Political consensus drifts away

We face an unprecedented situation in the political history of this country and in the political history of any other democratic country in the world. The common opposition and the civil society got together to defeat the most autocratic ruler out of the rulers after the independence. Autocracy was gradually developing from one ruler to the other, but it came to the zenith during the last regime. The autocratic nature of the rule of the past president was evident by observing what has happened after the election. His defeat was more similar to a disintegration of a rule of a king rather than a defeat of a political leader. After his defeat, the leadership of his own party had to be handed over by him to his opponent of the presidential election and a situation was created that his party with a majority power in Parliament started supporting the minority Government. Although a presidential election was held, the impact was of a Parliamentary election. This situation has emerged beyond the democratic and judicial frame and its characteristics were somewhat similar to a situation emerging after a revolution. 
Unprecedented situation 
Even though there is such a situation prevailing in the country the parties that came to power exercises by and large a form of governance of consensus rather than a form of governance of autocracy. The President on one hand is the Head of State, Head of the Executive and of the Government and on the other hand is the Leader of the main Opposition party which nominated the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament. This situation has never occurred in any other democratic nation. By putting another step recently in the same direction, the main Opposition party joined the Government by accepting certain ministerial portfolios. The senior members of the main Opposition party did not accept the ministerial portfolios and opted to remain in the Opposition. Therefore the Speaker of the Parliament now is in dilemma to decide who should be the leader of the Opposition. This situation is also unprecedented not only in Sri Lanka but also in any other democratic nation. In addition to that JVP is represented in National Executive Council which was created after the election and contribute to take decisions which are of national importance. 
Unique political model 
The manifesto of the last presidential election mentioned that there would be an all-party Cabinet after the presidential election and after the forthcoming general election as well. However the Prime Minister talks about a Government comprising of the whole Parliament. Therefore, now we experience a unique political model representing the contemporary political situation of Sri Lanka which corresponds to the political situation that emerged in South Africa soon after Nelson Mandela became the President. Citizens of Sri Lanka who were engaged in party politics for a long time and lived in the capacity of subjects in the last few years are in the difficult position of digesting all these changes. Once Nelson Mandela became the President, he did not suppress the white Afrikaans. Instead, he invited them to continue to be in his personal security service and in his Cabinet. He also extended State patronisation to rugby, which was the game of Afrikaans and supported the National Rugby Team to become the world champions and thereby contributed to national unity and harmony. South Africa had only one problem, which was apartheid. We have two problems one is the problem of autocracy and the other is devolution of power. Malpractices in handling Government funds will be automatically solved when the problem of autocracy is handled. 
Autocracy 
Autocracy was groomed in this country with prevailing specific cultural biases coupled with Constitutional changes done in 1978. Autocratic behaviour of the Government of Sirimavo Bandaranaike paved the way for a Parliament of a 5/6th majority led by J.R. Jayewardene. One main reason for the rebellion launched by JVP during the time of President Jayewardene was his autocratic rule. This autocracy came to the zenith during the previous regime. These days there are deliberations to change the Constitution, which gives unlimited power to the President which is the root cause of autocracy. Previously also there were promises given by who presidents came into power that the executive presidency would be abolished but due to various reasons and mainly due to self-interest they were unwilling or unable to fulfil that promise. In this instance although the President is willing to abolish the executive presidency, this proposal is swinging among the different views of different political parties.
 Parliamentary conspiracies 
There are accusations about Parliamentary conspiracies that the Prime Minister is trying to get more power without a political mandate. However, it should be noted that it was loud and clear in the election manifesto of the President that instead of the executive presidency, an executive responsible to Parliament through Cabinet would be established. The Prime Minister is trying to fulfil that promise. The Jathika Hela Urumaya now has no right to go against the promises of election manifesto and accuse that there is a conspiracy among the party which tries to go along with the promises made. It should also be noted that during the last election campaign even the former President has said that if elected he would abolish the executive presidency. Therefore the stance taken by the SLFP is difficult to understand, assuming that there is no political opportunism. It was mentioned in the election manifesto that a new electoral system would be introduced before the next Parliamentary election. The present UNP Government is having a lukewarm attitude to this. This is also nothing but political opportunism. There is no legal limit of 100 days. If the promises cannot be fulfilled in 100 days, they can take additional days and finish the task undertaken. However, the situation started deteriorating with lack of consensus and the parties try to implement different agendas. The latest is that a regulation to increase the threshold of Treasury Bills by the Government was defeated in Parliament. 
Devolution of power 
The second problem we have is devolution of power which caused a war that went on for 30 years. The Government troops winning the war is no answer to the political problem prevailing. It is a different story that international influence fuelled the escalation of the armed struggle. Sometimes the State was unable to handle those situations but in some instances the State acted in a wise manner and took steps to ease the situation. However, it should be understood that there was a problem and it was not solved after the end of the war. The problem of devolution of power was not considered for deliberations and it appears to be that it would be taken up for discussion after the forthcoming general election and after establishing a National Government. There was a common consensus among the Opposition parties at the last presidential election not to bring the issue of devolution of power to the limelight. The reason for this decision was the possibility of bringing up communalism by the then Government. This shows how far away we are as a nation in terms of discussing the burning issues at stake. Taking into consideration the way the political parties handle the problem of autocracy by way of trying to change the Constitution, it is very unlikely that the same political parties would be able to handle the problem of devolution. We have a long way to go. We are moving away day by day from the opportunity we have received. We have observed that the leaders of this country sacrificed the long-term objectives of the nation for their short-term political gains. Now there is more possibility that the 19th Amendment to the Constitution may not be passed by this Parliament. The country is on the verge of losing an opportunity of establishing a more democratic system of governance and this can be avoided only if the leaders and the members of all the parties in Parliament act together. - Published in Daily FT- 10/4/2015

What is this Lichchavi system the PM talks about?

The current Sri Lankan Parliament is in a unique position and it would be quite interesting to watch its proceedings. The President is the Head of the Government and the Cabinet of Ministers and on the other hand he is the Leader of the main Opposition party, the SLFP, in Parliament. Hence he controls the Government and the Opposition. If by any chance the former President enjoyed this position, in a way it would be high fun to watch the behaviour of his subjects mesmerised by him. 

During the presidential election, the UPFA leadership fought tooth and nail to defeat Maithripala Sirisena. After the election, when the members of the UPFA and mainly the SLFP started to defect, the former President who was the Party Leader at that time handed over the leadership to the President as a strategic move in order to stop the defections and to keep the party intact. The President in turn accepted the offer for strategic reasons in order to ensure the support of the Parliament for the 100-day program.

Both the President and the Opposition Leader would have to play difficult roles in time to come and the President has admitted that. The Opposition has already requested a debate on the way Mohan Peiris was removed after Prime Minister explained it in the Parliament.

As the Prime Minister keeps on saying that he will introduce the system of Lichchavis to Sri Lanka, it would be interesting to discuss the Lichchavi system in relation to the composition of the Parliament today.

The writer has written an article to the Daily FT on 20 May 2014 under the title ‘Why isn’t the Western form of democracy effective in the East?’ (http://www.ft.lk/2014/05/20/why-isnt-the-western-form-of-democracy-effective-in-the-east/) discussing in detail the governance system of Lichchavis in relation to our culture against Western culture.

