By

The “Sunday Times” Political Editor

The clock was ticking away towards midnight signalling the dawn of Tuesday (Aug 22nd ) when President Maithripala Sirisena chaired a meeting of his coalition partners and “friendly” political parties at his Paget Road residence in Colombo.

Even if those present were not conscious of the grim reality around, the forebodings ahead for the coalition partners were ominous. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and the United National Party (UNP) expired that midnight. Though unwittingly, they were together witnesses to that demise of a document that had brought them together, with much fanfare, for what was widely touted as good governance.

Until yesterday, The Sunday Times learnt, neither side had mooted to the other the idea of a renewal. This is amidst growing signs that they will go their separate ways come the Provincial Council and Local Government elections. The meeting that Sirisena chaired that night was no exception. It also foretold the course of events to come.

The two parties to the coalition have now agreed to disagree on issues they were blissfully united and on which they made public pledges to take this country forward. This was ahead of the presidential and parliamentary elections in 2015.

The main subject at Monday (Aug 21st) night’s discussion was the long-awaited Constitutional changes. Noting that it is the President “who should provide leadership to get the Constitutional Amendment approved by Parliament,” Sirisena then declared, “I decided to contest the Presidential election as the common candidate of the people to complete that task.” He noted that the President, “needs the assistance of Parliament to change the post of Executive President. As leader of the main party, he said, he should provide the leadership to pass the required Constitutional Amendment with a two-thirds majority.”

Now, two years and over seven months into his office, Sirisena was chairing a meeting to address issues relating to the Constitution. Among those who took part:

The UNP – Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe, Kabir Hashim, Malik Samarawickrema, Mangala Samaraweera, Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, Lakshman Kiriella, Ravi Karunanayake and Rajitha Senaratne.

SLFP (Pro-Maithripala group) – Nimal Siripala de Silva, Mahinda Amaraweera, Anura Priyadarshana Yapa and Susil Premajayantha.

Tamil National Alliance (TNA) – Rajavarothayam Sampanthan and M.A. Sumanthiran

Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) – Rauff Hakeem

Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) – Patali Champika Ranawaka

Democratic People’s Front (DPF) – Mano Ganeshan

Tamil Progressive Alliance (TPA) – Palani Digambaram

The meeting began at 9.30 p.m. with TNA leader Sampanthan lamenting that the issue of making changes to the Constitution has been dragging on. He said the TNA had supported a change of government on the grounds that the Tamil community would be given a better deal. For Sampanthan, who won the coalition’s support to become the friendliest Leader of the Opposition to any ruling party in Sri Lanka’s political history voicing only limited issues, mostly confined to the North and East in Parliament, it has now become a dilemma. The TNA is fast losing public support in the North in particular for its coy relationship with the Government. Though the situation is being exploited by different dissident groups there, the TNA’s strong point still remains the absence of a formidable political party in the North. Yet, the tide is changing for it.

Mano Ganesan’s dramatic walkout

Both Ministers Mangala Samaraweera and Rajitha Senaratne endorsed the viewpoints expressed by Sampanthan. Samaraweera noted that the TNA has accepted the Sri Lanka flag and the one nation principle. He said that the Constitutional changes should be given high priority. Premier Wickremesinghe declared that the UNP was already prepared to go ahead with the draft proposals. It was noted that the SLFP was yet to place its own proposals for consideration.

National Co-Existence and Official Languages Minister Mano Ganesan (TPA) then staged a dramatic walkout from the meeting following a dispute over formation of new local bodies in the Nuwara Eliya District. It came after Premier Wickremesinghe told party leaders that the new local bodies could not be formed now since similar requests had been made by different political parties. Ganesan was demonstrating his defiance to the leader.

Ganesan later told the Sunday Times, “I intervened and explained the extreme condition in the Nuwara Eliya district where more than 400,000 persons are represented in two Divisional Secretariats. In the rest of the country the representation rate is marked as one council per 10,000 persons.” He said people living in remote plantation estates have to travel 15 kilometres to access a Divisional Secretariat for their daily administrative work. Earlier, Premier Wickremasinghe gave us an assurance to form new local bodies in the district ahead of parliamentary polls. Trusting his words, we got a mandate from the people at the last parliamentary polls to address this injustice. This is an extreme condition unlike any other part of the country. I said at the meeting that this could not be allowed to continue under this Yahapalanaya Government.” Minister Susil Premajayantha was to support Ganesan’s remarks. That a plantation sector group is now taking up cudgels with the UNP leadership is noteworthy.

The meeting also briefly discussed issues relating to postponing elections of local bodies, provincial councils, proposed new electoral system, and the position of Provincial Councils whose terms had expired. Premier Wickremesinghe was to reiterate his position that all issues could not be addressed in a hurry.

The meeting ended with a decision that draft amendments to the Constitution should be ready before September 6. As for the UNP, its position is incorporated in the draft proposals put out by the Steering Committee. This was revealed in the Sunday Times (Political Commentary) headlined “Special Features in updated draft of new Constitution” of June 11. The latest draft, possibly with new changes, is expected to be released thereafter.

