Presidential Election 2015; The Political Gamble

Eighth of January will be one of the most important dates in Sri Lankan politics as Sri Lankans gather around polling stations to choose a candidate for the highest office. The stage is all set for the fiercest battle ever. In the midst of crossovers which are affectionately named as ‘jumping from one party to another’ surpassing the standards of Olympic level high jumpers, heated political talks and never ending violence and show of power, the whole Sri Lankan society has gone into some form of dizziness or a political ‘coma’ blinded by the exquisite campaigns of both the common opposition and the governing party. Just get rid of the heated popular political extravaganza for a minute! What is your true notion of the presidential election? What is your choice and what do you expect from the newly elected president?

Do Sri Lankans need an election at the first place? This election was plagued by controversy even at its inception. Former Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva had pointed out that the incumbent president can’t call for another election at this time and he can’t seek another term as he becomes unqualified for that with the swearing-in for his second term in January 2010 but with the backing of the full-bench of the Supreme Court the President has proved his legitimacy for calling an election. [This issue was discussed in a blog post of this writer]. Even though the President skillfully evaded the legal barriers a moral question is before him for the reason why he seeks another term just after 4 years. It is apparent that the progress of the previous election manifesto was non-existent. Even according to the Sri Lankan political standards by which the ability to stick to political promises was not looked as a priority in when choosing a candidate in the election, the incumbent President cannot be considered as a person who has done what he promises except the defeat of the LTTE militarily. With his marginal win (ironically it was the LTTE who has helped him to win the election in 2005 by ordering the people in north and east to boycott the election) in 2005, he kept his most important promise. Although, the incumbent President and his defense secretary was not the sole duo to be hailed as heroes, their contribution and the political leadership was outstanding. The history should give them the credit in leading the vanguard against terrorism and getting Sri Lanka rid of her gravest problem partially. The fame it had brought the President was reflected in 2010 election in which the President had sought another term with the promise of developing the war-ravaged nation.

There were allegations of misuse of the ability to call for an early election just after 4 years in to the Presidential term. Since it was introduced in the 3^rd amendment for the Constitution, it acted as an insurance policy for further holding into power for a ruler with a degrading popularity. For example, a newly appointed president can work progressively for 4 years enacting popular reforms while gaining support of the majority of the people and run for re-election after that and secure another 6 years at the office. Combined with removal of the limitation to be appointed as the President, this deadly cocktail acts as a recipe for an authoritarian leader to forever hold in to power. Change of the governments is an essence of democracy. With the ever powerful Executive Presidency and the President of the country being the party leader of the winning party, the Parliament comes under the indirect control of the President. It will hinder the balance of power and lead to de–facto dictatorship. Although, frequent change of powers may cause problems regarding long-term policies, it will be good for a democratic country. The exact opposite happens in Sri Lanka right now.

There are two main candidates; the incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksha from the UPFA and Maithreepala Sirisena, the former Minister of health, the former general secretary of the SLFP from the common opposition. Mr Rajapaksha standing strong as ever, winning every election with an overwhelming majority. His main political slogan was ‘A Secured Nation’. Development is the priority in his election manifesto. He surely has a bunch of aces up in his sleeve. Big development projects funded by Chinese loans are the talk of the town. With new harbors, air-port, and expressways, infrastructural development at least reached to major cities. Foreign investment in the real-estate sector has increased. Did the common man have any good effects of this massive development? There is no point in boasting the economic growth solely based on the GDP Per Capita. Inequality of the distribution of wealth has to be considered. If the nation’s wealth is gathered in the hands of few, it is not a good economic model. Of course, it is impossible to equally distribute the wealth in this capitalist market economy but at least adequate wages and concessions for necessities should be implemented. The incumbent government seems to fail in those two areas. They not only lack a method of justified distribution of wealth but also they use the prices of common amenities as a bargaining chip for votes. Major entities of a social welfare model such as health services, education and essential good’s distribution seem to be in disarray. The reason is ether inefficiency in managing those services or the lack of funding for it. The opposition accused the incumbent President of controlling nearly half of the nation’s wealth and neglecting essential but non-lucrative areas such as social welfare, education etc. Rajapaksha neglected two key issues; reforms for the executive presidency and solution for the communal disharmony which resulted in bloody civil war. The minorities have virtually left off from the main political sphere. With all the broken promises, unhealthy development projects and corruption, Rajapaksha’s strategy is to dazzle the public in a sense of security under the arms of Rajapaksha. In return, the people should let Rajapaksha to be powerful as ever. Is that a working strategy in the long run?

The main opposing candidate is Maithreepala Sirisena. It is true that he was battered by the Rajapaksha turned politicians from the UNP during the ‘great-crossover’ which made the UPFA government to secure 2/3^rd majority. It is surprising that none of the Rajapaksha regime knew about his decisive political move. When there was a vacancy for a common candidate, Sarath Nanda Siva, Shirani Bandaranayke and Chandrika Bandaranayke came up as suitors but not Mr Sirisena. He who seems to be with clean hands (at least comparatively clean) is the best bargain for the common opposition ever. His election manifesto has pointed out two key things one is the abolition of the post of Executive Presidency and make the executive responsible for the parliament. The second is addressing corruption. Although there are other petty-promises regarding the right of information, education and social welfare, the sheer idea of curbing the ever powerful executive presidency makes the ‘Sirisena’ package appealing to the majority of educated middle-class Sri Lankans while the working common man might be attracted to the elimination of corruption and re-directing nation’s wealth back to social services.