Proposed UNP Constitutional amendments

Some time back UNP proposed a guideline to a new constitution where the following was stated in relation to the Provincial Councils.

“The Member who commands the majority of a Provincial Council shall be appointed as the Chief Minister and the Leader of the political party which has secured the next highest number of seats shall be appointed as the Deputy Chief Minister. The Boards of Ministers of the Provincial Councils will be appointed proportionately to the votes polled by the respective political parties in such Council.”

Under Executive there are two options and under the second option it was stated that as a novel system the executive powers will be exercised on apolitical basis and to be subject to checks and balances.

“The Head of State will be the Head of the Council of State (which will consist of the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, the Leaders of the political parties represented in the Parliament and the Chief Ministers of the Provinces), and will act on the advice of the Council of State.”

“The decisions of the Council of State shall be by consensus. In the event there being no consensus the majority decision will prevail. This will pave the way to practice Lord Buddha’s preaching on governance – peaceful assembly, peaceful dialogue and peaceful dispersion.”

It was stated in the 100-day program document of the President that after the next general election the leader of the party which would secure highest number of seats will be appointed as the Prime Minister and the leader of the party which would secure next highest number of seats will be appointed as the Deputy Prime Minister. Therefore the intention is to extend the provincial council system of the proposed UNP constitution to the national level as well. This should be the Lichchavi system the Prime Minister talks about.

Lichchavi system

What is Lichchavi system? During the time of Buddha in 6th century BC, Ajasath the king of Magadha and a devotee of Buddha wanted to invade the Vajji territory. Buddha advised Vassakara, the Chief Minister of Ajasath, not to go ahead with war. The Buddha further said that the Lichchavis, rulers of Vajji, could not be suppressed and defeated until they adhered to the seven Dhammas which were not conducive to defeat (Sapta Aparihaniya Dhamma). Those seven points are given below:

• They held regular meetings to discuss matters pertaining to the day-to-day administration.
• They met, worked and dispersed as a team.
• They strictly followed the law of the country.
• They were submissive to the elders.
• They respected the women-folk and condemned the oppression of women.
• They followed the religious customs and protected them.
• They respected the clergy and held them in veneration.

The values behind these seven points can be identified as follows:

• Consensus
• Maintain the rule of law
• Protect the weak
• Respect those who are respectable

These democratic traditions followed by the Lichchavis were introduced to Bhikku order by Buddha. In the Maha Parinibbana Sutta, the Buddha said as follows.

“Oh, bhikkus, so long as you sit together and discuss your problems together as a matter of routine, you are assured of progress but no set-backs. Oh bhikkus, so long as you are bound together in unity you are assured of progress but no set-backs.”

Existing system

In the present democratic system introduced to us by Western countries, the main feature is to debate a point in the Parliament and arrive at a majority decision. Political parties would have different policies, different ideologies and different thinking patterns. At the same time each member of the each party may not have the same view about the each bill and the each issue debated in the Parliament.

However, in Parliament when the bills are debated, generally the government members argue in favour of the bills and the opposition members argue against the same bills. These arguments may not be based on their conscience. Parties decide the stand they are going to take. Therefore ultimately it is the decision of the party leadership. Members are obliged to follow the decision of the party. Hence the members are somewhat restricted to speak about their own views in the Parliament and essentially they vote in line with the thinking of the party leadership.

The main reason for this situation is on the part of the government, issues are discussed at the Cabinet level and the decisions are taken and in order to move forward the support of the government parliamentary group is needed. On the other hand the intention of the opposition is to get the power and rule the country in accordance with their principles so that they raise the issues opposing the view of the government.

This system would work in individualist societies in Western countries where by and large the issues are debated and discussed objectively. In collectivist societies like Sri Lanka the objectivity is less prevalent and very often things are taken personally. In collectivist societies they try to maintain consensus in the in-groups and whereas the rivalry is prevalent among the groups. Therefore in collectivist societies, democracy can be deteriorated to the level of tyranny of majority which we have experienced in the past and on the other hand in individualist societies there would be more possibility of respecting minority views and protecting their rights.

Advantages of the proposed system

If the suggested system to the constitution by UNP is implemented, there will not be two main rival groups challenging each other. We have observed in the recent past how the ruling alliance can take revenge from their opponents with the treatment they have extended to former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka and former Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake.

Under the proposed system there will be one group in the parliament and they can debate and decide on the issues for the benefit of the country based on their self-conscious irrespective of the situation that securing any future political power by manipulating the issues.

The main underlying value of the Lichchavi system was consensus. In Asian collectivist societies consensus is valued within in-groups. In Sri Lanka the largest in-group in general would be the race, religion, caste or political party. Unfortunately it is not the nation all the time. Nation means all the people living in this country, Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Christians and all the rest of them.

By creating a government under the proposed system we should be able to shift the smaller size of the in-groups to the largest level reflecting the nation. Without this feeling among the citizens of this country it would be difficult to extend the growth of the country to the next level. For instance in a county like Japan the largest in-group is the nation. For them it may be easy since there is less diversity among the citizens where as in Sri Lanka we have multiple ethnicities and religions. Consensus and harmony rather than rivalry among the different groups is essential at this level.

The other value was to maintain the rule of law for everybody in the country. This is one attribute of combining entire population together. This was adapted by Elara in a unique way at very high level. In contrast to the previous regime it appears to be that the present government is upholding the rule of law.

Another value of Lichchavis was protecting the weak. When the democracy is in operation the minorities of ethnic, religious or ideologies should be protected in addition to the persons who are physically weak. Even Asoka did the same thing. Also respect should be given for the persons who deserves it. It should be noted that the values of Lichchavis other than maintaining the rule of law is in contrast to the protestant work ethic of the West identified by Max Weber in 1904.

If the President can ensure the good governance and a corruption free system it would work as the main support of the proposed system.

Role of the present Parliament

The existing structure of the Parliament provides necessary support for this and it would be a rehearsal for the government to come. Different countries adapted different systems in developing their constitutions and governing systems.

Since independence we have adapted various methods to change our constitutions and systems of governance. The method proposed is not practiced anywhere in the world and it is going to be a unique system. It may work or it may not work. The duty of the present Parliament is of paramount importance of laying the ground work for the proposed system.

This proposed system should be debated adequately. Civil society, not only politicians, should also come forward and discuss the pros and cons of the proposed system. Then and only then will we be able to establish a lasting constitution which would facilitate the economic growth and the social wellbeing of the country.

- Published in Daily FT- 9/2/2015

The end of the kingship

• An epilogue to Rajapaksa regime

The presidential election ended and power was transferred from Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was referred as the ‘King of Sri Lanka,’ to a commoner.

Rajapaksa, when he was the Minister of Labour under President Chandrika Kumaratunga, used the funds of the Employees Trust Fund to purchase Salt Corporation, which was privatised by the then Government. After a directive of the President, he sold it. He wanted to have control of the Salt Corporation in expense of the hard-earned money of the contributors to the ETF.

Later when he was the Prime Minister, several private companies including John Keells contributed to the tsunami fund and he transferred the funds dubiously to a private fund called ‘Helping Hambantota’. When a case was filed, the then Chief Justice had freed him from all charges. It was proved that the judgment was biased once the same Judge after retirement apologised to the public openly for the wrong judgment delivered.

