Columns

Weeks of political uncertainty that thrust Sri Lanka on the road to instability are to end for good or for the worse next week. The good is if the 19A is passed in Parliament after a two-day debate due to begin tomorrow. It is to be followed by electoral reforms through a 20A within weeks. The bad, firstly, is if measures to prune down powers of the Executive Presidency, a main pledge that thrust Maithripala Sirisena to the Presidency, are defeated. Secondly, a double blow will come if efforts to introduce a new electoral system through a 20A are similarly voted out.

The fears of such a possibility keep mounting. Parliamentarians supporting former President Mahinda Rajapaksa are stepping up the ante. They want to deny a two-thirds vote though the Central Committee of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) decided unanimously to support both amendments. It is these MPs who are now calling the shots. Their latest position is that they want to move amendments to 19A. One such instance is to make provision that the proposed Constitutional Council to be set up should comprise only parliamentarians. The move to include this amendment is being spearheaded by the pro-Mahinda Rajapaksa faction.

“We are still clarifying matters. Once this is done, we will take a final decision,” Opposition Leader Nimal Siripala de Silva (SLFP/UPFA) told the Sunday Times. He said that for this purpose the SLFP parliamentary group would meet today (Sunday). For President Sirisena and other leaders of the party, this is no easy task. It is not only essential for them to convince their MPs to support the 19A, but also the 20A which has already run into a storm.

Not surprisingly, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and the Government are preparing for both eventualities. “President Sirisena is doing his best to get the amendments through. Otherwise, we have to say ‘enough is enough’ and go for parliamentary elections. By tomorrow, we will know where things stand,” Mr. Wickremesinghe told the Sunday Times. He said that leaders of the ruling coalition were now discussing a transitional system when Parliament was dissolved.

Until yesterday, different emissaries were engaged in behind-the-scenes consultations both with Sirisena and Rajapaksa to discern whether there is common ground for them to reach an accord. The same emissaries are also working hard to ensure Sirisena and Rajapaksa are on the same platform for the SLFP’s May Day rally. That is clearly a difficult task after this week’s developments. Our front page news item says that, for the first time, there will be two SLFP rallies on May Day.

In the event it becomes clear that the 19A could not be passed, an authoritative Government source said, Parliament would be dissolved immediately after Vesak, possibly on May 5. In such an event, the source said, elections would be held in the latter part of June. That event would of course, be sans electoral reforms and on the old proportional representation system.
The current stalemate including electoral reforms became the subject of lengthy discussions when the National Executive Council met on Friday afternoon. Unlike in its previous sessions, taking part this time was also the former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga.

Both, the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) strongly criticised the electoral reforms package. It was official Government spokesperson Minister Rajitha Senaratne who announced at the weekly news briefing that the Cabinet of Ministers had approved the electoral reforms presented by President Sirisena. “The Cabinet took no such decision. In fact, we wondered why the President should introduce such a document to Ministers even before all parties concerned had agreed on it,” remarked Rauff Hakeem, the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) leader. President Sirisena was to intervene to explain that he presented the SLFP proposals as a Cabinet Memorandum for a discussion. It did not in any way mean it was a final document. Then, Hakeem went on to urge that “the cold war between the Sri Lanka Freedom Party and the United National Party should end”.

He said the National Executive Council (NEC), which now acts almost like a Cabinet oversight body, should look at the issues before it and take studied decisions on electoral reforms. He made some veiled criticism against the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) for using what he called ‘gnanachariwaru’ (theoreticians) to formulate the electoral reforms that have come as SLFP proposals. It was clear whom he was hinting at. Hakeem also faulted Minister Senaratne for officially announcing that the electoral reforms presented by the President had been accepted by the Cabinet of Ministers when no such decision had been made. That is not all too surprising. That Minister Senaratne has outdone his predecessor in political gaffe is now all too well known.

Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake charged that the SLFP electoral reform proposals were structured in a way to ensure the elimination of his party at the polls. He re-iterated his threat to pull out of the NEC if such moves continue. Quick to endorse Dissanayake’s views was Hakeem. “If you are bringing this to shut the door on the JVP, it is wrong,” he said. The JVP leader was also critical of the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) for what he called moves against his party. Dissanayake complained that decisions made by the NEC were not being carried out. Moreover changes to the NEC decisions were being made without reference to the NEC. He said the dilatory tactics adopted over 19A clearly illustrated this position.

Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, the UNP’s national leader, was to point out that efforts to introduce further amendments to 19A, which has already been agreed upon, were a red herring. One of the participants was to point out that the proposals to have all members of the proposed Constitutional Council as MPs was the brainchild of Vasudeva Nanayakkara, a staunch backer of Mahinda Rajapaksa. It was also pointed out that he was being backed by Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) leader Dinesh Gunawardena and former Minister G.L. Peiris.

That all was not hunky dory surfaced when President Sirisena remarked that even in the case of 19A, one must ensure that the ruling of the Supreme Court should be strictly followed. He was making it clear that no other provisions should be added. That was an obvious broadside at the UNP which had allegedly introduced some 19A changes when the Bill went before the Supreme Court.

Hakeem was to shower praise on President Sirisena for what he called an excellent address to the nation on Thursday night. He said that the people took his message as a “very sincere approach.” Concerned by the heat generated at the NEC meeting, Sirisena invited party leaders of the coalition for a late night session on Friday. He also assigned a team of lawyers led by Jayampathy Wickremeratne, PC to formulate two different draft Bills on electoral reforms.

He wanted them both finalised on Monday so they could be placed before ministers for discussion next Wednesday. It has been agreed that the proposed 20A will be introduced in Parliament as an Urgent Bill. That would mean there will be no time for a public debate or for it to be challenged it in the Supreme Court. Instead, the Bill will go directly to the SC for determination of its constitutionality. Some political parties in the coalition were unhappy over the move and say that would only deny an open public discussion on an important issue.

In an address to the nation on Thursday night, President Sirisena who is quite clearly beleaguered, made an impassioned plea for MPs to vote for the constitutional amendments. Pointing out that “there were certain obstacles” he pleaded “it is my respectful appeal to honourable representatives of the people to consider this as a historic occasion that has come to you.” He said history would respect them for their support and he hoped “every one of you will vote to adopt the 19th Amendment.”

In terms of recommendations made to the Cabinet of Ministers by President Sirisena, the draft electoral reform proposals of the SLFP envisage the creation of 255 seats in Parliament. This number has been recommended earlier by a four-member SLFP committee that formulated a reform package. It was headed by Opposition Leader de Silva and included Mahinda Samarasinghe, Dilan Perera and G.L. Peiris. Elections to some 170 seats are to be on a “first-past-the-post” system. Whilst 60 seats would be picked on a District Proportional Representation system and the remaining 25 would be on National Proportional Representation system i.e the National List. Today’s SLFP parliamentary group is to be briefed on the 19A and the proposed 20 A.

President Sirisena’s plea to his MPs is a national acknowledgement that he is making a strong bid to come on top of a situation where a section of the party he ostensibly leads is pitted against him. That it has been a cause for worry is now an open secret. Sirisena himself was caught off guard when the Commission to Investigate Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) summoned former President Rajapaksa this week. It did create some furore forcing CIABOC to change its mind about asking Rajapaksa to report to its office. Evidently shaken by the development instead it was decided that CID detectives attached to the Commission should visit Rajapaksa to record a statement. The charge against him — appointing former UNP General Secretary Tissa Attanayake as Minister of Health after declaring himself as a presidential candidate last year amounted to bribery. The charge, to say the least, is on the verge of being frivolous. One cannot think of any Government in post independent Sri Lanka not returning favours to those who helped them. If that was bribery, most politicians would be in jail and most governments would have collapsed.

Similarly, with former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa. He is being questioned on his role in the ‘floating armoury’ case where a private security firm was authorised to handle weapons with the connivance of the state security services. In both instances, the Government did shoot itself on the foot. Neither before summons to appear before CIABOC or thereafter, did the Government tell the public on what the duo faced. True that strict secrecy laws govern investigations by CIABOC. That does not in any way prevent the Government from saying why the Rajapaksas were being summoned and what the subject matter of the investigation is. If indeed the Government was blissfully unaware, then it would have to take the blame for not knowing what is going on. The result of all this has been a wave of public sympathy.

