Power, Corruption, Lies & Betrayal

By Lacille de Silva –January 25, 2018

In Sri Lanka, politicians break promises without fear of any punishment. Does that mean the errant politicos are above the law? For the last couple of decades, having made big promises, they do completely the opposite after gaining power. Why cannot we sue the politicians for breach of the contract?

JR Jayewardene during his election campaign in 1977, appealed to the Nation, I quote – “Give me 120 good men and I assure you we will fulfil our pledges…if we fail you, you are at perfect liberty to vote us out anytime”. The people trusted the then UNP leadership and overwhelmingly voted and elected the UNP regime with an unprecedented mandate with 139 seats in a 168 member Parliament, and gave not only a two-thirds but a five-sixth’s majority as well, which was the finest victory ever secured by any party since independence.

JRJ, at the very beginning, introduced a bill to the then National State Assembly and installed the Presidential system in 1977. JRJ used the mandate he received to enact the law and called himself the first “elected” President, without being elected to the post. JRJ had stated – “Such an executive is a strong executive, seated in power for a fixed number of years, not subject to the whims and fancies of an elected legislature, not afraid to take correct but unpopular decisions because of censure from its parliamentary party. This seems to me a very necessary requirement in a developing country faced with grave problems such as we are faced today”.

Steps had been accordingly taken to transform the system of governance from a Westminster-style parliamentary system to an executive presidential system, which had finally paved the way for a weak Parliament. Under the previous Constitutions (Soulbury 1947/Republican 1972) the Executive had been made answerable and accountable to the Parliament, which JRJ had wanted changed. 

A brand new Constitution was therefore enacted to consolidate the presidential system in 1978. President was deceptively made answerable to the Parliament constitutionally, which realistically never happens to-date. An impeachment procedure too had been introduced to remove the President. Dr. N. M. Perera had argued that the “Impeachment procedure was a near impossibility in practice”. This became a reality when a group of parliamentarians presented an impeachment motion against the then incumbent President R. Premadasa.

Sixteen Constitutional Amendments had been enacted during the 11 years. All those amendments were introduced purely for the purpose of strengthening his hands and not for the benefit of the people. He changed the entire electoral system, with the hope that he could keep UNP in power for ever.

In addition, he destroyed the independence of the judiciary appallingly. JRJ pioneered interference and bringing political pressure to the judiciary process and judgements, which has now caused irreparable damage to the judiciary and the country in the end. JRJ had ensured that all those judges were removed with the promulgation of the new Constitution. He took steps to re-appoint only a selected few from the Supreme Court and the High Court. Most of the other judges, both in Supreme Court and High Court, had been sent home unjustifiably because they were not in the good books of JRJ. It is noteworthy, our judiciary had been held in high esteem until early 1970s from the colonial days. It had become totally disgraceful from JRJ days until now.

In 1988, when the post of Chief Justice fell vacant, JRJ disregarded the most senior judge of the Supreme Court, who had earned the due promotion at the time and appointed a judge, who had been seven years junior to him. It had thereafter been stated that JRJ had done so particularly in view of the fact that the relevant judge had given a dissenting judgement in regard to the 13^th Amendment, to the displeasure of the President. Supreme Court in 1982 and 1983 upheld the violation of fundamental rights of two petitioners, Ven. Daramitipola Ratanasara and Mrs. Vivienne Goonewardena. Ven. Ratanasara was granted a payment of compensation. Cabinet of Ministers approved the compensation payment from government funds. This was a highly irregular unheroic act and abuse of power. The relevant police officer in quick succession had been promoted to the rank of DIG, without being punished. Furthermore, in regard to the other judgement, there had been a violent protest campaign allegedly organised by the JRJ supporters in front of the residences of the three judges who gave the judgement against the government. It was also revealed that JRJ had endorsed the villainous act as “expression of freedom” in accordance with the newly enacted Constitution.

It had been observed JRJ had always been apprehensive about trade unions. He had been extra cautious and had taken numerous steps to weaken the trade union movement using enormous power vested in the presidency. The government used strong-arm tactics and introduced Act No. 61 of 1979, to provide for the declaration of essential public services. However, confrontational action both by the trade unions and the government led to an island-wide strike in 1980. The government thereafter summarily dismissed 60,000 public sector employees. The workers who reported to work due to fear of losing of employment had been further dealt with punishments, such as transfers, denying promotions etc. During this period, it had been reported 55 strikers, who lost employment had committed suicide.

The people began to sense catastrophic consequences due to all these political mishandling, dictatorial policies, canny political manoeuvring, excessive dominance, extra-judicial killings, malpractices by self-obsessed politicians and their henchmen. JRJ stripped off civic rights of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike too, with the sole purpose of eliminating his only opponent from political landscape. Court of Appeal had granted a Writ of Prohibition that the Presidential Commission Inquiry Law No. 7 of 1978, which had been hurriedly passed in Parliament, did not have powers to  consider a period prior to the enactment of the law. Mrs. Bandaranaike, in her own words had said in Parliament, I quote – “The strange events that followed show the impeccable desire of the government to secure my enforced exile from politics”. This dastardly act was considered yet another blow to parliamentary democracy. Mr. Amirthalingam had  stated in Parliament that “this is a political punishment; political murder; political killing”. It is regrettable that such disgraceful exercises had tarnished the good name of the lofty Institutions.

It was no doubt due to the sheer desperation of opportunistic, power hungry and selfish politicians, may I say – “do or die” politics began in place of gentlemanly politics in Sri Lanka. They wanted to win elections and occupy political office by all means, which needs to be stopped. The violent underworld gangsterism too is an unwelcome outcome of “do or die” politics that sprang up under the newly invented political culture.

An undemocratic extension of the term of Parliament through a crafty and manipulatively organised Referendum in 1982 was the best example that the UNP government was highly undemocratic and unprincipled. In 1983, during the riots JRJ failed to give suitable orders to the police to bring down the incidence of violence.  It had been alleged that the police had been kept away – having been given leave officially. It is noteworthy JRJ government failed to handle the LTTE. The IPKF had to be invited to intervene in the conflict, which had created even greater problems.

Read More