The Political Column

Back to divisive politics

In what was seen as a rare occasion where our political leaders showed maturity and statesmanship, the two major parties struck political consensus that paved the way for the establishment of a constitutional council and four independent commissions for police, elections, the judiciary and the public service.

The compromise reached by the two parties provides for a constitutional council comprising the Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Opposition Leader, five members nominated jointly by the premier and the opposition leader (three of them from minority communities), a nominee of the president and a nominee of opposition parties other than the UNP. 

It is a great achievement by democratic forces, the JVP said while the PA and the UNP described it as a historic occasion. But the whole exercise brought forth a positive constitutional phenomenon which the ruling party is unlikely to appreciate. The passage of the 17th Amendment proved that the 1978 Constitution is a workable document that promotes consensus politics.

But this consensus politics can be achieved only when our political leaders put the country's interest before party or self-interest.

The countdown to consensus politics that brightened the political landscape of our country on Monday paradoxically began with divisive politics that manifested itself in a no-confidence motion against the government.

After Rauf Hakeem and his six SLMC parliamentarians left the government ranks and a group of ministers headed by SLFP General Secretary S. B. Dissanayake had differences of opinion with the President, the UNP launched a relentless campaign to push the no-confidence motion to defeat the government which had lost its parliamentary majority. It was the JVP's conditional support that saved the day for the PA. One of the demands put forward by the JVP was the setting up of the Constitutional Council and the independent commissions. This objective was achieved with the JVP shuttling between the PA and the UNP, which claims that the commissions were its brainchild.

UNPers were of the opinion that it was their baby though the JVP was playing the role of a foster father or midwife. UNPers say the idea for independent commissions first came up during the Premadasa regime, but it assumed the form of a proposal only in 1995 at the UNP's Kataragama convention. It is also true, the commissions would not have seen the daylight, had the UNP decided to vote against the 17th Amendment. Thus we must commend the statesmanship of UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, who was not so long ago criticised by even some of his partymen for not displaying leadership qualities. Some even left the party, citing Mr. Wickremesinghe's unwillingness to back political reforms. 

But last week, Wijeyapala Mendis, a member who left the party along with a number of MPs last year, hailed his approach to the 17th amendment.

The UNP-JVP talks on the composition of the Constitutional Council ended on Friday, with the JVP agreeing to convey the UNP's position to the government. The UNP suggested that the Prime Minister and the opposition leader should appoint a nominee each to the Constitutional Council who should be a retired judge of the Superior courts.

The JVP, which planned to meet the President on the same day, however, could not meet her till Sunday, though the JVP promised the UNP negotiating team that they would come back as soon as possible.

The JVP's meeting with the President began at 7 p.m. and lasted till 1.30 a.m. Thus it could not communicate with the UNP till 9 a.m. By this time, the UNP Parliamentary group was in session to review the 17th Amendment. 

Mr. Wickremesinghe told UNP parliamentarians that they should abstain from voting if the government had rejected changes it proposed.

He said the party's stand should be that it would not back the 17th Amendment unless the independence of the council and the commissions was guaranteed.

"The only way out is to refrain from voting if the need arises. But we will do our best to get the government to agree with us," Mr. Wickremesinghe said.

But UNP hardliner Rajitha Senaratne suggested a different approach. He said if the party's recommendations were rejected, they should vote against the amendment.

Signalling that Mr. Senaratne was not alone, veteran UNPer M. H. Mohamed also echoed this view. 

But Mr. Wickremesinghe stood his ground. "What I suggest is that we should not vote against, but refrain. If there is any disagreement, we can put this to the House for a vote," he said.

At this stage, a majority of UNP MPs said it was not necessary as they would go along with the leader.

Thereafter, he executed his plan. He asked Chief Opposition Whip W.J.M. Lokubandara, UNP spokesman Karunasena Kodituwakku and Rohitha Bogollagama to meet a Sirasa radio crew who were reporting from the parliamentary complex.

Thus the UNP was able to send a signal to the government that there was no change in its stand on the composition of the Constitutional Council.

The UNP had insisted that if the President was allowed to appoint a member, the opposition leader should also be allowed to nominate a member.

The team comprising UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, Deputy Leader Karu Jayasuriya, W.J.M. Lokubandara, Tyronne Fernando, John Amaratunga, K.N. Choksy and Rohitha Bogollagama also met other opposition parties to explain the UNP's position.

