By

Lucien Rajakarunanayake

The surprise political shake up last Sunday when a team of 26 SLFPers joined the Government, with 11 of them being sworn in as Cabinet Ministers, has brought about a new dimension to both politics and governance. The political debate is hotter today, with criticism of President Maithripala Sirisena for taking in these SLFPers, and stronger criticism of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe for alleged manoeuvres to take control of the Government.

There is also an interesting situation in the context of the current political changes, with those openly opposed to the Sirisena Government in more than a quandary as to how they should meet the current situation, in keeping with the parliamentary traditions.

What has emerged after the crossover of this batch of SLFPers to the Sirisena camp is described as a National Government. President Sirisena has stated the establishing of such a National Alliance Government as part of his policy presented to the people when he contested the presidency as the common candidate in the January 8 poll. He did refer to the concept of a National Government when he addressed media personnel last Wednesday (18), just a day after he asserted his leadership of the party to electoral and district organizers of the SLFP.

When looking at the structure of what is now called a National Government, it appears to be better described as a Grand Coalition, bringing together both major political parties in the country, with support from some smaller parties too. It is very similar to the Grand Coalitions of German politics. Chancellor Angela Merkel today heads a Grand Coalition of the Christian Democrats (with its ally the Bavarian CSU) and the Social Democrats, the two large parties in the German Bundestag.

The coming together of this Grand Coalition – with a National Government label tagged to it, gains importance from the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which has now been presented in Parliament. The current debate has much talk of constitutional manoeuvring, with some even making charges of a “constitutional coup”, and the politics of power are embroiled with parliamentary strategy.

Back door entry

The strongest charge about current political developments is the criticism that it is a ploy to enable Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe, who was known as the constant loser, to gain the office of Prime Minister without an election. In other words a back door entry to the office of Prime Minister, and if the proposed constitutional changes go ahead, to be Prime Minister in a future government, too.

Those who make this charge are either totally ignorant or deliberately ignore what the Common Candidate Maithripala Sirisena told the people in his manifesto for the January 8 election. It is necessary to quote from what he states in the very first chapter of this manifesto:

“Along with the political leaders and people who are with me, I will implement in two stages a programme to stabilize the country. The first stage is the Hundred Day Programme to solve urgent issues. For that purpose a National Unity Alliance Government will be established for a hundred day interim period. This programme will be implemented through a National Government comprising the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, the United National Party, the Jatika Hela Urumaya and representatives of all other political parties in the present Parliament who are willing to join this programme. The leader of the Opposition Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe will be appointed as the Prime Minister of this National Government.”(My emphasis).

Whatever criticisms we may have about Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe and the UNP, and there are many who strongly oppose it, this statement in the Maithripala Sirisena manifesto clearly shows that the appointment of Ranil Wikremesinghe as Prime Minister in the government to be established after the victory of Mr. Sirisena was clearly explained to the people. The Sirisena victory did take place and it has followed that Ranil W is the current Prime Minister. This is the necessary answer to many, both within and outside parliament, who keep asking how Ranil W – the UNP leader – became Prime Minister after what was a presidential election.

The substance of 19A

What is of importance today is the substance of the 19th Amendment which, apart from seeking to reduce the powers of the Executive Presidency, as the people voted for on January 8, and the necessary steps to bring back, with improvements, the provisions of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which was repealed by the 18th Amendment brought by Mahinda Rajapaksa, hugely widening the powers of the Executive President, including removal of its two term limit.

In the midst of the debate about the expanded Cabinet, and the criticisms that many have about some members who have joined it – criticism that is not in any way surprising – the more important debate today, and what should draw greater attention of Parliament, is the 19th Amendment, and how it could be improved, to strengthen the democratic process.

It is necessary to remind those keen to take the debate away from the content of the 19th Amendment, to the strategies of politicians and political parties, that this amendment has the substance on constitutional reform the people voted for on January 8. It seeks to restrict the powers and term of the Executive President, bring in independent commissions to cover 11 areas of importance in governance, such as Elections, the Public Service, the Police, the Audit Service, National Procurement, Investigating Bribery and Corruption, and Human Rights. These go beyond the 17th Amendment that was thrown out by the Rajapaksa regime; and also constitutional provision for the Right to Information.

There are certain shortcomings in the 19th Amendment, which need attention and amendment by Parliament. One such area is the absence of any right to the direction of the Commissioner General of Elections to the print media during elections. Another is the apparently unrestricted freedom given to a media institution, to apparently do as it pleases during an election, if it makes a public declaration supporting a candidate or party in the contest. These matters need careful consideration by Parliament for the promotion of good governance, much more than the interest now shown by the positioning of parties in Parliament.

From farce to reality

The issue of the Leader of the Opposition, that is drawing much more attention than it would warrant in Parliament today, shows a sad departure from the concerns of democracy and good governance, and the jockeying for position that seems to be of greater importance today. One must admit that the position of Leader of the Opposition does raise many questions. Simply stated, how can a member of a party that is very much part of the governing coalition be the Leader of the Opposition? This is a matter that the Hon. Speaker will have to give serious consideration to.

But, this also moves from the serious to the ridiculous when one hears the names that are now being promoted to the office of Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Vasudeva Nanayakkara proposes Mr. Dinesh Gunewardena for the office. How many members does either of them have in Parliament today? Mr. Dinesh Gunewardena has asked that parliament not be treated as a joke. Very correct. But, it is mainly the duty of senior Members of Parliament to prevent any such jocular situations, especially in choosing the Leader of the Opposition.

The tradition of Parliament is for the largest party in the Opposition to produce the Leader of the Opposition.

Uncomfortable though it may be to many, history can teach us the necessary lesson. After the 1977 General Election, which swept JR Jayewardene to office with a 5/6th majority, it was the TULF leader, the late Appapillai Amirthalingam, who became Leader of the Opposition, as leader of the largest party in the Opposition at the time. How the TULF was removed from that office and had to exit Parliament itself is another part of history. But those who do not wish to make a joke of parliament must know by now that the largest single party in the Opposition today is the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), which came in with 14 members and now has 13, do not believe that 13 is an unlucky figure.

A final line for those who talk so much about the “Opposition majority” in parliament. This can be easily proven by bringing a motion of No Confidence on Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, instead of talking about a “constitutional coup”.

The reality is that Ranil Wickremesinghe has proven President Maithripala Sirisena’s belief that he commands a majority in Parliament. That is the constitutional test.

The 19th Amendment is now before Parliament. Will it deliver what the people seek? That is the question today.

Courtesy:Daily News