Significantly, the new draft is to be accompanied by another separate document. That will enumerate the position of the SLFP with regard to the proposed Constitutional changes. The most important among them, the party’s Constitution Committee, has decided on the SLFP’s insistence that the Executive Presidential system should remain. The SLFP committee said there should be no changes to the existing provisions in the Constitution. There are also other minor changes the party has suggested.

The retention of the Executive Presidency therefore will become the bone of contention between the two coalition partners, not least among the groups that campaigned for Sirisena to get elected on the premise that he would abolish it. At least officially, the UNP is in favour of abolishing the Executive Presidency. There are, however, formidable UNP sections which feel it should be retained and preliminary work to foist leader Wickremesinghe as the candidate is under way. This could well be a fall-back plan. On the other hand, the non-abolition of the Executive Presidency will pave the way for Maithripala Sirisena to contest a second time in 2020.

SLFP Constitutional Committee

As reported in these columns, the SLFP Central Committee had appointed a special committee to analyse the recommendations of six sub-committees tasked to draft a new Constitution. The committee was headed by Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva. It was asked to compile a report by party leader President Maithripala Sirisena. The other members of the committee included Ministers Susil Premajayantha, Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Mahinda Samarasinghe, Dayasiri Jayasekara and State Minister Dilan Perera.

The issue of a separate document setting out the SLFP position which seeks to retain the Executive Presidency is sure to raise eyebrows. Sirisena has explained that he had no role in the decision of the party’s Committee. Its findings, he had explained, represented the views of the party over which he had not exerted influence.

This of course is in marked contrast to Sirisena’s previous statements where he declared that after concluding his current term, he would retire to his homestead in Polonnaruwa. The words of late J.R. Jayewardene, father of the 1978 Constitution, continue to echo. He declared that when in opposition they are foolish to criticise the Executive Presidency but wiser when they become President.When the Monday night’s meeting ended, it was near midnight.

Earlier, last Monday (Aug 21st) evening Premier Wickremesinghe chaired a meeting of the UNP parliamentary group. Much of the time was devoted to parliamentary business the next day (Tuesday). Wickremesinghe made an important announcement — all MPs will receive Rs 20 million each for “infrastructure development” in their respective electorates. He said former Foreign Minister and one-time Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake would monitor the programme and report to him periodically on the progress. Government sources said the Rs 20 million payment would also go to Opposition MPs. The ‘infrastructure development’ payout is just ahead of the impending local and provincial council elections. State Minister Sujeeva Senasinghe was to raise issue over Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe to be followed by Minister Harin Fernando. Wickremesinghe replied that the party had already taken a decision on the matter. He declared the meeting closed saying he had an engagement later with the President.

This week’s political developments will no doubt have a bearing on the two coalition partners, the SLFP and the UNP. The SLFP spokesperson at the weekly news briefings, Sports Minister Dayasiri Jayasekera, declared this week that if the UNP were to form a new Government, it would require seven more MPs. On the other hand, he said, if the SLFP (pro Sirisena) wanted to form one, it would require 17 more MPs. Thus, he said, there was no option but for the two leaders, President Sirisena and Premier Wickremesinghe, to continue to work together.

Much against his own wishes, ground realities project an entirely different picture. With no new MoUs to guide them, both the SLFP and the UNP are veering towards their own goals notwithstanding the challenges they face together. For the SLFP, the first test of strength would come when the local council and provincial council elections are held next year. Will the party remain the formidable SLFP or yield that position to the pro-Mahinda Rajapaksa group?

This is its biggest worry. It has been exacerbated by threats from some SLFP ministers to quit in September and function as ‘independents’ in Parliament – a move that could debilitate the pro-Sirisena group. An early warning signal came on Friday when Labour Minister John Seneviratne abstained from voting (against) an amendment moved by the ‘Joint Opposition’ on the Local Government (Amendment) Bill in Parliament.

For the UNP, which is gearing itself to contest separately, the challenges are both within and outside. From within, younger groups have been expressing frustration over their inability to play a bigger role. This week, none other than a VVIP raised the query why the UNP was not nominating ‘young blood’ for ministerial positions and confining nominees to only very senior persons. From the outside, the outcome of the Commission of Inquiry into the Central Bank bond scam portends a devastating blow.

Significantly, it is President Sirisena who holds the key here and would have to decide whether or not to go ahead with the Commission findings. He would be in an unenviable position since his own SLFP ministers have pressured him that appointing a Commission was one thing but it was important that he should act on its findings, should they be detrimental to the powers-that-be.

In essence, political necessity demands the inevitable that the SLFP and the UNP go it together or as both sides say pave the way for the return of Mahinda Rajapaksa. On the other hand, sharply differing stances every week, if not every day, make it inevitable that they would have to part someday. With many a promise unfulfilled, how soon remains the critical question.

Courtesy:Sunday Times