Bauddhaloka Mawatha in Colombo was virtually blocked by crowds as Gotabaya Rajapaksa was driven to the CIABOC to make a statement but later won time. It happened again on Friday when he turned up. On the other hand, it lays bare another uncomfortable reality. It is proof that since being voted to office, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe Government has been running on an engine and wheels put in place by the previous Rajapaksa administration. Are they short of officials who believed in the policies and principles of the new Government? Was this why some officials even allegedly colluded to allow principal witnesses in multibillion dollar cases under investigation to flee the country ostensibly on family leave or drag their feet in offering opinions on the outcome of investigations?

The question was whether the new Government did the right thing by merely replacing Rajapaksa appointees with others from the public service. The principle behind the new Government’s move was to put ‘Yahapalanaya’ (good governance) on the right track. It was to de-politicse the public service and give public servants a backbone, but practically, some of these persons who were put in key posts belonged to the Rajapaksa era. Their loyalties remained with those in the ousted Rajapaksa Government.

Learning from this mistake, probably, the new Government replaced Rajapaksa nominees in private banks with its own officials. This drew criticism that the new Government was doing the same wrong things the Rajapaksa Government was accused of doing – appointing henchmen. The Government’s explanation was that these new appointees were only engaged in a holding operation until the private banks found men and women who would be independent nominees for these banks (holding Government shares). This was therefore, the dilemma the new Government faced, but it was a case of you were damned if you did, and damned if you didn’t.

The Government’s action even in the case of the former Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa left much to be desired. He returned to Sri Lanka and claimed that he had gone to the United States after the presidential elections for medical treatment — a rare privilege which few Sri Lankans enjoy. Having a home in California and being a powerful member of the Cabinet of Ministers in Sri Lanka was even a higher privilege. Probably buoyed by the rising tide of support for his ex-President brother within Parliament and outside, he turned up this week, the day after his return to Sri Lanka, against the advice of his ex-President brother, at the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) to make a statement and was later remanded. He entered the Prison Hospital and has since been transferred to the Merchant’s Ward of the National Hospital. Talk of privileges. When FCID detectives questioned him, Basil Rajapaksa made an appeal to give him two days’ time to return to them. “We never arrested you when you returned to Sri Lanka. We gave you the opportunity to come here. We cannot grant you more time since you were wanted for questioning for several weeks,” a detective who recorded a 16-page statement told the younger Rajapaksa. A Police source claimed they feared giving time would have led to crowds converging at the Kaduwela Magistrate’s Court to stage a protest. Basil Rajapaksa also said that if he was not arrested, he was prepared to remain in the FCID office overnight. His appeals were turned down.

There is an interesting aspect to these developments. If such a situation were to arise when the previous Government was in power, the resultant state media blitz would have branded those involved as “traitors” or anti national elements who were responsible for heinous crimes. But under the coalition Government’s Yahapalanaya, in keeping with the pledge at presidential election, they had ensured a relatively free media. That, no doubt is a welcome move. In that climate, it is not only the ruling coalition that got its share of media exposure but those in the Opposition too. Whilst this should be the case, the Government’s message particularly on the current investigations into cases of bribery, corruption and malpractices is not reaching the public. The previous Government ensured its MPs took part in television talk shows to keep such issues alive. They did so at public meetings and news conferences too. Even those dealing with the probes were asked to face the media. Surprisingly though, the ruling coalition appears to be more focused on news releases and that too on speeches and actions of their own leaders. This is whilst the Opposition receives its share of positive exposure. Despite the presence of known communication experts in their midst, that the UNP dominated Government faces a serious shortcoming in this field is an indictment on the leadership. They are either oblivious to realities or are too busy otherwise.

It is known that the troika running the country — President Sirisena, Premier Wickremesinghe and former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga — have been discussing matters relating to investigations into bribery, corruption and other malpractices by the previous regime. They did focus on some serious cases but veered around to ensure that cases of bribery and corruption related to the previous Government be taken early. Whether this was part of their pre-election strategy is unclear. This is whilst some of the most serious cases have been left hanging and investigators kept guessing what to do next. Different leaders have adduced different reasons. In keeping with this move, a onetime high ranking official of the previous administration, the onetime head of a regulatory body and a member of the clergy are to be arrested in the coming week with regard to the alleged misappropriation of state funds amounting to Rs. 600 million. FCID investigators say the evidence in this case is overwhelming.