The public opinion is still fluctuating around the two candidates. The main question for the public who vote for Maithreepala is can he keeps the main two promises he has given. Of course, he can’t do it alone. It all rested in the hands of the main opposition parties to summon up the support in the legislation to implement in changes to the presidential system and reenact the 17^th amendment and other progressive legislations. Maithreepala is to be acted only as the game changer not the person who delivers promises he made. Luckily the joint opposition has a plan; a national government comprising of main opposition parties. If Maithreepala wins the election, a power transformation towards opposition in the parliament is inevitable thus it is not impossible for the opposition with the help of the UPFA members who support Maithreepala’s cause to inflict the desired changes.

Finally, it all comes to the people as in any democratic country. The stakes are very high this time. The people have to make their biggest political gamble in recent times, a gamble which would pay off a great deal and which would ruin their expectations for the generations to come if failed. Public distrust towards the opposition can be understandable when looking at the composition of the Maithreepala supporters. With so much diverse ideologies ranging from Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism to multiculturalism, neo-socialism to capitalism can this loosely-coupled coalition survive in the legislature? In political moves, Sri Lankans always try to stay in their comfort zones preferring relative safely to new and untested ideologies. “Known devil is better than the unknown saint” is the notion of many.

It is really difficult to predict the outcome of this election but when our nation is at crossroads, the people has to make a choice; whether to continue living under the wings of Rajapaksha or to sail to uncharted territory with Maithreepala.

Read More

The Lost Opportunity to Tame the Tyrant; 17th Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka

The most controversial political office in the history of Sri Lankan politics is unarguably the post of Executive Presidency. It was established by the Second Republican Constitution in 1978. The mastermind in implementing that, President J.R.Jayawardena wanted a stable government with a firm executive free from the clutches of the legislature to rapidly develop the country. At least that was his initial plan. Now more than four decades later almost all the political experts agree to the fact that the Executive Presidency has lost its initial purpose. It has drifted from the role of an efficient ruler into a tyrant.

Failed promises and election manifestos to abolish the executive presidency has been in the political arena for a long time. Many presidential candidates promised to abolish it but later stick it to the office they promised to abolish. Recently, the common candidate of the opposition promised to abolish this office within 100 days. Even before the declaration of the presidential election, the opposition parties, even parities from the ruling coalition government and civil societies were lobbying for an abolition of the Executive Presidency If not for a Constitutional Amendment to limit its power. Prominent Buddhist monk, Ven Maduluwawe Sobitha Thero had taken an early lead in shaping the public opinion regarding this issue. Initially, Sobitha Thero was not convinced of abolishing that post entirely. He wanted the incumbent president not to go for an election but to amend the constitution, to at least limit the tyrannical powers of the executive.

Even long before the election of the incumbent president on whose term the powers of the executive was abused to the eternity, according to some political experts, Sri Lanka had a mechanism to somewhat limit the power of the executive in appointing members to independent commissions. It was the 17^th Amendment to the Constitution. With that amendment, presidential control on the public service, judicial service, elections and Finance was drastically limited. Although the amendment was introduced in October 2001, it was never fully implemented or exercised effectively. Finally it was all but repealed by the 18^th Amendment in 2010.

This article will analyze the 17^th Amendment and how it controls the executive.    

The main purpose in enacting the 17^th Amendment was to limit the presidential powers in appointing the members of the independent commissions. It is obvious that if they are to be appointed solely on the discretion of the president, the independence of those commissions would be compromised.

Constitutional Council

Composition

The Constitutional Council was the epicenter of this amendment. It consisted of (a) the Prime Minister (PM) (b) the Speaker (c) the Opposition Leader (d) a person appointed by the President (e) five members appointed by the President on the nomination of both the PM and the Opposition Leader (f) one person nominated by the other political parties. Out from the five members appointed by the President, three should be from the minority communities. Those members in d, e and f category should not belong to any political party. It was a good chance that those members are from the intellectual faction of the society. When removing those, the PM and the Opposition Leader both has give consent. This prevented arbitrary removals by the President.

Even if we assume that the President’s party controls the majority and the government and the PM is from that party, the President can’t appoint the people he likes. The factions of the Constitutional Council don’t sit in the favor of the President. The appointed members by the PM and the Opposition Leader (minority communities have 3 seats) will be independent and may stand up to the appointment which are unfavorable to them.

In a hypothetical situation; typical constituent of the Council

President’s Side	Others
PM	Opposition Leader
Speaker	Minority party nominee
One nominated member by the President	5 X member nominated by both PM and Opposition leader
3	7

Working of the Council

Council makes appointments according to two methods

41B: Council recommends personnel for certain independent commissions. It’s only upon the Council’s recommendations that the President can appoint them.  Arbitrary removal is prevented by requiring the consent of both the PM and the Opposition Leader. Recommendations should be approved by more than 4 members of the Council.

The independent commissions;

• ·         The election commission
• ·         The public service commission
• ·         The national police commission
• ·         The human rights commission
• ·         Bribery commission
• ·         Finance commission
• ·         Delimitation commission

41C: President can appoint them by only after the Council has approved the appointments. These appointments included key persons in administration

• ·         Chief Justice and the Judges of the Supreme Court
• ·         The President and the Judges of the Court of Appeal
• ·         Members of the Judicial Service Commission except for the chairman
• ·         The Attorney General
• ·         The Auditor General
• ·         The Inspector General of Police
• ·         Ombudsman
• ·         The Secretary General of Parliament

The Constitutional Council was made immune to judicial proceedings other than proceedings on the article 126. It is clear to say that the Constitutional Council is the stepping stone for the appointment for all the key administrative and judicial personnel. Since the Constitutional Council can’t be handled by the President according to his discretion, the appointments for the commissions will also be independent. This is much needed one because all the key governmental positions are now handled by the people appointed by the President according to his will without referring to any advice from anyone whatsoever. Public service and Judicial service was hit severely. The prominent example was the appointment of the Former Attorney General who was the head of a government department  to the position of Chief Justice(CJ) which needed to be as independent as independent can be!!! Government’s chief law officer who represented the government in litigation can be assumed to have an inclination towards favoring the person who appointed him. This position clearly illustrated by the Supreme Court decision on the validity of removing the former CJ.  

