Peace for the World World ! Your War Our Lives
The Dalai Lama
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Back to 500BC.
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
By Jehan Perera-June 29, 2015
In their public statements those in the political firmament close to the
president spoke with confidence that the dissolution of parliament was
still far off. Some even said that parliament would only be dissolved
next year nearer to the April 2016 deadline for the term of parliament
to end. But the long anticipated dissolution of parliament finally took
place last Friday. It ended weeks of uncertainty that saw financial
markets plunge, economic investments being put on hold and the slowing
down of investigations into the alleged acts of corruption and
violations of law by members of the former government. But still when it
happened, the dissolution of parliament took even the president’s close
associates by surprise if anecdotal evidence is to be believed.
The sequence of events shows that President Maithripala Sirisena took
the decision to dissolve parliament after it became evident that his
desire to see the 20th Amendment obtain the approval of parliament was
not going to materialise. The ethnic minority parties took umbrage that
the 20thAmendment did not take their concerns into account. It was the
ethnic minority vote that enabled the president to defeat his opponent
who had sought to win the elections on tide of ethnic majority
nationalism. President Sirisena acted according to his publicly stated
view that Sri Lanka is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country, which
means that the consent of the ethnic and religious minorities too is
necessary when fundamental change is being contemplated.
However, it is also significant that the president decided to dissolve
parliament after a secret meeting that is reported to have taken place
with former president Mahinda Rajapaksa. The former president has been
projecting himself as the opposition leader best suited to win the votes
of the ethnic majority and thereby lead the opposition to victory at
the general elections. On the other hand, the president has made it
clear that he would not permit the former president to contest the
general elections from within the SLFP or the larger UPFA alliance, both
of which the president heads by virtue of being president of the
country. It is likely that the failure of these secret talks propelled
the president’s decision to dissolve parliament.
SENSITIVE ISSUES
In deciding to hold early general elections rather than seek to work in
tandem with the former president, President Sirisena has shown that he
will stick to his promise of good governance. The president’s
willingness to give priority to good governance over partisan interests
in power is a testament to his statesmanship. The early dissolution of
Parliament due to the political deadlock between the government and
opposition means that most of the unresolved issues that existed prior
to the presidential election continue to be relevant, such as the need
for a Freedom of Information Act which was one of the casualties of the
government’s lack of a parliamentary majority. In addition, the main
conflict that Sri Lanka has grappled with since its independence, the
ethnic conflict, remains unresolved.
The brief lived UNP-led government gave an indication of the progress
that is possible in taking the country in a new direction in terms of
conflict transformation. In particular, the lifting of the fear
psychosis that held society in thrall and the steps towards the
reintegration of the ethnic and religious minorities into the mainstream
of society were virtually instantaneous, due to the shift in the policy
and outlook of the new president and the government. They have publicly
acknowledged the multi ethnic and multi religious nature of the polity
and the value of adhering to internationally recognised systems of good
governance.
Election campaigns provide the greatest opportunity for public
education. It is necessary that the political leaders who seek genuine
change in the country should address the key issues that Sri Lanka as a
country needs to resolve. These are the issues of a just political
solution to the ethnic conflict and the dealing with the problems of
accountability for war time violations of people’s rights. These are
sensitive issues and for that reason the resolution of these problems
must be done in consultation with the people and not by ignoring or
bypassing them. But the tendency of politicians who are contesting
elections is to play safe and not address controversial issues. As the
president is not contesting the elections himself, he can be the great
educator so that controversial solutions are not sprung on the people
after the elections.
ELECTION PLEDGE
At the presidential election held in January, the president promised to
change the system of governance and to ensure that the type of massive
corruption and abuse of power that took place during the previous
government would not be permitted to continue. Indeed, the president’s
commitment to reform was evident when he reduced his own powers of
presidency by championing the passage of the 19th Amendment. However, if
the president were to have agreed to make the former president whom he
accused of massive corruption and abuse of power, to contest as the
champion of either the SLFP or UPFA as demanded by the former president
and his supporters, it would mean the end of any sort of accountability
for the crimes and abuses of the past.
The lack of effective action in recent days against those accused of
massive corruption and abuse of power by the law enforcement agencies is
likely to have been caused in part by the growing concern about the
stability of the government. The police and bribery investigators need
to feel confident that those they are prosecuting today do not become
their bosses tomorrow. They also need to know that those who are in
positions of political power today will be there to protect them
tomorrow. The refusal of parliament to appoint the Constitutional
Council which is the body vested with authority to select the members of
the Bribery Commission, would also be a reason for the lack of action
to bring those accused of financial crimes to justice.
A later dissolution of parliament would also have been decidedly
unfavourable to the UNP which has been heading a minority government for
the past six months. The government was giving an increasing impression
of being impotent. The shock defeat that it experienced in parliament
when it sought to increase the limits of government borrowing in April,
seemed to have made it lose confidence in taking more difficult
legislation before parliament. The right to information act got stalled
and did not pass. The uncomfortable logic that the government had to
face was that the opposition in parliament was several times larger than
itself, and had long ceased to cooperate with it. The strengthening of
the pro-Rajapaksa faction within the SLFP made it difficult for the
government to pass legislation in parliament. It therefore appears that
the dissolution of parliament was done to to stop the strengthening of
the regressive element within the SLFP.