In the meantime, the JVP delegation comprising Wimal Weeravansa, Nandana Gunatilleke and Bimal Ratnayake managed to meet the UNP team and convey the government's response that it was not agreeable to the UNP proposal. 

The UNPers then came up with another compromise. They said that if the President insisted on appointing a member, the opposition leader should be empowered to appoint a member in consultation with other opposition parties represented in Parliament. The UNP also wanted the minority representation in the Constitutional Council to be decided by a vote from minority parties in Parliament. But the government insisted that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition jointly appoint them.

Given the UNP's earlier stand, which rejected any role for the President on the composition of the council, its present stand is an outcome of pressure exerted from within the party. Some MPs had reportedly said they could offer no explanation to the people they represented if the party missed out the opportunity to set up a system that would promote good governance and ensure free and fair elections. They said the party's objection to a presidential nominee was not a valid excuse.

Some UNP parliamentarians, who revolted against the leadership of Mr. Wickremesinghe earlier this year said if the UNP backed out it would be interpreted as the party's inability to strike a deal with the Government for a national cause.

The UNP and the JVP delegation met once again, around 4 p.m. by which time, Mr. Wickremesinghe softened his stand on the composition of the Constitutional Council. He was more amenable and was willing to accommodate the President's nominee, if restricted the term to three years. Earlier, there was no specific time limitation for the President's nominee unlike the other members of the Constitutional Council. The UNP leader called for the deletion of a provision that said that the Bribery Commission and the Human Rights Commission could continue despite the introduction of the 17th Amendment.

Mr. Wickremesinghe wanted fresh appointments made to both these institutions. 

While these negotiations were on, CWC Parliamentarian T. Yogarajan dropped a bombshell in parliament. He said the CWC would not be in a position to support the amendment unless there was a minority representative assigned to look after the interests of the Tamils of Indian origin in the proposed Constitutional Council. 

CWC leader Arumugam Thondaman in the meantime met the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader to put his party's point of view across.

Some insiders said it was the UNP leader who expressed the willingness first to accommodate the CWC proposal. He reiterated the UNP's position that the minority representation in the council should come with the concurrence of all minority parties represented in Parliament, but the government again rejected it, saying they should be appointed in consultation with these parties.

Analysts say the UNP was more accommo dative because it wanted to tilt the balance of the Council in favour of the Opposition as most of the minority parties including the TULF, TELO, ACTC, SLMC and a good number of the CWC members are sitting with the UNP on the opposition benches.

However, even as things stand today, the composition of the council will be in favour of the opposition.

The JVP having discussed the matter with the UNP, suggested that the UNP should talk directly to the government, to resolve the impasse.

Though the vote was scheduled at 7 p.m., both the PA and the UNP agreed that it be put off by at least another hour.

Thereafter, a UNP team led by K.N. Choksy, Tyronne Fernando, Mahinda Samarasinghe, John Amaratunga, Mano Wijeratne and Rohitha Bogollagama met Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickremanayake, Ministers Nimal Siripala de Silva, Mangala Samaraweera, the Attorney-General and the Legal Draftsman. Mr. Wijeratne played a key role in these negotiations and was anchored at the Prime Minister's office to facilitate communication between the UNP and the PA.

At this meeting, the PA agreed to appoint three minority community members to the Council from the five members the Prime Minister and the opposition leader would jointly appoint.

They also agreed to appoint another member representing smaller parties in Parliament, excluding the PA and the UNP while accommodating the presidential nominee. These members along with ex-officio members — the Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Opposition leader — completed the composition of the 10-member council.

The Speaker, however, is not eligible to vote unless there is an impasse created by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

The PA also agreed to the UNP suggestion that the term of the presidential nominee should be restricted to three years and to appoint members to the Bribery Commission and the Human Rights Commission afresh.

The government's nod was seen as a substantial victory for the party. During these discussions, SLMC Leader Rauf Hakeem and the TULF's V. Anandasangari threw their weight behind the UNP.

Mr. Hakeem told opposition members that this opportunity should not be missed. He pointed out that the setting up of the commissions was one of his party's conditions when it joined the PA after a controversy over the manner in which elections were conducted in the Kandy district at last year's general elections.

Though the TULF had said that finding a solution to the ethnic conflict should be given priority over the setting up of commissions, Mr. Anandasangari made a substantial contribution, to the opposition's cause.

But to express their dismay over the ethnic issue being sent to the backburner, the TULF along with the TELO staged a walkout when the 17th Amendment was put to vote.

