Social media as the engine of revolution

(Photo courtesy http://www.digitalaboratory.it/ )

Social media is the collaboration between people in the means of exchanging content virtually via networks. There are many definitions about social media but I shall emphasize on the definition given by Merriam-Webster dictionary. It defines social media as

“forms of electronic communication (as Web sites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (as videos)”

There are several conditions that need to be satisfied for any collaboration method to be called as social media. They are (1) The exchange of information or content, (2) A virtual community, (3) An online gathering place such as a social networking site, blog or a forum. Despite the differences between mainstream media, many think that social media is similar to conventional media if not an extension f the former but the core concept of social media being the direct involvement of people make it differ from others. It is a well-known fact that in the recent past, social media is recognized if not accused as the main reason to brewing revolutions throughout the world.

The concept of social media started when humans begin to communicate. They express their ideas in cave paintings and ancient stone scripts. Although it is obvious that the first form of social media didn’t involve the internet or any other sophisticated communication methodology, it was similar to modern social media in terms of the exchange of ideas and community interaction. However the social media we called today came with the introduction of the internet as a place to collaborate. With that, new methods of sharing information are born. First, there are internet connection places such as chatrooms and online forums. With the social networking sites such as facebook, google+ and myspace, the whole concept of social media came to new heights. Social networking sites are powerful tools for the growth of social media. Blogging is a relatively new concept allowing anyone to write your ideas in a virtual diary for the whole world to see. The microblogging site twitter has become immensely popular social media tool. It facilitates sharing ideas, news or anything you like on the internet but with only 140 characters. Although, it seems not to be enough for anything to be published, by far twitter’s contribution to the social media exceeds all other internet based platforms. Photo and video sharing sites such as youtube, Picasa, Pinterest Instagram [need to give inks]also play a crucial role.

Although it is not a mandatory thing for a social media to be based on the internet, being on the internet itself is the main advantage the social media have. It has a large number of audience. Internet users are growing exponentially so internet based social media always gains popularity. Social media is not tightly regulated or not regulated at all. Access to that is not restricted allowing free information flow. Social media is free (at least the internet based ones) if not cheaper than the conventional media. Most of the social media contributors being community organizations provide access to new ideas in a free environment. The main advantage of social media is the people getting directly involved in getting information. Most of the time social media acts as an active way of providing information. News providers, as well as the audience, engage in conversations. The audience may give feedback and their opinion regarding the information they have received from social media. The above interaction may happen instantly so timewise it is efficient. 

Social media was now famous (or infamous) for its contribution to fuel revolutions. For revolutions to happen, an exchange of new ideas needs to be put up. People who need a change should get together. Gaining popular support nationally and internationally is a must. Social media provides all those. 

General public may have discontent over the social, economic and political situation of a country. A discussion can be put in the social media. People who are sympathetic to the course will gather. With the ideas of change looming ahead, sooner or later the bubble bursts. People take to streets either to topple a government or urge authorities to solve the problems. Social media can also be used to influence civil organizations or even foreign governments to intervene and help them. If a crackdown or a civil war happens, social media may provide front row seats for the whole world to see the atrocities and the suffering or people.

This scenario proved to be true in many parts of the world in the last couple of years. The popular uprising against dictatorships in middle-eastern countries (often called ‘The Arab Spring’) is the best example of how social media help the birth of revolutions. Especially in Egypt and now in Syria, the role of social media is prominent as never before.  A fight for change in a monetary system ruled by large banks and multinational companies has swept across most parts of the western world. That was called ‘The Occupy Movement’. Thousands of protesters were gathering at the financial centers and government institutions urging for a change. Social media, mainly social networks and microblogging sites were used to send messages to people directing them to protest places and gathering active support.

A popular uprising in Ukraine to overthrow its president is another example of the successful use of social media to direct popular uprisings. For example, the youtube video below shows a young lady speaking in the midst of a protest (probably a standoff with the police) urging the international community to actively support the revolutionaries.

Sri Lankan context;

Sri Lanka has an active social media presence. Social networks such as Facebook are the main player. A small but growing twitter community, online forums, and active bloggers publishing in both Sinhalese and English play an active role.

Independent media organizations, NGOs use social media to influence people. Since there is a popular conception that the mainstream media is infiltrated by the government, for an unbiased representation of opinions, people are turning into social media.

On the other hand, differences of opinions are appearing from the Sri Lankan social media. A rise of nationalism (some depict that as racism) and religious revival of Buddhism and Islam can be seen via social media. Recently, a surge of Sinhalese Buddhist revolutionary ideas and talks of a conspiracy by minority religions to destroy Sinhalese Buddhist identity are immerging from social networks. This is leading to an all-out cyber war between different religious factions. 