54: Public service commission was appointed by the Council. It takes the power of the president to appoint, remove, transfer, promote and take disciplinary actions. Heads of the departments and policy making was still vested in the cabinet. Military commanders are appointed by the President upon his power of the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. Even with the above limitations, the Public Service was controlled by an independent commission appointed by independent Council. That was a progressive move for an uncorrupt public service. Interference with the Public Service Commission was also deemed to be a punishable offence making political interference impossible at least theoretically.

103(1): Election commission was appointed by the Constitutional Council with the aim to enforce free and fair elections and referenda. It can prohibit the use of public property for election purposes. It can appoint a management for government media corporations such as Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation and Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation if they failed to comply with the election commissioner’s guidelines thus preventing the use of government media inappropriately. The wide powers of this commission extend even to the deployment of Police and Armed Forces personnel. All of the above to ensure the right of free and fair elections. Since the commission was to be appointed by an independent Council, the members of the commission were also deemed to be independent.

National Police Commission and Judicial Service commission were also appointed by the Council with the aim of independently controlling the police and judicial service respectively. Specially, for the enhancement of the rule of law of a country, the need of an independent judicial service is eminent. The body that controls the judges should also be independent. It all comes to an Independent Constitutional Council free from the control of the President to appoint the Judicial Service Commission.

The 17^th Amendment was enacted in 2001 it was operational for almost 9 years until it was repealed by the 18^th Amendment. We should have the question of whether the independent Constitutional Council was effective in those 9 years. Unfortunately it had become the victim of the partisan politics that plagued our country since the independence. There is a fundamental flaw in the Constitutional Council. In appointing members for the Council, agreement between the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader needed to be made. What if they couldn’t reach for an agreement? That halted the whole process. Also nothing could be done for the non-inclination of the President to accept the recommendations of the Council. Since the President is immune to judicial inquiry, no proceedings could be initiated against the President. The only remedy was bringing an impeachment against the President according to the Article 38(2) of the Constitution alleging intentional violation of the Constitution but it is apparent that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the legislature to impeach the President with the existing constitutional provisions.

Until it is repealed by the 18^th Amendment, although the 17^th Amendment was a part of our constitution, the Constitutional Council was poorly performed due to the tug of war between the government and the opposition parties. The inherent flaws of appointment procedure and the lack of provisions to tackle the insubordination by the President for the recommendations by the Council rendered the 17^th Amendment useless.

Now the political arena was full of promises to clip the wings of the tyrant executive and even to restore a prime minister who is responsible for the parliament. i believe that, right now there is no hurry to completely reverse the Executive Presidential system or make a complete constitutional reversal but some amendments like 17^th needed to be implemented. It will be important not to repeat the same mistakes of the 17^th Amendment. Controls to the Executive Presidency and remedies if the President did not comply to the recommendations made by the constitutional amendment can be incorporated. Impeachment procedure of the President will also need to be changed.

It is far easier and less risky to tame the fiery dragon than to kill it and recruit another. It is not wrong to say that there are some advantages of having an Executive President as well. It will be a great political victory if all of us can find a way to keep the benefits of the Presidency while removing the tyrannical aspects of it.

Read More

Presidential Election 2015: The Question of Being Elected for the Third Term

Today, election fever has taken over the whole country. It is hard to find anyone not interested in upcoming presidential election. This presidential election is one of the most critical presidential elections in Sri Lanka only second to the 2005 election. This election was controversial even before it began. There were doubts about the authenticity of the election and the ability for the incumbent president to call and participate in it based on the interpretation of an amendment of the constitution.  Now, although that problem is solved, it is important to know the fundamental question relating to that anomaly so as a politically inclined citizen you may be able to grasp the main flaw of the executive system in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksha called a presidential election after just four years in to his second term. The general public who had anticipated this as a political move to win another election by Mr Rajapaksha, before his popularity fades away. No one tried to question the legality of this until suddenly former Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva came with a controversial point suggesting due to the date of the introduction of the 18^th amendment to the constitution, Mr Rajapaksha, who was elected by  the people for the post of the Executive president twice, can’t contest for this election.

President Rajapaksha has amended the constitution with 2/3^rd majority on 9^th September 2010. Apart from enhancing the presidential powers and shredding independent commissions, it amended the limit on number of times a person can be elected to the post of president by the people.

The argument from the opposition including former CJ and the president of the Bar association was that since Mr Rajapaksha was elected for the second term by the people before the enactment of this amendment , the freedom to be elected for the next term will not be available to him. The opposition also pointed out that since this amendment was hastily prepared, the framers of that forgot to make the article 2 removing the limitation retrospective. If that is a non-retrospective one, how can that be valid to situations that already occurred before the enactment of this amendment.

President Mahinda Rajapaksha was elected for the second term on 27^th January 2010. This was way before the enactment of the 18^th Amendment. Technically, according to the 31(2) which was still valid when Mr Rajapaksha got elected for the 2^nd term, he was unqualified for the candidacy for further term. Eighteenth amendment being a non-retrospective legislation, prevents the new conditions taken in that amendment to be applied in to the unqualified Rajapaksha. This was the main point brought by Sarath Nanda Silva and the opposition.

They immediately went into lobbying for Rajapaksha’s inability to enter into another election. Since, he is also disqualified from calling an election after 4 years; they argued that this election was invalid. When Mr Siva was preparing to bring this matter to the court, Rajapaksha himself asked the opinion of the Supreme Court with the power granted to him by the article 129 of the constitution. Constitution has given its opinion backed by a full-bench affirming Rajapaksha’s right to call up the presidential election and they also affirmed his right to get elected for the 3^rd term.