If an unbiased judgment was delivered, Rajapaksa would have not been the President of Sri Lanka. From the outset, Rajapaksa displayed suspicious behaviour and this paved the way for his unorthodox behaviour which brought disaster to him as well as to the nation.

‘King of Sri Lanka’

After the war victory he was referred as the ‘King of Sri Lanka’. When the time went on the ‘King’ was drunk with power, whereas his subjects, whether they were rural or urban, rich or poor, educated or not, were drunk with the war victory and unfortunately some of them still are.

This writer started criticising the acts of the regime which were in the view of the writer going against the interests of the general public of this country from 2011 writing to a Sinhala tabloid Samabima and for the Daily FT much later.

Rajapaksa and Mandela got similar opportunities and unfortunately Rajapaksa was unable to live up to the huge image of him created after the war unlike his counterpart. Same Rajapaksa, the dwarf, was living inside that huge image and that was the tragedy faced by him and the nation.

Sinhala Buddhist vote

He came into power in 2010 mainly from the votes of the majority Sinhala Buddhists setting aside a myth hitherto believed that a candidate of a presidential election should secure the support of the minority votes in order to win. Sinhala Buddhists supported him en bloc as gratitude for winning the war.

This paved the way for another myth that a presidential election could be won by simply appeasing the Sinhala Buddhists at the expense of the minorities of the country. That was the policy adapted by the Rajapaksa regime in local politics, which severely affected ethnic and religious harmony in the country.

Since this naïve policy was extended beyond the borders of Sri Lanka, the country was becoming an international pariah gradually with more affiliations of similar states internationally. Underneath this appeasement of the Sinhala Buddhists, it was pointed out that large sums of money exchanged hands.

That was the basic thinking and the resultant action of the Rajapaksa regime which were designed and implemented to achieve the goals and interests of Rajapaksa family at the expense of the same of the nation. Therefore, it is the time to wake up from hallucinations of the war victory for those who are experiencing the same even now.

Marginalisation of Tamil people

Rajapaksa deliberately refrained from giving honour to the Tamils after the war. This was quite in contrast to the way Dutugemunu acted after defeating Elara two millennia back; the way Vijayabahu the Great acted after defeating Chola invaders at a decisive time of the history of the nation, a millennium back; and the way Mandela acted after becoming the first black President of South Africa two decades back.

He acted in this manner to suit his grand strategy which was not described in the ‘Mahinda Chinthana’. The Northern Provincial Council election was held under Indian pressure and thereafter irrespective of the political gesture extended by the Chief Minister to take oaths in front of him, Rajapaksa continued to intimidate the Council by using the Governor.

Rajapaksa has given deliberate false promises to the Secretary General of United Nations and to the Prime Minister of India in relation to the distribution of power to the Tamils and thereby degraded the credibility of Sri Lankan State in the eyes of the international community.

When the act of marginalisation of the Tamils in order to appease the Sinhala Buddhists took place, India started pressurising the regime since India had supported to destroy the LTTE on the condition that suitable power sharing should take place after the war.

In order to balance Indian pressure, the regime got closer to China, which antagonised the West as well. In addition to the political advantage the regime got from China in international organisations, it was reported that the regime got their palms oiled well.

Rajapaksa could have avoided the tragedy faced at the UN Human Rights council by extending Tamils the hand of peace and by implementing the recommendations of the Commission appointed by himself. These were simple things which could have been done with ease unless he had those ulterior motives of appeasing Sinhala Buddhists for votes.

When the Sinhala Buddhists started realising the facts, Rajapaksa wanted another enemy and they were the Muslims and to a great extent minority Christian sects. The infamous Bodu Bala Sena was a creation of the Rajapaksa family either actively by initiating the process or passively by deliberately avoiding taking any action against their illegal activities in the name of the Buddhists which is an insult to true Buddhists.

Economic policy

In his economic policy, industry and especially exporters were nowhere. It was an anti-export policy. It created quite a number of cronies. Just as Rajapaksa took control of the Salt Corporation when he was a minister, his Government gradually got control of various private institutions, especially banks. Instead of exports, the reliance was on foreign remittances from the persons, mainly housemaids, who went abroad because of the unfavourable conditions in the country.

Rajapaksa ruled the country in the manner a mafia leader rules his gang with utter disrespect for law and order. The Parliament and unfortunately the Supreme Court supported this mafia type of rule which created a dire necessity for good governance and this was capitalised on well by the Opposition in the election although certain political analysts had different views.

With poor governance and ample corruption, Rajapaksa started losing his Sinhala Buddhist vote base and with the alienation of the minority votes which was his strategy, he lost the election. There were reports that he attempted to stay in power illegally – legality was not at all a concern for him – which was foiled by the courageous public servants.

Golden opportunity lost

All in all Rajapaksa, after winning the war for which he should be commended unconditionally, lost a golden opportunity to become the king of the hearts of all Sri Lankans forever mainly because of his short-sightedness and placing his own goal ahead of the goal of the nation.

To achieve this, he misled the majority Sinhala Buddhists, bringing in false allegations of international conspiracies. International pressure was a reaction to the outcome of his grand strategy to appease the Sinhala Buddhists. Thus he was a mere politician, not a statesman.

Establishing good governance

We congratulate the new President Maithripala Sirisena and his actions so far are in line with his promises. Civil society should keep a close eye of the work of the new Government and extend whatever the support they need in order to bring Sri Lanka back to its track with establishing good governance and rule of law, which will bring much needed Foreign Direct Investments to the country, not just gamblers and cronies. At the Supreme Court we should have credible judges such as the late Mark Fernando.

Prime Minister Wickremesinghe during the election campaign said he would not start investigations against his friends and Mahinda Rajapaksa was a friend of his. This is not an affair of friends and foes. This is an affair of establishing good governance which can be done only by punishing the wrongdoers after a proper investigation by a proper authority and not by a kangaroo court which seals chances of any deals in future to punish or not to punish the future wrongdoers.

- -Published in Daily FT - 16/1/2015

Independence and impartiality of the Judiciary

In my last article, ‘Democratic Values vs. Sri Lankan Values,’ I mentioned that justice was a democratic value as indicated in the Declaration of Independence of United States in 1776 and in the preamble of the Constitution of United States. I also said, “Justice is hardly available in Sri Lanka, not even in the Supreme Court.”

Justice is not solely a western value or an alien concept in the East. The best example we can give is Elara, who ruled in Anuradhapura from 204 BC to 164 BC.

The Mahavamsa was written with Dutugemunu as the hero so that it was very unlikely that the author would have given any undue credit to Elara, a Chola invader. According to the Mahavamsa, after conducting the funeral rites of the fallen King, Dutugemunu issued a decree to respect the cemetery of Elara, which was unparalleled in the history of Sri Lanka and which was maintained until recent times. A statue of Elara rests within the premises of the Madras High Court in Chennai as well.

In Wilhelm Geiger’s English translation of the Mahavamsa, Elara is described as follows: “A Damila of noble descent, named Elara, who came hither from the Chola-country to seize on the kingdom, ruled when he had overpowered king Asela, forty-four years, with even justice toward friend and foe, on occasions of disputes at law.