This is another reason why Sirisena, during his address to the nation made repeated references to fighting bribery and corruption. He wanted to make the point that neither he nor the Government had given up the fight. He declared, “I will take every step possible, especially to protect and strengthen the people’s freedom and democracy and through these means eliminate corruption and fraud, thereby protect the genuine rights of the people.” He said, “Every action will be taken to reduce and eliminate corruption and fraud, theft or waste.” He likened those people who preferred a corrupt system to those who wanted to remain as slaves when slavery was being abolished in America. They (meaning the previous leadership) misled the public when action is taken to eliminate corruption and fraud. Interesting enough, Sirisena is underscoring a point, though not consciously, that contributing to such a misleading situation is the lack of information disseminated by his Government. He could easily have overcome such a situation if he did harness the wider media support he has. Of course that is a responsibility for his coalition leaders too.

Other than his public plea to detractors in the SLFP, President Sirisena did explain himself on a variety of issues. Responding to his critics who said he lacked strength and was weak, he said “my behaviour in the last 100 days was not to use the unlimited powers that are available” to his office. “Why? Because you elected me to distribute this power. I came for that purpose. I came to remove the unlimited powers held by the Executive President.” However, what is at issue is not the use or abuse of the executive powers of the Presidency. It is rather a question of how assertive he has been in guiding the state machinery against bribery, corruption and other acts. This is particularly in the light of various pressures being brought to bear on constituent leaders of the coalition and a public perception that the Government had relented on more serious cases.

He also devoted a substantial part of his speech to foreign policy issues to make the point that Sri Lanka was now not internationally isolated. They were “divided over us. They now place their trust in this Government, and me, just as you did, and believe that as Head of State I would protect the freedom of this country and its Democracy, Human Rights and Fundamental Rights.” To back up his assertions he referred to his visits to India, Britain, China and Pakistan. What seemed a moot point was his remarks to questions on what has been done in the 100-Day Programme of Work. He replied “Some of these valuable actions are neither physical in nature nor visible to the eye.”

Sirisena also sounded a note of caution to the media. He noted, “I recall how prior to January 8 those who yielded political power spoke to the heads of media institutions, news directors and news editors. Are we to transform the freedoms we have obtained to that of the wild ass? I see how some of the media institutions behave today. I am surprised how they use these freedoms in a wrong manner. It must be noted that we have firmly established the democratic rights of the people and the freedom of the media.”

Sirisena’s comments on the issue cannot be questioned. He is obviously unhappy about some media. However, it is pertinent to recall the sayings of at least two of his predecessors — Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa. In the weeks and months after they assumed office, they vowed at different fora to protect media freedom but later became highly critical and went after it. Kumaratunga’s tenure saw the killing of a tabloid journalist, serial criminal defamation cases being filed against editors and publishers and periodic clamp down of censorship where even the use of a map of Sri Lanka, available with tour operators the world over, was prohibited. In marked contrast, Rajapaksa publicly claimed that “there was no censorship” during his tenure. Privately, it was another story where different forms of pressure were used forcing media practitioners to practice self-censorship. Physical attacks, including murders of journalists were chronic. Sirisena’s remarks nevertheless raise some concern.

If indeed there are errant media as he perceives, his advisors should have asked him to deal with them under the law. Sweeping remarks whether media freedom is the freedom of the ‘wild ass’ tend to reflect more on his image. It could be misconstrued to mean he was reacting to criticism against him as media’s experience with his predecessors has shown. On the other hand, if indeed there has been abuse it is incumbent on his office to explain what they are.

More than the media, the internecine issues within the SLFP are the main cause for concern for Sirisena right now. In the event his MPs do not facilitate the passage of the 19A and thereafter the 20A, his choice is now clear. He would have to dissolve Parliament. His own credibility as a leader is at stake. Will he become a lame duck President? This raises more questions for him. MPs who did not support him face the risk of not receiving nominations for parliamentary elections. Will the SLFP dissenters who back Rajapaksa then rally round him to form a new party and contest both the SLFP and the UNP? That would be to the advantage of the UNP. Yet, with public sympathy veering the Rajapaksa way, the result of Government’s own shortcomings, both Sirisena and his Government would have kicked into their own goal.