Now that episode was over. Mr Rajapasha and his rivals are preparing for a fierce battle for power. Presidential media campaigns are in the full swing. Although the opposition, former CJ who first raised the legal point and the Bar association went silent after getting the opinion of the Supreme Court against their favor, as political citizens we have a right to know truth behind this allegations and the constitutional interpretation regarding this issue.

Section 31(2) of the 1978 imposes the limitation of number of times.

31. (2) No person who has been twice elected to the office of President by the People shall be qualified thereafter to be elected to such office by the People.

By the section 2(1) of the 18^th amendment, it was repealed.

Sri Lanka (hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”) is hereby amended in Article 31 thereof, as follows:—

(1) by the repeal of paragraph (2) of that Article; and

(2) in paragraph (3A) (a)(i) of that Article—

(a) by the substitution for the words “at any time after the expiration of four years from the commencement of his first term of office” of the words “at any time after the expiration of four years from the commencement of his current term of”; and

(b) by the substitution for the words “by election, for a further term.” of the following:— “by election, for a further term: Provided that, where the President is electedin terms of this Article for a further term of office, the provisions of this Article shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of any subsequent term of office to which he may be so elected.”

When we analyze the above timeline, the main divisor of that is the enactment date of the 18^th Amendment, 9^th September 2010. Before that the existing law disqualify anyone who was elected twice form contesting again. Until the 8^th of September 2010, Mahinda Rajapaksha who was elected for the second term in January 2010 was disqualified from entering into an election. The controversial question was what will happen to the law after 9^th of September 2010?

Article 2(2) of the Amendment is clear. With the substitution of the words, the incumbent president Rajapaksha can call for election after 4 years in to his second term. Regarding the 2(1), a different story immerges. Rajapaksha was disqualified from being elected after his second term commenced in January.  Will that position be changed with the enactment of the 18^th Amendment without retrospective legislation? This is the critical question to which we need to answer

The answer can be found not in the date of the enactment but in the declaration date of the 2015 presidential election. Rajapaksha declared the election on 20^th November 2014. Till that date, president was not decided to be elected by the people. We need to look for the disqualification on based on that date not the date of his second term in January 2010. It is obvious that the law existing in November 2014 doesn’t have the limiting factor of Article 31(2) because it was repealed by 18^th Amendment.

According to the opposition, the president will be automatically disqualified when the was elected for the 2^nd term but the question of whether he can or can’t be elected (declaration of next election) should be at least 4 years from the date of the second term. Until that the question of 31(2) was not to be arisen. When that finally comes in 2014, the limiting factor was already gone for more than 3 years giving Rajapaksha the legal authority to call an election and to contend for the presidency.

The Supreme Court, on full bench affirmed Mr Rajapaksha’s right to call for an early election and to be elected by the people. Although, the legal matter is settled, there is the question of morality of this move. It is clear that Rajapaksha was trying to hold on to power as long as possible. The decision to remove the limitation on a third term was seen as an enhancement of democracy even by the former CJ Mrs Bandaranayake, it is ironical that she who was supportive of Rajapaksha’s plan becoming a victim of his wrath.

Now it seems to be a waste of time to go through the validity of 18^th Amendment’s article since the issue raised above will never be raised again but it is important to see how the leaders go through the holes of the law and manipulate the supreme law of the country to forever hold on to power.

With the presidential election coming, the nation is at crossroads. We have to choose either political stability with clandestine democracy or a frail promise from a ragtag bunch of party outcasts to change the executive presidential system. The choice is at the hands of ordinary people who don’t know much about the political stigma attached to this election. Will the common man make the correct choice? What are the repercussions of their choice?

“The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, The answer is blowin' in the wind"

Read More

Merits and Demerits of the Executive Presidency in Sri Lanka

There are many political systems in the world. The political system of Sri Lanka, which was subjected to numerous changes since the independence ranging from socialism to neo-liberalism, reflected the mindset of the politicians who were doubtful as to what should be the system to govern Sri Lankans. One of the most controversial changes happened to Sri Lankan politics was the introduction of the post of Executive Presidency. By being the supreme leader who holds the reins of both the state and the government, he has enormous power vested in him. There is an ongoing debate on the role of citizenry in an executive presidential system.

The second republican constitution had introduced the executive presidency to Sri Lanka. It was mainly adopted from the executive of France and the United States. Late president Jayawardena was expecting a strong unbound leadership who can make firm decisions to bring the country to prosperity. It also came as an answer for the political instability plaguing the country.

Sri Lankan executive president is both the chief of the state and the leader of the government. Although according to the constitution, he is responsible for only the executive powers, indirectly he is like a giant octopus whose tentacles spread all over the executive, legislature and judiciary of the country. He is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the leader of the cabinet and the supreme authority who shapes the foreign policy.

Every countryneeds a strong leadership who can take quick and firm decisions. That need is more prominent in developing countries like Sri Lanka. When the decision makers of the country engaged with bitter rivalry and prone to interference from partisan politics and political pressure groups, opportunities to take unpopular decisions which give benefits in the long run will be lost. In emergency situations, executive presidential powers will decide whether the country survives or falls into anarchy.United States and France are good examples that show how executive presidency can steer a country in a stable and progressive way.

With great power comes great responsibility. The main hitch in executive presidency is the possibility of the president becoming corrupted by the power. That’s why although most of the presidential candidates come to power by promising to abolish the executive presidency, when they get elected, try to secure more and more powers without adhering to their promise.Appointing family members to important administrative positions, politicization of the civil service, corruptions, interfering with the judiciary are some of the immediate consequences of the executive acting like a dictator.