“At the head of his bed he had a bell hung up with a long rope so that those who desired a judgment at law might ring it. The king had only one son and one daughter. When once the son of the ruler was going in a car to the Tissa-tank, he killed unintentionally a young calf lying on the road with the mother cow, by driving the wheel over its neck. The cow came and dragged at the bell in bitterness of heart; and the king caused his son’s head to be severed (from his body) with that same wheel.

“When the king, who was a protector of tradition, albeit he knew not the peerless virtues of the most precious of the three gems, was going (once) to the Cetiya-mountain to invite the brotherhood of bhikkhus, he caused, as he arrived upon a car, with the point of the yoke on the wagon, an injury to the thüpa of the Conqueror at a (certain) spot. The ministers said to him: `King, the thüpa has been injured by thee.’ Though this had come to pass without his intending it, yet the king leaped from his car and flung himself down upon the road with the words: ‘Sever my head also (from the trunk) with the wheel.’ They answered him: `Injury to another does our Master in no wise allow; make thy peace (with the bhikkhus) by restoring the thupa’; and in order to place (anew) the fifteen stones that had been broken off he spent just fifteen thousand kahapanas.”

An old woman laid rice in her backyard to dry them. Unfortunately unseasonal rain destroyed the rice. The old woman complained to King Elara that an out of season rain destroyed her rice. King Elara started a fast stating that gods should provide rain only during the rainy season. Sakka (King of Gods) found out about King Elara’s fast and provided rain only during the rainy season. The Mahavamsa concludes that Elara gained his miraculous powers only because he freed himself from the guilt of walking in the path of evil.

The way Elara conducted his judicial affairs was in line with the current principles of justice. We can examine how justice is practiced in warfare where might prevails at the end.

Rules of war

In warfare it is considered unethical to attack an unarmed or obviously inferior opponent. Ancient warriors followed this rule. In the Mahabharata in Kaurava vs. Pandava, war rules were imposed in order to ensure equality among warriors such as more than one warrior may not attack a single warrior and no warrior may kill or injure a warrior who has surrendered, an unarmed warrior, an unconscious warrior or a warrior whose back is turned away. Also one who surrenders becomes a prisoner of war and will then be subject to the protections of a prisoner of war.

International Humanitarian Law, which is the law that regulates armed conflicts in today’s context, also considers this aspect. It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy combatant who surrenders, or who is outside of combat and the wounded and the sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. Also no-one shall be subjected to torture, corporal punishment, or cruel or degrading treatment.

In war, authorities tried to create a level playing field so that the stronger party can win. When most criminal acts take place, the victims have some way of defending themselves. A court room is considered the place where one can get ultimate justice.

When a judge is not independent or impartial within a court room, the defendant does not have any protection. His situation is similar to being attacked in war when he is unprepared and unarmed.

Society should realise the gravity of this situation rather than blaming the courts loosely. Legal abuse however cannot be in existence if the decision is legally correct. Also if the decision is delivered in good faith and if there is no gross negligence there cannot be legal abuse on the part of the judge. To consider the decision as legal abuse the judge should act partially and should be intentionally biased.

In any country there is the procedure to appeal against the decisions made by lower courts. Therefore the situation is less serious when it happens in the lower courts. If it happens in the highest court of a country the situation is grave since the defendant is totally helpless and he cannot go anywhere else for justice. Therefore if the judges of the highest court of any country act in a biased manner it can be considered as the highest criminal act of that country.

Governments appoint and pay judges, but once appointed, judges should be independent from any improper influence or pressure by the Executive or Legislature, by individual litigants, particular pressure groups, the media, self-interest or other judges, in particular more senior judges or a chief justice.

This independence and impartiality are needed since only then will the respect of the public for the Judiciary prevail. When the Judiciary loses that respect it is the beginning of the end for rule of law within that country. Therefore looting in the streets if one wants to support his family is more credible than delivering intentionally-biased judgments in a court of law.

Failed justice

There are cases against the authority of the Government and the judges should uphold the fundamental rights of the people. One of the most respected Supreme Court judges of Sri Lanka, the late Mark Fernando, delivered several judgments against the authority of the Government in favour of the fundamental rights of the people, upholding the rights of citizens in respect of the right to vote, the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom against torture and arbitrary arrest and detention.

In the Janagosha case in 1992, where the protest campaign was organised by the incumbent President, Justice Fernando, while delivering the judgment, said: “The right to support or to criticise governments is fundamental to the democratic way of life, and the freedom of speech and expression is one which cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions.”

It is in this light that we have to examine the recent apology to the public by former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva over his judgment in the infamous ‘Helping Hambantota’ case. By saying he was wrong he indicated that he was biased and partial in delivering the judgment in the capacity of the Chief Justice. These matters cannot be pardoned with mere apologies to the public considering the gravity of the same as discussed. However, the country knew his bias not only in this case but several other cases also which were very important.

Considering the various allegations of the biases of the present Supreme Court, especially in the case seeking the opinion of whether the incumbent President can contest another term under the recent 18th Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court could not leave room for future apologies to the public and if so it would be too late and not valid.

In recent times, in the minds of the public there is a sense that the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has degenerated, contrary to the way superior courts operating in other democratic countries such as India or for that matter Pakistan, and Western countries, are perceived.

It appears to be that in this country not only the Executive but also the Judiciary are above the law and this is quite in contrast to the way Elara - the so-called enemy of the Sinhala Buddhists, who by and large are grossly ignorant about Kalinga Magha, a non-Tamil who was the real destroyer of our civilization in the 13th century - ruled the country two millenniums back upholding the modern western democratic values with unbelievable height even by today’s standards.

-Published in Daily FT on 10/12/2014

Democratic values vs. Sri Lankan values

The presidential election was declared and there will be two opposing candidates, incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa and common Opposition candidate Maithripala Sirisena. It is likely to be that at the election platform of the incumbent President, the point of war victory would be brought in. He should get the full credit for that, but not at an election. The intention of this article is to examine this factor in light of the democratic values and Sri Lankan values.

Democracy has been established in Sri Lanka for a long time. However, it appears to be that true democratic values have not been established in Sri Lanka. Democracy was established in the West and democratic values were derived from individualistic Western values. These individualistic democratic values were not established in Sri Lanka since the Sri Lankan culture is by and large a collectivist one.

Western values and Sri Lankan society

The Preamble of US Constitution goes as follows: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Coming from this and from the Declaration of Independence of United States in 1776, the core democratic values are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the common good, justice, equality, diversity, truth, popular sovereignty and patriotism as identified by the Americans.

These values are by and large individualistic and at a glance one can understand that those are not prevalent in current Sri Lankan society. Individual’s right to life is in danger in the context of human rights record of the State. Liberty is an alien concept in Sri Lankan society where lot of aspects of life is determined by strong in-groups. Pursuit of happiness and common good are once again defined as rights of individual citizens. Justice is hardly available in Sri Lanka, not even in the Supreme Court. All citizens are equal under the written law but Sinhala Buddhists are more equal than the others in practical sense.

The President acts as a king and receives such treatment. Diversity is suppressed deliberately and uniformity is promoted. Even the Head of State is untruthful when dealing with foreign dignitaries let alone the dealings with his own citizens. Popular sovereignty which means that the people are independent of the State and hold ultimate authority is limited to the constitution. Patriotism is wrongly interpreted as alignment with the ruling elite.

