as it is it will be passed irrespective to the opposition to it within the ruling party. The MPs we have are not strong enough. In the Parliamentary history there were only few exceptions such as opposition to JRJ’s one man show of Gamani Jayasuriya and M.D.H. Jayawardena. As a result, they had to leave politics. 

It is generally commented that people have given the ruling party a 2/3rd majority and now people have to face the consequences. It is not correct to say that the people have given them the 2/3rd majority.  

JRJ came into power in 1977 with 5/6th majority of the parliament as a result of the despotic rule of Mrs. B. It was a vote against the then government rather than a vote for JRJ. Similarly, if the previous government played its role well the present government would have not come to power. However, the 2/3rd majority was given to them on a platter by the UNP leadership. Sajith Premadasa (SP) was polled 5.5mn votes in the Presidential election. If it is assumed that the people who voted for SP in the presidential election have voted for the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), Tamil National Alliance, Tamil National People’s Front headed by Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam, United National Party, Muslim National Alliance, Tamil Peoples National Alliance headed by C.V. Wigneswaran, All Ceylon Makkal Congress headed by Rishad Bathiudeen and Sri Lanka Muslim Congress  in the general election, total number of votes for all of them were 3.6 mn. Therefore, there was a shortage of 1.9mn votes. At the general election although there was 0.27 mn increase of the total voters compared to the general election there was an overall reduction of 1mn of total polled. Out of the polled the increase of rejected votes compared to the presidential election was 0.6 mn. Total of the voters who did not turnup to vote and those who casted rejected votes was 1.6mn. There is a difference of 0.3mn between this figure and the reduction of votes to SP in the general election which was 1.9mn.

At the presidential election there were 0.3mn voters who cased their vote to other candidates other than the main two. Sri Lanka Peoples Freedom Alliance (SLPFA) together with its supportive parties, Eelam Peoples Democratic Party,Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal headed by Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan alias Karuna Amman, Sri Lanka Freedom Party, National Congress  headed by A.L.M. Atavulla and Our Power of Peoples Party obtained 7.1mn votes which is an increase of 0.2mn votes obtained by Gotabaya Rajapaksa in the presidential election. This explains the shortage of 0.3mn votes of SP to a certain extent.

If SJB together with the parties who voted SP in the presidential election managed to get the same amount of votes, there will not be a 2/3rd majority to the ruling party now. The difference was made by the voters who voted for SP in the presidential election and either did not vote or casted a rejected vote. 

This happened since neither SJB nor UNP was able to get the voters to vote for them. The main reason for this was the division of the party at that crucial hour. The party leader Ranil Wickremesinghe should take the sole responsibility for this. Therefore, it is not appropriate to say that the people have given the ruling party 2/3rd majority. People who voted them did not give that majority and that majority was given by the peoples who did not vote for them. That was the irony of that. So if you have voted for SP at the presidential election and refrained for voting at general election or if you have intentionally made your vote rejected at the general election you are responsible for the plight of the country today. 

The issue is that the country is going back and forth in respect of the basic document of the country which is the constitution. From the independence we have gone back and forth in respect of economic policy. We have gone to the two extremes, to the closed economy and then to the open economy. We have moved to nationalization of private assets and then to privatization of the same. The job of the governments in power was to undo the work of the previous government. In the economic front the differences between the two sides was narrowed very much compared to the situation in 1950s to 1980s. Now we have started to play with the constitution. Which is a more basic point than the economic policy. We may continue to go back and forth in these basics while the other countries are moving fast bypassing us.

The checks and balances created by the 19A to counter the absolute power of the President will be taken away by the 20A. Those checks and balances were aimed to counter social unrest which created three armed rebellions in the country. Therefore, there can be new set of checks and balances outside of the constitution as we experienced earlier. It may include armed struggle, political defiance (this is non-violent struggle applied defiantly and actively for political purposes as defined by Gene Sharp in his book From Dictatorship to Democracy which was translated to Sinhala by the writer), international pressure, pressure within the party and pressure from the family. The wish of all of us is to avoid any armed struggle. Finally, everything should be borne by the people.

The end of powerful leaders is marked in the very incidence of acquisition of such power.

Published in Daily FT on 29 September 2020

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/the-beginning-of-the-end/

Republished: https://marumoli.com/the-beginning-of-the-end-by-harsha-gunasena-colombo-telegraph/