A country needs a leader who is accountable to people. Absolute power in governing a country should never be given to a person without proper methods to control them. In conclusion I believe in the need of a more controlled and accountable executive for our country.

Read More

Popular Schools Phenomenon in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka has one of the highest literacy rates in the world on a par with most of the developed nations. Primary and secondary education is Sri Lanka is entirely delivered by the school system which pushes the child along a race track for 13 years. School years define the future of the child. Although our country has a good literacy rate, education system is plagued with problems such as unequal distribution of educational resources, outdated study materials and many more. De-escalation of this problem is vital for our children’s future.

Among the various problems, unequal distribution of educational resources is one of the main problems. A child needs a resourceful environment for education. Ultimate goal of education is to give life skills to children to face the future world. School education should facilitate the child to get a good education and a good job for the future. School itself plays a vital role in successful education.

There are a handful of schools which we identify as popular schools. They draw the baseline for the school education in our country.  There are two kinds of popular schools; private schools and government public schools. The former were opened by western missionaries to give education to the Ceylonese according to western values and Christian religious principles. They have a rich history and the almost all of them were in Colombo except a handful in Kandy and Galle districts. The latter were government funded public schools. They can be early missionary schools or Buddhist schools established as a response to the missionary schools.

Sri Lankan parents ready for the battle of putting a child to a popular school even before the child is born. Sometimes these preparations take place even before a couple gets married. Competition is fierce for the limited number of vacancies available in the popular schools. Parents need to summon up all their persuasive powers such as money, political influence and other corrupt methods to get a foothold for their child in one of the popular schools

I’ve passed the grade five scholarship examination but lacked the marks to attend to a popular school (which I regret so much to this day) but I was lucky to have schooled in the best school in my province which was far away from the capital. I have experienced the struggle to find a popular school by my parents at first hand.

Generally popular schools have good teachers, study materials and infrastructure. Even though the government doesn’t provide much monetary support for development, the schools have extensive old pupils network and means to gain money. Plenty of opportunities for sports and extracurricular activities are available for the students. Attending a popular school is a status symbol in Sri Lanka. It can also be a family legacy as well. That’s why most of the people are using the reputation of their school to get job opportunities, to secure a beneficial marriage and to climb the social ladder.

Some not so popular schools have good teachers, study materials and infrastructure exceeding if not on a par with popular schools but are in no position to compete with them because of the lack of reputation. Sri Lankan people have an irrebuttable presumption that popular schools are good no matter how many good schools emerge. This was mainly because of the rich history and traditions associated with those popular schools which lead to prestige.

Central colleges opened by C.W.W.Kannangara for educating the masses can compete with the popular schools in quality of education and resources. As witnessed in the Advanced Level examination and various other sports festivals, education and extracurricular activates are also excellent in these schools. But the heartbreaking truth is that by being the school for the masses, they have become less preferable to the more prestigious popular schools in the capital of Sri Lanka.

Grade 5 scholarship is one of the main entry points for the popular schools. They require high marks at the exam. There are even talks to abolish the grade 5 scholarship examination altogether. In my opinion, it shouldn’t be done. Scholarship exam is the only window of opportunity for a rural child to experience the facilities in the city and to discover new opportunities. If the grade 5 scholarship exam gets abolished, the only remaining thread for a rural child to hang on for a better future will be lost.  The popular schools will only be reserved for the rich and the class gap may widen dramatically.

Popular schools are here for stay. We can’t eliminate the elevated status of the popular schools but by empowering and developing the rural schools, restoring the old glory of the central colleges and especially increasing the opportunities in popular schools for the students by upgrading their facilities to accommodate more students can be taken to diminish the negative factors of popular schools. I do believe that lobbying for the above changes in the education system should be the utmost priority of the so called ‘protectors of free education’ if they really want to preserve the right of free education.

Read More

Western and Southern Provincial Council Election Aftermath

Western and Southern provincial council election has ended. The interest for elections among Sri Lankan have faded away considerably during the last five years. Specially provincial and local government elections were done in rations so it is not wrong to say that every year citizens experience an election. The result of this election was predictable from the beginning but we have witnessed significant development in the political arena so an analysis of the outcome of this election will not be a waste of time and effort.

Provincial council election of Western and Southern provinces was held in a situation where we have experienced an array of elections back to back. People were fed up with them. It is apparent that the ruling party’s objective of this election is evaluating its popularity among the people.  This election was held in the midst of a United Nations resolution against Sri Lanka. UPFA government has urged people to vote in this election to give a message to the international community saying that no matter how tough international reaction is, the people are in with the government. Sri Lankan president being the leader of the government tested the possibility of winning in an early presidential election which was suspected to be held in the end of 2014. Sri Lankan government and the ruling party were heavily criticized by both the opposition parties and civil society for being undemocratic and authoritarian. There were allegations of corruption, violation of media freedom and fundamental rights as well. The ruling party wanted to give a clear message to the opposition that they still have the popular support and it is impossible to topple the government.

It is useless to even talk about the election violence, use of public property for election campaigns and violation of election law because those actions have become an essential part of the election culture in Sri Lanka. It is more interesting to look at the candidates of this election. Only a handful of candidates from both provinces have the necessary qualifications and capabilities to serve people genuinely. What we can see it the emergence of small “family trees”. Majority of the candidates are sons, daughters and siblings of politicians. It seems to be the younger generation is eagerly coming forward to pick up the political baton. Models, actresses, actors and business tycoons have also contested. Most of the candidates were aware of the fact that the general public prefers people with good educational background so most of them have put their educational qualifications in the election posters. One candidate in Colombo district has gone to such extreme that a large photo of him getting his degree from one the most prestigious universities in North America was distributed alone with his placards. It is a good move that more and more educated people are getting in to politics nowadays but will they be sensible for the people’s needs? Will they ensure good governance and rule of law? Models turned actresses were also contested for the election. There were a lot of them but only a handful got nominations.