Individualism and collectivism

Geert Hofstede, a Dutch sociologist, identified the aspects of individualism and collectivism as follows. “Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.”

Harry Triandis, a Greek American, in his book, ‘Individualism and Collectivism,’ identified an important aspect of the behaviour of collectivists against individualist in relationships. “Individualists need to learn that collectivists not only are willing to continue relationships that are more costly than profitable but also will do in more situations than is true for individuals. Exchange relationships tend to be different in the two kinds of cultures: Collectivists tend to exchange more in the area that Foa and Foa (1974) described as ‘particularistic’ – love, status, and services. Individualists are more likely to exchange in areas that Foa and Foa called ‘universalistic’. That is individualists tend to exchange money, goods and information, which are resources that can be given to anyone, whereas collectivists tend to exchange resources that can only be given to a particular person. Clearly people give status to a specific person. Also collectivist exchanges take considerable time. People do not give love as quickly and easily as they give money in a store or stock exchange.

“This is very important point because individualists tend to offer money for services for which collectivists expect the individualist to give another service. For example, a baby-sitter is usually paid in individual cultures, whereas in collectivist cultures the repayment is in the form of baby-sitting for the other person’s child at another time or giving a language lesson or a letter of recommendation.”

Reciprocal favours

Reciprocal favours in collectivist cultures often confuse individualists where the same in individualist cultures is very straightforward and simple as stated by Triandis. This is more emphasised by Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner in their book, ‘Riding the Waves of Culture’.

A scenario was given as follows: “You are riding a car driven by a close friend. He hits a pedestrian. You know he was going at least 35 miles per hour in an area of the city where the maximum allowed speed is 20 miles per hour. There are no witnesses. His lawyer says that if you testify under oath that he was only driving 20 miles per hour, it may save him from serious consequences.”

The question was asked: “What do you think you would do in view of the obligation of a sworn witness and the obligation to your friend?

a. Testify that he was going 20 miles an hour

b. Not testify that he was going 20 miles an hour”

Authors said that in the workshops people from individualist cultures selected the answer (b) and people from collectivist cultures selected the answer (a). Individualists considered the friendship and testifying under oath was two different things and they wanted to uphold the rule of law whereas the collectivists mixed up the two things and were willing to set off friendship and upholding the rule of law with each other and given more weightage to the friendship.

Winston Churchill vs. Clement Attlee

Let us take a real life example. Winston Churchill (1874-1965), widely regarded as one of the greatest wartime leaders, was the British Prime Minister during World War II. He was the Prime Minister from 1940-1945 and 1951-1955 and was named the Greatest Briton of all time in a 2002 poll. Churchill is widely regarded as being among the most influential people in British history. In the all-party war time cabinet, the leader of the Labour Party Clement Attlee was the Deputy Prime Minister. The war was ended in Europe May 1945 while Japan was not yet defeated. A general election was held in July 1945 and the result was a shocking defeat of Conservative Party and its leader Churchill, the war time hero.

At the time of the election, the British general public was in need of social reforms. The much-discussed Beveridge Report was published in 1942 where creation of a welfare society was suggested with introduction of the National Health Service and nationalisation of public utilities and major industries supported by Keynesian economic theories. These policies after implementation by the Labour Government led by Attlee were termed as post war consensus and continued through conservative and labour governments till the time of Margaret Thatcher.

Churchill was not in favour of those reforms on the grounds that those were not affordable. He also made a comment that under a socialist government Attlee would have to introduce Gestapo type of secret service, to which Attlee responded: “How great was the difference between Winston Churchill the great leader in war of a united nation, and Mr. Churchill the party leader of the Conservatives.”

It was Attlee who initiated the independence of India, Burma and Ceylon. Labour win was landslide and unprecedented. By seats Labour got 61% whereas conservative got 31% and by votes Labour got 48% whereas Conservative got 36%.

Sri Lankan society in 2009

Sri Lankan society in 2009, similar to the British society in 1945, was in dire need of social reforms. Rule of Law was deteriorating gradually, democratic values were not respected, corruption was rampant and there was a need of political reforms, power sharing and a new constitution for the nation.

By the report tabled in Parliament in 2007 by Wijeyadasa Rajapaksa, MP, Chairman of the Committee of Public Enterprises (COPE), the extent to which the entire public administration system was corrupt was evident, let alone the politicians. Although many may not believe it, there was corruption at unbelievably high levels of officers of the private sector as well, especially in the area of procurement.

But what happened in Sri Lanka after the civil war was quite in contrast to what happened in Britain after World War II, mainly because of the general public of Sri Lanka, unlike their counterparts in Britain in 1945, were not overly concerned about the need of social reforms. Their concern was only the defeat of the LTTE since the LTTE had put their lives in danger and suspense.

Their solution for corruption was to be corrupt themselves. Their answer to deterioration of law and order was to have a connection with law-enforcing officers or to bribe them. Their answer to power sharing with minorities was not to share power any more since minorities were defeated. As a result all of us have to live with those problems up to date. The situation of the country has been aggravated now compared to 2009.

After the defeat of the LTTE, the general public, especially the dominant Sinhalese population of the country, was overjoyed and at the next election re-elected the incumbent President mainly in gratitude for crushing the LTTE. This is the way of returning a favour in collectivist cultures.

In individualist cultures, it is the way the British voter adopted at the general election in 1945. This act by British voters was not showing disrespect or lack of gratitude towards the great war hero, but clearly distinguishing the two scenarios and acting decisively for the best interests of the country in the future. This was a clear demonstration of true democratic values.

In an election, people should be future-oriented. If an example is taken from the profession of the writer, the voters should not be concerned about sunk cost but future cash-flows, although the war victory was not exactly a sunk cost. Voters at the upcoming presidential election should evaluate the true potential of the two candidates in light of upholding true democratic values and vote accordingly rather than relying on past performance and trying to pay back with their votes.

(The writer is a Chartered Accountant by profession and holds a Master of Business Administration degree awarded by the Postgraduate Institute of Management of University of Sri Jayewardenepura.)

-Published in Daily FT 28.11.2014

රනිල් රාජ්‍ය තාන්ත්‍රිකයෙක් ද කුමන්ත්‍රණ කරුවෙක්ද

හර්ෂ ගුණසේන

බොහෝදෙනෙකු විසින් අග‍්‍රාමාත්‍ය රනිල් වික‍්‍රමසිංහ සලකනු ලබන්නේ උපායශීලි දේශපාලන නායකයකු වශයෙනි. පසුගියදා ඔහු කුමන්ත‍්‍රණකරුවෙකැයි චම්පික රණවක චෝදනා කළේය. විටෙක වේලූපිල්ලේ ප‍්‍රභාකරන් ඔහුගේ ක‍්‍රියාමාර්ග පිළිබඳව සැකයෙන් පසුවිය. ඔහු අනෙකුත් නායකයන් තීරණ ගැනීම සඳහා පැකිලෙන සමහර අවස්ථාවලදී එඩිතර තීරණ ගැනීමට පසුබට නොවේ. අනෙක් අතට සමහර අවස්ථාවලදී ඔහු උපායශීලි දේශපාලකයන් පමණක් නොව සාමාන්‍ය දේශපාලකයන් පවා නොකරන මට්ටමට ස්වාර්ථය ගැන නොසලකා කටයුතු කරයි. කෙසේ නමුත් ඔහුගේ උපායමාර්ග ඉතාමත් තීරණාත්මක අවස්ථාවලදී ඔහුගේ අවාසියට හේතුවී ඇත.