The 17th Amendment is primarily a victory for the democratic forces, which cherish justice and fairplay in a society plagued by terrorism and violence. It is now up to the government to implement the provisions of the amendment. 

We hope that it would not face the same fate as the 13th Amendment where certain provisions could not be fully implemented due to the lack of courage.

But today there appears to be consensus among the two major parties on the need to solve the ethnic issue through peaceful means. This may be largely due to pressure exerted from donor countries. The LTTE, too, appears to be keen on a solution because of the West's new fight against terrorism.

The American offensive against global terrorism had somewhat helped Sri Lanka's cause, but the US position is that Sri Lanka should go for a negotiated settlement. 

In this context, the two major parties should reach some sort of consensus as they did in the case of the 17th Amendment.

In a related political development, the dispute between Speaker Anura Bandaranaike and UNP Parliamentarian Ravi Karunanayake appears to be deepening.

Mr. Bandaranaike had taken offence to what Mr. Karunanayake had told The Sunday Times' sister newspaper Daily Mirror, regarding Mr. Bandaranaike's role in Parliament as a member of the UNP. Mr. Karunanayake, a member of the UNP group, which thinks that this government should be brought down by way of a no confidence motion, stood by the story.

But Mr. Bandaranaike, who was smarting over a series of articles in a weekly newspaper criticising him, appears to have awakened from a deep slumber to respond to Mr. Karunanayake.

Mr. Bandaranaike has not contemplated any legal action against the Sunday Leader but chosen Mr. Karunanayake to launch an onslaught.

Mr. Bandaranaike said he observed silence when the newspaper attacked him but now, he felt he should do something about all this. Hence a legal battle with the UNP's Kotte MP.

Mr. Karunanayake and Rajitha Senaratne both faced trouble when they confronted UNP Leader Wickremesinghe to urge him to oppose the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.

"I am a leader. I can't be listening to you all. Fall in line," was the reply.

Mr. Wickremesinghe's role in getting together with the government to pass the 17th Amendment has won him many accolades. Though, he could not get everything the way he wanted, it was still a good show. For instance, the UNP could not get the government to agree to the composition of the Judicial Service Commission where the party believed that the JSC should comprise three most senior judges of the Supreme Court.

In this the UNP had to give into a government proposal which said that the JSC should be headed by the Chief Justice and the other two members should be appointed from the Supreme Court irrespective of their seniority.

The present arrangement is while the Chief Justice heads the JSC, the two most senior judges after the Chief Justice are to be appointed to fill the other two vacancies. But the politics of consensus ended with the passage of the 17th Amendment. 

Soon after it was passed, the two parties were back in the numbers game in view of the UNP's no-confidence motion against the government, which was presented in parliament on Friday.

In the face of a no-confidence threat, the President appears to be uncertain over the extent of dissension within the party, especially after the cabinet was slashed to 20 as per the PA-JVP deal.

They were forced into this by the JVP, which is holding the key to PA's administration. It is akin to an existence between the devil and the deep blue sea.

If the President divorces herself from the JVP, she runs the risk of being defeated in Parliament, but with the JVP, her problems are numerous, because the axed ministers and deputy ministers are trying to hold her government to ransom by joining ranks with the S. B. Dissanayake group.

She was trying hard to find a way out of the problem. In a bid to appease those who lost portfolios and deputy-ministerships, she is reported to have told them that they could continue to enjoy their perks. This makes the whole exercise of slashing the cabinet to 20 a mockery. Will the government come out with figures to show how much it is saving by this exercise? 

On Friday, the UNP submitted a fresh no-confidence motion to the Speaker. But it bore only a few signatures. It may be described as a strategic move to confuse the government ranks. UNP insiders say that if they submitted the no-confidence motion with the full complement of signatures, then the government would move to dissolve Parliament on October 10. The Parliament is scheduled to meet on October 9 and the government is completing one year on the 10th, when the President will be able to dissolve Parliament.

This was discussed at length at a dinner meeting on Thursday night at Prof. Peiris' residence. UNP leader Mr. Wickremesinghe, former Minister and the SLFP General Secretary S. B. Dissanayake and Milinda Moragoda joined the meeting. They discussed the numbers available to defeat the government and the general consensus was that they should place the no-confidence motion before the Speaker. They feel that it could generate political momentum and they will be able to gather more votes from the government benches. 

The numbers are intact was the general feeling. But if the a no-confidence motion is passed, the UNP can only expect the President to dissolve Parliament but not appoint the government headed by the UNP.

Situation Report

Editorial/ Opinion Contents