Janatha Wimukthi Peramuna (JVP) with the leadership of Anura Kumara Dissanayake was ready to contest with a new approach. JVP voter base was severely affected with the breaking up of the party in to three factions. Sarath Fonseka’s Democratic Party came to the election with confidence. They have secured and thrived as the 3^rd power suppressing the JVP. Populist politics played a huge part. If a candidate can build a personality cult, he or she can win this election with ease. Candidates such as Hirunika Premachandra who presented herself to be the adopted daughter of the first family, Udaya Gammanpila who had gained popularity by turning up to the general public to find money for election campaigns, Malsha Kumaranathunga, popular media personalities who got unprecedented media coverage and backing from a media organization were all part of this new breed of political candidates who tried to make themselves larger than life personalities.

The result of the election was highly predictable. UPFA, the ruling party won the election but their voter base was affected in some polling divisions. The United National Party was further spiraling in to submission. Sarath Fonseka’s Democratic Party seemed to have broken up considerable amount of votes from the two main parties and they have got the majority of the swing votes. The JVP’s revival was short lived. They’ve failed to make a mark on the people’s minds. Candidates who had made personality cults out of them were really successful. Almost all of them got huge number of preferential votes no matter what their political party was. Only sensible thing in this election was done by the Matara district voters. They had the courage to chase away the two actresses who contested.

Voter turnaround was very low suggesting that the people were no longer interested in elections, especially provincial council polls. They are fed up with the cheap partisan politics. It is a well known fact that Provincial Counsels are white elephants. The general public hardly noticed any significance of provincial politics. Many young and educated politicians were elected. It is a good trend to make room for the next generation, a new breed of politicians.

Political parties got overwhelmed by their victories that they’ve forgot to look at the bigger picture. People are anticipating a change of the political system. It should not be interpreted as a complete regime change but faith in good governance should be ensured. More democratic, less authoritarian and most importantly less corrupt rule is needed. Infrastructure development alone can’t satisfy the people. If the present politics failed to make the change that people requested it to deliver, they may choose some other group that willing to do so.

When we look at this election merely as a provincial council election, it has no significance at all but this is one of the political game-changing moments for the ruling party and the opposition. He, who understands the message given by the people and alter his course, will have a future so this provincial council election can be considered as a significant landmark of Sri Lankan politics. 

Read More

Election Special : Sri Lankan Politics and the Guide to Choose Candidates

Sri Lanka is a country with a democratic political system, “Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka” as the name implies. We can drop the socialist part because socialist elements are diminished if not completely gone from the political system. According to Abraham Lincoln “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people”. Most important characteristic of democracy is citizens' participation of the governance of their country so as citizens of a democratic country, it is vital to have an idea of what our part in democracy.

Since Sri Lanka has representative democracy, citizens are eligible to vote and choose their representatives by elections. There are elections for both Executive and Legislative parts of a state. Judiciary is also in control of the executive branch. As citizens we may be complemented with the feeling of having total control of the state in our hands like democracy wanted us to; but in reality this is not happening.

Sri Lanka is the oldest democracy in South East Asia having being introduced to the universal suffrage in 1930. Even before 1930 part of the people have experienced to some form of limited democracy. It is heart-breaking for a democracy-loving Sri Lankan citizen to witness his country ranking low in Democracy index. Although it ranked as 3^rd in South Asia, that is no complement when most of the South Asian countries are in political turmoil or in the midst of political crises and unstable military-influenced governments.

We are having elections; a lot of them but when the representatives we choose to rule the government institutions are not doing their job properly, our country can’t be call as a good democracy. This situation is far worse in provincial and local government politics. We should understand that correct functioning of democracy does not only lie on the holding elections but also on the conduct of people who are being elected. 

Although people of Sri Lanka have more than 70 years experience of active political engagement, most of the early politicians were aristocrats. They were gradually getting hold of the plantation and commercial industries. Educated in Britain, they embraced western culture and ideology. Those, who we call the “Elite”, choose politics just to enhance their social status. Most of them welcomed British presence and displeased with giving universal suffrage and greater autonomy to the Ceylonese.

After getting independence from British, the elite had to rule the country but contrary to their conduct before independence, they were somewhat progressive. When British left in 1948, Ceylon had a functioning democracy, fast developing economy, and political stability. Leaders back then had plans for future development thus giving agriculture and plantation the utmost importance. Education was also placed in high priority. Above all past leaders respected democracy. Majority of politicians were not corrupt, politics was not the way to get rich but to serve people. Although educated middle class was present in political arena, they've contributed to the betterment of the state and upholding the democracy in Ceylon. With that new wave of different political ideologies were introduced.

As we all know, the turning point in Sri Lankan politics came with the 1978 constitution. President Junius Richard Jayawardene's intention of the new constitution was having a stronger state through strong central executive thus making president both the chief of state and the head of the government. Two main changes happened to the political system. First is creating the Executive presidency which has executive powers and can directly influence the legislative and judicial sections in the state. Second is the district basis election system in which several representatives are selected according to preferential voting system. There are several flows in the system. One is the tendency of the executive to turn in to more like authoritarian leader. Although Sri Lankan executive presidency is somewhat similar to United States of America, the checks and balances theory which was vital to the survival of democracy was not correctly administered here. Next major flow is the need of power and money to run for the election and secure a seat in ever fierce election battleground.  A candidate needs to secure vote in a large area. With preferential votes, internal conflicts within a political party may occur. Gradually politics become not a service to the public but a quick way to earn money. This newly found gold-rush attracted corrupt politicians whose intend is only to make money and expand their da-facto mafia. An uncorrupted, honest person cannot survive in this political underworld, only a thug or a fat cat can afford. This gradually alienates politics from educated politicians who are willing to serve people.