සාම ක‍්‍රියාවලිය සහ එඩිතර තීරණ
ඔහු 2001දී පාර්ලිමේන්තු බහුතරයක් සමඟ අගමැතිධුරයට පත්වන විට ජනාධිපති වූයේ චන්ද්‍රිකා කුමාරතුංගයි. එවකට එල්.ටී.ටී.ඊ. සංවිධානය විසින් රජයේ හමුදා පෙරමුණු ගණනාවකදී පරාජයට පත්කර තිබුණි. උතුරු පළාතේ අලිමංකඩ කඳවුර ඇතුළු කඳවුරු ගණනාවක් බිඳ වැටී තිබුණි. එල්.ටී.ටී.ඊ. සංවිධානය විසින් කටුනායක ගුවන් තොටුපළට පහර දෙන ලද අතර ශ‍්‍රීලන්කන් එයාර් ලයින් සමාගමට බරපතළ පාඩු විඳීමට සිදුවිය. ඉතිහාසයේ ප‍්‍රථම වතාවට ශ‍්‍රී ලංකාව ඍණ ආර්ථික වර්ධනයක් පෙන්නුම් කළේය.

වික‍්‍රමසිංහ අගමැති වූ පසුව වර්ගවාදීන්ගේ විරෝධතා මධ්‍යයේ එල්.ටී.ටී.ඊ. සංවිධානය සමඟ සාම ගිවිසුමක් අත්සන් කිරීමට කටයුතු කළේය. ඔහු එවකට ජනාධිපති චන්ද්‍රිකා කුමාරතුංග නොවිමසා ස්වකැමැත්තට අනුව කටයුතු කළේය. සාම ගිවිසුම අත්සන් කළ විගස කොළඹ නගරයේ සහ වෙනත් පළාත්වල තිබූ මාර්ග බාධක ඉවත් කිරීමට ඔහු කටයුතු කළේය. රටේ එවකට තිබූ තත්ත්වය සහ මෙයට පෙර මෙරට නායකයන් ජනවාර්ගික ප‍්‍රශ්නය සම්බන්ධයෙන් කටයුතු කර තිබූ ආකාරය සලකා බලන විට ඔහු ගෙන තිබුණේ ඉතාමත් නිර්භීත පියවරකි.

එස්.ඩබ්.ආර්.ඩි. බණ්ඩාරනායක බලයේ සිටියදී දෙමළ ජනතාවගේ සාධාරණ ප‍්‍රශ්න විසඳීම සඳහා බණ්ඩාරනායක-චෙල්වනායගම් ගිවිසුම අත්සන් කළේය. බුදුන් වදාළ ධර්මය පිළිබඳව මළපොතේ අකුරවත් නොදන්නා ලෙසට කටයුතු කළ වර්ගවාදී භික්ෂූන් පිරිසක් ඇතුළු ඔහුගේ පක්ෂයේම ආධාරකරුවන්ගේ බලවත් විරෝධය සමනය කරනු වස් එම ගිවිසුම සිය නිවස ඉදිරිපිටදීම බණ්ඩාරනායක විසින් ඉරා දමන ලදී. එම ගිවිසුම ක‍්‍රියාත්මක කරනු ලැබුවේ නම් අප විසින් අත්දකිනු ලැබූ සාපලත් තිස් අවුරුදු යුද්ධය ඇති නොවන්නට ඉඩ තිබුණි.

පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ 5/6ක බලයක් සහිතව සියලූම එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂ මන්ත‍්‍රීවරුන්ගේ දින රහිත ඉල්ලා අස්වීමේ ලිපි තමා සන්තකයේ තබාගෙන සිටි සර්ව බලධාරී ජේ.ආර්. ජයවර්ධන ජනාධිපතිවරයා 1983 ජූලි ප‍්‍රචණ්ඩකාරී සිද්ධීන් ආරම්භවූ විට නිසි අවස්ථාවේදී ඇඳිරි නිතිය ක‍්‍රියාත්මක කිරීමට පසුබට විය.

ජාත්‍යන්තර ආරක්ෂක දැල
චන්ද්‍රිකා කුමාරතුංග විසින් නොර්වේ රාජ්‍යය සාම ක‍්‍රියාවලියේ පහසුකම් සලසන්නා ලෙස පත්කරනු ලැබ තිබුණි. සාකච්ඡා ආරම්භ වූ විට රනිල් වික‍්‍රමසිංහ විසින් සාම ක‍්‍රියාවලියේ සම සභාපතිවරුන් ලෙස ඇමරිකා එක්සත් ජනපදය, ජපානය, යුරෝපා සංවිධානය සහ නොර්වේ යන රටවල සහාය ලබා ගන්නා ලදී. මෙයට පෙර සාම සාකච්ඡා පැවැත්වූ සෑම අවස්ථාවකදීම එල්.ටී.ටී.ඊ. සංවිධානය අවංක ලෙස කටයුතු නොකළ අතර එම අවකාශය ඔවුන් පාවිච්චි කළේ සිය හමුදා ශක්තිය වර්ධනය කර ගැනීම සඳහාය. එබැවින් ජාත්‍යන්තර ප‍්‍රජාව සාම සාකච්ඡා සඳහා සහභාගී කර ගැනීම මගින් එල්.ටී.ටී.ඊ. සංවිධානයට සාකච්ඡා මේසයෙන් ඉවත්ව යාමේ හැකියාව වික‍්‍රමසිංහ විසින් සිමා කරන ලදී. මෙය එක්තරා ප‍්‍රමාණයකට ජේ.ආර්. ජයවර්ධන විසින් එල්.ටී.ටී.ඊ. සංවිධානය මර්දනය කිරීම සඳහා ඉන්දියන් හමුදාව යොදාගැනීම සමාන කළ හැක. මෙයට පෙර තිබූ එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂ ආණ්ඩු සමයේදී එල්.ටී.ටී.ඊ. සංවිධානය සමඟ කටයුතු කළ ආකාරය සම්බන්ධයෙන් මෙරට රජයට ජාත්‍යන්තර විරෝධතා එල්ල විය. එනමුත් ලක්ෂ්මන් කදිරගාමර් විදේශ ඇමතිවරයාගේ යුගයේදී මෙම විරෝධතා සමනය කර ගැනීමට මෙරටට හැකිවිය.