After three and half decades, political desertification is eminent in Sri Lankan political landscape. Sri Lankan politics is controlled by a bunch of thugs, goons, drug lords and fraudsters. Even the higher leadership doesn’t do anything to stop those contaminating politics even if they wanted to because senior politicians and party leaders need goons to be in power. Sad thing is educated and sensible people are in politics also succumbing to this evil political system.

As concerned citizens, there is nothing to be gain by blaming politicians or senior leaders; instead we should change the political system. At least, send sensible people who are willing to change the system. As voters, our options are limited. Although prevailing system limits alternative political ideologies or people willing to challenge the system, there may be still handful of determined individuals worth voting for. They may lack political experience, but have guts not to follow the present political bandwagon. Citizens should help to bring new breed of politicians who are young, vibrant and uncorrupted.

Criteria to select candidates in elections.

.  1. Education; 

    Unlike the other developed democracies, Sri Lankan politics is plagued with uneducated politicians. There should be minimum education qualifications to enter politics. Since knowledge without wisdom is useless, a politician should be sensible, competent and above all practical.  This is clearly visible in Sri Lankan politics. We have many university graduates in parliament but they are not doing anything to change this infected political system. Most of the candidates of the upcoming western and southern provincial elections have realized that the people are now urging for more and more educated people to come to politics. That is why you can see many election posters displaying candidates’ educational qualifications (most apparently their university degrees). It is good a political trend but we should not forget that in Sri Lanka if you are wealthy, you can get honorary degree; even a PhD. Who can assure the authenticity of their educational qualifications? Moreover getting formal education doesn’t guarantee a positive change of a person’s attitudes.

2. Family background; 

Society and especially family plays a vital road in person's character. Early Ceylonese politicians were sensible because they come from respectable families. Now anyone can climb the social ladder when he possesses lot of money. Money can't buy everything, certainly not humility.

3. Political ideology;

Political ideology is looked down upon most of the times. As a matter of fact although individual political parties or governments had their political plans ranging from leftist to far right, those didn’t comply with the national development goals. Even our country hasn’t got a clear national development plan. It is vital to give your vote to people who have a clear vision and a practical one. It is natural for politicians to come up with political manifestoes at election times but educated public should have knowledge to evaluate all the promises in it and come to a conclusion whether that politician’s promises are real and he/she has the ability to deliver them. As long as the public keeps ignoring the validity of political promises, cunning politicians will always fool us.

4. Criminal history.

There is a law in Sri Lanka preventing a person from holding a public office for some time, if that person is convicted by a court for certain offences. Political parties are discouraged from giving nominations to people with criminal history but enforcing law on politicians are very rare and most of them escapes conviction. It is a well known fact that majority of members of our parliament have some sort of criminal past and some even continues to rely on thuggery.

We can’t find Mr. Cleans in the politics. It has always been a dirty game but within the black and white, we may find certain gray area. That should be the place we look for. Sri Lankans had enough of it. We suffered in the hands of corrupt, incompetent and greedy politicians. Now it is time for us to think wisely and decide who our leaders will be.  

Read More

Battle in Geneva; Sri Lanka at the UNHRC Session

The Geneva season has begun. Every March for the last 2 years had been a busy period for Sri Lankan diplomats and politicians. At the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), resolutions against Sri Lanka were brought up and voted. Now for the 3rd time, another resolution has been drafted. Voting has yet to be called. Both the Sri Lankan government and western countries backed up by United States is preparing for a fierce battle at Geneva. Especially the government has said that they are confident in getting the support of the majority of UNHRC countries to vote against the resolution. Today, Sri Lankan foreign minister Professor G.L.Peiris addressed the UNHRC session rejected the resolution as well as the high commissioner's report stating that it is fundamentally flawed.

After the 30 year bloody civil war was ended in 2009, the international community came up with doubts to whether the conduct of the Sri Lankan army in the last months of war is complying with the international humanitarian law. Although, Sri Lankan government had labeled the operation as a humanitarian mission, most of the international community was skeptical about this. In the eve of war in 2009, United Nations raised questions about the number of civilian deaths which was suspected to be nearly 40000. It had raised concerns about the post war situation in Sri Lanka on violation of human rights, execution of POWs and deliberate attacks on civilian targets.

A report was submitted to the UN called Darusman report pointed out allegations of human rights if proven, raises war crimes and crimes against humanity accusations against Sri Lankan military and leaders. Sri Lankan government had rejected the Darusman report. [1] They implemented its own inquiry called Lessions Learned and Reconciliation Committee (LLRC) in which the LTTE was blamed for carrying out almost all of the atrocities however it has accepted that there were some "isolated" incidents involving armed forces. LLRC recommendations were made public in 31st March 2011.

Almost an year had passed from LLRC report publication when the United States raised alarm on Sri Lankan government failure to implement LLRC recommendations. Since LLRC being an internal investigation and one being directly ordered by the President himself, the Sri Lankan government must have been responsible for its immediate implementation. At the UNHRC session, government has insisted saying "we need to be given time to further consolidate the clear process that has been achieved in a short period of 3 years". It seemed to be that the Government is buying time. 

 A second resolution was backed up by the western powers in 2013. It urged Sri Lanka to set up a truth seeking commission but it doesn't explicitly suggested an international inquiry. Now for the 3rd time, another resolution has brought up before the council. Although it acknowledge the progress made on implementing the some recommendations made by LLRC, it has accused the government again for failing to ensure credible investigation in to past violation of human rights. It also focuses on the attacks on religious minorities, lawyers, human rights activists and journalists. It recommends to establish an independent international inquiry if domestic mechanisms failed. 

UNHRC has 47 seats which are distributed among United Nations regional groups for a three year term. Lets look at the voting outcome for the last 2 resolutions[2]

YEAR	VOTED IN FAVOR OF RESOLUTION	VOTED AGAINST RESOLUTION	ABSTAINED
2012	1.     Benin 2.     Cameron 3.     Libya 4.     Mauritius 5.     Nigeria 6.     India 7.     Chile 8.     Costa Rica 9.     Guatemala 10.   Peru 11.   Mexico 12.   Uruguay 13.   Austria 14.   Belgium 15.   Norway 16.   Italy 17.   Spain 18.   Switzerland 19.   United States 20.   Czech Republic 21.   Poland 22.   Hungary 23.   Moldova 24.  Romania	1.     Congo 2.     Mauritiana 3.     Uganda 4.     Bangladesh 5.     China 6.     Indonesia 7.     Kuwait 8.     Maldives 9.     Philippines 10.   Qatar 11.   Saudi Arabia 12.   Thailand 13.   Cuba 14.   Ecuador 15.  Russia	1.     Angola 2.     Botswana 3.     Burkina Faso 4.     Djibuti 5.     Senegal 6.     Jordan 7.     Krygystan 8.     Malaysia
2013	1.     Benin, 2.     the Ivory Coast,  3.     Libya, 4.     Sierra Leone,  5.     India, 6.     Korea, 7.     Argentina, 8.     Brazil,  9.     Chile, 10.   Costa Rica, 11.   Guatemala, 12.   Peru,  13.   Austria, 14.   Germany, 15.   Ireland,  16.   Italy, 17.   Spain, 18.   Switzerland, 19.   USA, 20.   Czech Republic, 21.   Estonia, 22.   Montenegro,  23.   Poland, 24.   Romania, 25.   Moldova.	1.     Venezuela,  2.     Ecuador,  3.     UAE, 4.     Thailand,  5.     Qatar,  6.     Philippines  7.     Pakistan,  8.     Maldives, 9.     Kuwait, 10.   Indonesia, 11.   Uganda, 12.   Mauritania, 13.   Congo (Rep not DR)	1.     Ethiopia,  2.     Angola, 3.     Botswana, 4.     Burkina Faso, 5.     Kenya, 6.     Japan, 7.     Kazakhstan,  8.     Malaysia.

 India despite of being our neighbor voted against Sri Lanka in the past two resolutions. It may be because of the pressure from Tamil Nadu. At the 2013 resolution, Japan's move to abstain from voting is a clear sign of USA's power to persuade her allies to go against Sri Lanka (at least by retaining from voting). Whole Europe (Eastern and Western alike), most of the Latin American countries and some Asian countries have voted for the resolution. The only allies Sri Lanka had were a handful of South East Asian countries and Muslim nations.

Government has long been preparing for the worse in this year's resolution. Powerful countries such as Russia and China have extended their support to Sri Lanka. Government was on a lobbying campaign across the world persuading Latin American, African and Asian nations to vote against the resolution. There are talks about a counter resolution by some countries in favor of Sri Lanka. Today (05-03-2014) Sri Lankan delegate, Professor G.L.Peiris slammed the High Commissioner's report by telling that the report's recommendations are "arbitrary, intrusive and of a political nature, and are not placed within the ambit of the LLRC, as demonstrated by the call to establish an international inquiry mechanism."

In terms of voting, there may not be a difference from the last two resolutions because East and West European block and countries under American influence. Surely India will vote for the resolution but Sri Lanka may have a chance of getting the support from Japan, South Africa and some countries who abstained in 2013 session. Even that will not be enough for the resolution to be rejected.

Sri Lankan government doesn't really care about the resolution. They are in a habit of ignoring international pressure as long as no direct economic impact such as sanctions are implemented. Instead of complying with the recommendations, the government is using UNHRC session as a means to gather votes in the upcoming provincial council election. 

Now almost two years has passed but the reconciliation process is still not up to standards. There are handful of silver strokes in this gloomy sky such as the infrastructure development in North and East but they alone can't turn the tables in favor of Sri Lanka . Failing to implement a substantial amount of recommendation on time may show the grim reality that the government has no real interest in reconciliation and accountability even to their own investigations.

Whether we like it or not, we need a long term plan for reconciliation. First an independent local investigation is needed at least to show the world we are doing something. The government or the armed forces no need to be afraid because they haven't committed any war crimes. Almost all the servicemen in the armed forces and police did their job with utmost professionalism so no harm will be done to the armed forces if perpetrators of some isolated incidents are brought to justice.

Economic development is merely not enough. Even economic development without empowering people's lives is useless. Growing economy should bring benefits directly to the masses. Economic development is a great way to build peace and prosperity. 

Finally political system need to change. Everyone regardless of the race and religion need to get involved in political system. Strengthening provincial councils or other opportunities should be promoted. The government needs to start genuinely talking to the minority politicians and make room for a peaceful solution. Both the minorities and the majority may have compromises to make but they should be done without hesitation by setting aside the Ego for a while. 

This session in Geneva will be a golden opportunity to steer Sri Lanka towards long term peace, prosperity and reconciliation. Are our leaders going to take this opportunity or simply reverting to back to the same routine after this resolution as they have done in the previous two resolutions ?  

  

[1]http://www.mea.gov.lk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2746&Itemid=75

[2]http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2014/03/04/sri-lanka-scores-preliminary-moral-victory-at-unhrc-2014/.








. 

Read More