එක් සාම සාකච්ඡුා වටයකදී එල්.ටී.ටී.ඊ. සාකච්ඡුා කණ්ඩායමේ ප‍්‍රධානියා වූ ඇන්ටන් බාලසිංහම් ෆෙඩරල් ආණ්ඩු ක‍්‍රමයකට එකඟ විය. ප‍්‍රභාකරන් මෙයට එකඟ නොවූ අතර බාලසිංහම් සාකච්ඡා කණ්ඩායමේ ප‍්‍රධානත්වයෙන් ඉවත් කර තමිල් සෙල්වම් එම තනතුරට පත් කිරීමට එය හේතුවිය. පසුව එල්.ටී.ටී.ඊ. සංවිධානය සාකච්ඡා වලින් ඉවත්වීමට බලපෑ එක ප‍්‍රධාන හේතුවක් වූයේද එම කාරණයයි. මේ අනුව රනිල් වික‍්‍රමසිංහ විසින් කළ උපාය මාර්ගික මැදහත්වීම අනුව ජාත්‍යන්තර ප‍්‍රජාවට එල්.ටී.ටී.ඊ. සංවිධානයේ දෙපිට කාට්ටුකම පිළිබඳව ප‍්‍රත්‍යක්ෂ දැනුමක් ලබා ගැනීමට හැකි විය. මෙම උපාය මාර්ගික ක‍්‍රියාමාර්ගය හඳුන්වනු ලැබුවේ ‘ජාත්‍යන්තර ආරක්ෂක දැල’ වශයෙනි. මෙම යෙදුම 2005 මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ සහ රනිල් වික‍්‍රමසිංහ අතරවූ ජනාධිපතිවරණයේදී රනිල් වික‍්‍රමසිංහට පක්ෂව පාවිච්චි කරන ලදී. මෙම උපාය මාර්ගික ක‍්‍රියා දාමයට විරුද්ධවූ ප‍්‍රභාකරන් විසින් දෙමළ ජනතාවට ජනාධිපතිවරණයේදී ඡන්දය පාවිච්චි නොකරන ලෙස නියෝග කරන ලදී. රාජපක්ෂ පාර්ශ්වය විසින් ප‍්‍රභාකරන්ට මේ සඳහා මුදල් ගෙවන ලද බවට චෝදනාවක්ද තිබේ. දෙමළ ජනතාව ඡන්දය පාවිච්චි කළේ නම් එම ඡන්ද වික‍්‍රමසිංහ විසින් ලබාගෙන ජනාධිපතිවරණය ජයගැනීමට ඉඩ තිබූ බව බොහෝ දෙනා විශ්වාස කරති.

උත්ප‍්‍රාසාත්මක කාරණය වූයේ මෙම උපාය මාර්ගය සිංහල ජනතාවට දිරවා ගත නොහැකිවීමත් ඔවුන් සමහරකු විසින් වික‍්‍රමසිංහ දුර්වල නායකයකු ලෙස සලකා ඔහුට ඡන්දය දීමෙන් වැළකි සිටීමත්ය. එබැවින් මෙම තීරණාත්මක අවස්ථාවේදී ඔහුගේ උපාය මාර්ගික ක‍්‍රියාවලිය ඔහුගේ අවාසියට හේතුවිය. සාම සාකච්ඡා ක‍්‍රියාවලියේ අතුරු ඵලයක් ලෙස කරුණා එල්.ටී.ටී.ඊ. සංවිධානයෙන් ඉවත්වී එම සංවිධානය දෙකඩ වූ බවද අප මතක තබා ගත යුතුය.

සාකච්ඡා ක‍්‍රියාමාර්ගය අතරතුරදී කුමාරතුංග ජනාධිපතිවරිය විසින් ආරක්ෂක අමාත්‍යංශය ඇතුළු අමාත්‍යංශ තුනක් පවරා ගන්නා ලදී. එම අවස්ථාවේදී අගමැති වික‍්‍රමසිංහ සිටියේ විදේශ ගතවය. ඔහු ගුවන් තොටුපළට පැමිණි විට ලක්ෂ ගණන් ජනතාව ඔහු පිළිගැනීමට පැමිණි අතර ඔහුට කටුනායක සිට කොළඹට පැමිණීමට පැය අටක පමණ කාලයක් ගතවිය. ජනතාව එම අවස්ථාවේදීම අරලිය ගහ මන්දිරයට ගොස් අමාත්‍යංශ තුන ආපසු බාරදෙන ලෙස ජනාධිපතිවරියට බල කිරීමට සූදානම් වූහ. වික‍්‍රමසිංහ වීථි අරගලවලට අකැමති වූ අතර තමන්ට උපාය මාර්ගයක් තිබෙන බව පවසා ජනතාවගෙන් සාමකාමිව විසිර යන ලෙස ඉල්ලා සිටියේය. ඔහුගේ උපාය මාර්ගය වූයේ ආරක්ෂක අමාත්‍යංශය නොමැතිව තමාට සාම සාකච්ඡා පවත්වාගෙනයාම නොහැකි බව පවසා තමන් සාම සාකච්ඡුා වලින් ඉවත් වන බව නිවේදනය කිරීමය. මෙය ඉතාමත් අදාළ තර්කයකි. ඔහුගේ ‘ජාත්‍යන්තර ආරක්ෂක දැල’ විසින් චන්ද්‍රිකා කුමාරතුංගට තමන්ට නැවතත් ආරක්ෂක අමාත්‍යංශය බාරදෙන ලෙස බලපෑම් කරනු ඇති බව ඔහුගේ විශ්වාසය විය. එනමුත් ජනාධිපතිවරිය අමාත්‍යංශ ආපසු බාර නොදුන් අතර පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසුරුවා හැර මහා මැතිවරණයක් පැවැත්වීමට ක‍්‍රියා කළාය. එබැවින් වික‍්‍රමසිංහගේ උපායමාර්ගය අසාර්ථක විය.

පක්ෂයේ කෙටිකාලීන වාසි වලට ඉදිරියෙන් රටේ දීර්ඝ කාලීන අරමුණු තැබීම
වික‍්‍රමසිංහ කුමාරතුංග ජනාධිපතිවරිය යටතේ අගමැති ධුරය දැරූ කාලයේ රාජ්‍ය සේවයට කිසිම පත්වීමක් නොකිරීමට ඔහු විසින් ගනු ලැබූ තීරණය ඉතාමත් ධෛර්ය සම්පන්න එකකි. ශ‍්‍රී ලංකාවේ තරුණ කොටස් මැතිවරණ සඳහා වැඩ කරන්නේ රාජ්‍ය අංශයේ රැකියාවක් ලබා ගැනීමේ බලාපොරොත්තුවෙන් බව දේශපාලකයෝ දනිති. එම අවස්ථාව වන විට එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂයට ආණ්ඩු බලය නොමැතිව බොහෝ කලක් ගතවී තිබුණි. එබැවින් පාක්ෂිකයන්ගෙන් රැකියා සඳහා බලවත් ඉල්ලූමක් තිබුණි. දේශපාලනඥයෝ තමන්ගේ ආධාර කරුවන්ට සැලකීමේ අවශ්‍යතාවය අවබෝධ කරගෙන සිටිති. අනෙක් අතට රටේ අවශ්‍යතාවය වූයේ රජයේ සේවකයන්ගේ වැටුප් වැඩිකර එයට අනුරූප වනසේ ඔවුන්ගේ වගකීම්ද වැඩිකර රාජ්‍ය සේවයේ ගුණාත්මක වෙනසක් ඇතිකිරීමයි. ඵලදායි නොවන ලෙස රාජ්‍ය සේවකයන්ගේ සංඛ්‍යාව වැඩි කිරීම නොවේ. එවකටද රජයේ සේවකයන්ගේ ප‍්‍රමාණය වැඩි වූ අතර රාජ්‍යයේ දීර්ඝ කාලීන අවශ්‍යතාවය වූයේ රජයේ සේවකයන්ගේ ප‍්‍රමාණය අඩු කිරීම සහ ආර්ථිකයේ ප‍්‍රසාරණය මගින් රැකියා විරහිත අයට රැකියා උත්පාදනය කිරීමයි. වික‍්‍රමසිංහ තෝරාගත්තේ දෙවන විකල්පයයි. එනම් රාජ්‍යයේ දීර්ඝ කාලින අරමුණු වෙනුවෙන් තමන්ගේ දේශපාලන පක්ෂයට ලැබෙන කෙටිකාලින ප‍්‍රතිලාභ කැප කිරීමයි. වික‍්‍රමසිංහගේ මෙම ක‍්‍රියාව ඉතාමත් විරල වන අතර ශ‍්‍රී ලංකා දේශපාලනයේ මෙවැන්නක් මෙයට පෙර අප අසා නැත. මෙම`ගින් ඔහුගේ රාජ්‍ය තාන්ත‍්‍රික භාවය සහ රට වෙනුවෙන් ස්වාර්ථයෙන් තොරව කැපවීම මනාව පෙන්නුම් කරයි.

එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂය විරුද්ධ පක්ෂයේ සිටි පසුගිය කාලයේදී වික‍්‍රමසිංහගේ සුළු ජාතීන්ට අදාළ ප‍්‍රතිපත්තිය වූයේ වර්ගවාදී නොවන එනම් ජාතික ප‍්‍රතිපත්තියකි. එවකට තිබූ ආණ්ඩුව ඒ සම්බන්ධයෙන් අනුගමනය කළේ වර්ගවාදී ප‍්‍රතිපත්තියකි. එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂයේ සිටි, තමන්ට බොහෝ කාලයක් විරුද්ධ පක්ෂයේ සිටීමට සිදුවූ අභාග්‍ය සම්පන්න තත්ත්වයට එරෙහි කණ්ඩායමක් වර්ගවාදී ප‍්‍රතිපත්තිය මත ආණ්ඩුව ලැබූ ජනප‍්‍රියත්වයට ලොල්ව තමන්ද එවැනිම ප‍්‍රතිපත්තියක් අනුගමනය කළ යුතු යැයි වික‍්‍රමසිංහට බල කර සිටියහ. ඔහු එයට කැමති වූයේ නැති අතර වර්ගවාදීන් විසින් විජාතික ප‍්‍රතිපත්තියකැයි වැරදි ලෙස අර්ථ ගැන්වූ ජාතික ප‍්‍රතිපත්තිය ක‍්‍රියාත්මක කළේය. මෙම අවස්ථාවේදී නැවත වතාවක් රටේ පළල් ජාතික අවශ්‍යතාවයන් වෙනුවෙන් කෙටි කාලින ජනප‍්‍රියතාවය සහ බලය කැපකිරීමේ ස්වාර්ථයෙන් තොර රාජ්‍ය තාන්ත‍්‍රිකභාවය ඔහු විසින් පෙන්නුම් කරන ලදී.

අද දිනයේ මෙයට සම්පුර්ණයෙන් ප‍්‍රති විරුද්ධව දූෂිත වර්ගවාදී රාජපක්ෂ ගැත්තන් විසින් දෙමළ සහ මුස්ලිම් ජනතාව නිරූපණය කරන ජාතික කොඩියේ තැඹිලි සහ කොළ පාට තීරු ඉවත් කොට නව ජාතික කොඩියක් නිර්මාණය කර තිබේ. පසුගියදා ආණ්ඩුක‍්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ 19 වන සංශෝධනයට දුන් තීන්දුව අනුව ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය විසින් ජාතික සමගියේ සංකේතය ජාතික කොඩිය වශයෙන් තීරණය කර ඇති බව ඔවුන් විසින් මතක තබා ගත යුතුය.

නායකත්ව ගුණාංග
සුප‍්‍රකට හාවඞ් විශ්වවිද්‍යාලයේ මහාචාර්යවරයකු වන ඬේවිඞ් යොෆී සහ මයිකල් කසුමානෝ විසින් මයික්‍රෝසොෆ්ට්, ඉන්ටෙල් සහ ඇපල් යන දැවැන්ත සමාගම්වල දීර්ඝ කාලීනව ප‍්‍රධාන විධායක ධුර දැරූ බිල් ගේට්ස්, ඇන්ඩි ග්රෝව් සහ ස්ටීව් ජොබ්ස්ගේ නායකත්ව කුසලතාවයන් විශ්ලේෂණය කරමින් උපායමාර්ගික නීති නමින් පොතක් ලියා තිබේ. එහි යොෆී මෙසේ කියයි. ”මොවුන් තිදෙනාම එකිනෙකාට වෙනස් කුසලතාවයන් පාවිච්චි කළ නමුත් ඔවුන් ජයග‍්‍රාහීවීමට බොහෝ සෙයින් හේතු වූයේ ඔවුන්ට කළ නොහැක්කේ කුමක්දැයි ඔවුන් වටහා ගෙන තිබීමත් ඒ දේවල් කිරීම වෙනත් පුද්ගලයන්ට පැවරීමත් ඒ මගින් ඔවුන්ට කළ නොහැකි, නොකළ යුතු සහ නොකරන දේ කිරීම සඳහා විවිධ කණ්ඩායම් ඇති කිරීමට ඔවුන්ට හැකි වීම නිසාය.’ සමහර විට වික‍්‍රමසිංහට තමන් පිළිබඳව වූ මේ අවබෝධය 2010 සහ 2015 ජනාධිපතිවරණවලදී පොදු අපේක්ෂකයන් ලෙස පිළිවෙලින් සරත් ෆොන්සේකා සහ මෛත‍්‍රීපාල සිරිසේන පත්කිරීමට ඔහුගේ දායකත්වය දීමට හේතුවන්නට ඇත.

යොෆී ඔහුගේ පොතෙහි මොවුන් තිදෙනාම බොහෝ අඩුපාඩුකම් ඇති නායකයන් බවත් ඔවුන් පරමාදර්ශ ලෙස සැලකීම හෝ ඔවුන්ට සුදුහුණු ගෑම තම අභිප‍්‍රාය නොවන බවත් සඳහන් කර ඇත. නායකයන් හෝ අනුගාමිකයන් සියලූදෙනාම අඩු වැඩි වශයෙන් හොඳ සහ නරක ගුණාංග උරුම කරගෙන ඇත. එනමුත් රටක දේශපාලන නායකත්වය යනු තමන්ට, තමන්ගේ ඥාතීන්ට සහ තමන්ගේ අනුගාමිකයන්ට සේවය කිරීම නොව රටේ සියලූම පුරවැසියන්ගේ අනාගතය සඳහා පැහැදිලි දැක්මක් තිබීමත් එය ළඟාකර ගැනීම සඳහා නොපසුබට වීර්යයෙන් යුතුව ප‍්‍රජාතාන්ත‍්‍රික මාර්ග ඔස්සේ කටයුතු කිරීමත්ය. රනිල් වික‍්‍රමසිංහට සිය නායකත්ව විලාසය අනුව අනාගතයේදී මේ කාර්යය කිරීමට හැකිවේදැයි අපි බලා සිටිමු.

Published in Samabima News Paper and in website-5.5.2015