More and more people are getting internet access. Technology literate young people are using social media as a place to share ideas. With social media more openness and transparency are created, we are no longer a passive entity gobbling anything the mainstream media serve us. We have become investigative and social media change the perspective from which we look at the world forever. Although there are immense benefits of social media, it should always be considered as a double-edged sword. For example, the same discussion forum or social network that used to create intellectual ideas can also be used to spread religion hatred and fanaticism.

Social media is always here to stay and get evolve with the people. The best and wisest thing is to use social media for the benefit of the entire human kind.  

Read More

Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thero; In Remembrance.

A sad day indeed for Sri Lankans. The passing away of Venerable Maduluwawe Sobitha thero, the Chairman of the National Movement for a Just Society had shocked us. We grieve not as Buddhists or members of a certain political party but as Sri Lankans who expected a change and fought for it.

Although Sri Lankans knew Sobitha Thero as the key player in the resent regime change, his social activism dates back many years, leading several political campaigns for just society. Sobitha Thero, not having a rigid political afflictions had always been in the common man’s side in the struggle for democracy, equality and justice. Whenever a progressive political change has happened in this country, Sobitha Thero had always been in the forefront of it. Even as the chief incumbent of a Buddhist Temple, Kotte Sri Naga Viharaya, the Thero had leaded a modest life dedicating his life to social progression compared to some monks who went on to developing lavish temples and focusing on worldly goods which is contradictory to the essence of Buddhist teachings.

Sobitha Thero’s activism came to its pinnacle with his work in the Presidential Election in January 2015. Even before the election Sobitha Thero had raised his voice against the nepotism, corruption and undemocratic governance of the previous government. Sobitha Thero had always in the stance of changing the system rather than the people who were running the system. The Thero understood the fact that if we change the people who govern without changing the system they govern, the replacements will be ineffective. He had proposed several changes to the system even before the Presidential Election such as Independent Commissions, Corrupt-free governance and accountability mechanisms.

The opposition always criticized the previous government but never found a suitable candidate for changing the system let alone a better system itself. There were speculations about who shall be the common candidate as opposition had decided to put a common candidate to the presidential race. Sobitha Thero’s name also surfaced and some had doubted how a Buddhist monk is able to contest for the election.

Although most of the supporters of the previous government do not know it, it was Sobitha Thero who initially supported Mr. Rajapaksha BUT on several conditions to ensure democracy. As this author can remember in one occasion, the Thero has stated that Mr. Rajapaksha will be the ideal candidate if he scuttles the undemocratic 18^th Amendment, introduces Independent Commission and Eradicates corruption. But since there was no positive response from him, Sobitha thero had to look for someone else and Mr. Sirisena was an ideal candidate. The rest is history.

Although Sobitha Thero was in the forefront of the regime change, he was the first person to criticize it as well. The lack of progress in the ‘Yahapalana Government’ was appalling and it is no doubt that the Thero was highly dissatisfied with the aftermath. First, the three-month interim government period was extended, hundred Day program was just a broken promise, and the most important change promised, enacting the 19^th Amendment was intentionally delayed. 20^th Amendment and shifting to new electoral system was never done. It is ironical to see that the ‘Father of the recent political change’ has to go on protesting against the ‘Yahapalana child’ in April 2015 to enact the long awaited 19^th Amendment which was the keystone of a new political change.  

Sobitha Thero openly criticized the present government and its lack of progress. It is an open secret that the Thero was really disappointed with it and it must have affected him very much. Surely there shall be a sense of betrayal by the present government’s highest offices. It was not only Sobitha Thero who was betrayed but 6.2 million Sri Lankans who had voted for a change. Resent events suggests that the successive government is similar the previous one if not worse.

People lobby for political movements for many reasons. Most lobbying was done as an investment in the future earnings and favors from the successive governments. Among them, Sobitha Thero was a true patriot and person with high moral standards as he never expected any return or favor from the people who was raised to power by his activism.

It is so heartbreaking to see some people who were posting defamatory comments and celebrating Sobitha Thero’s passing away mostly in social media. Indeed they are the people who never knew the political history of Sri Lanka, how the struggle for ‘Good Governance’ was initially won in January 2015 and subsequently lost by the activism in the civil society and how the people currently in power had betrayed the activists who really helped them. Most of the ‘post-sharing internet radicals’ who use the internet behave as ‘monkeys handling straight razors’ showing their lack of character and how they were brainwashed.

There are lessons to be learnt from the altruistic life and disappointing passing away of Sobitha Thero. It brings us to the bitter realizations that no matter how you intend to change the world for better, the dark forces always win. No matter how good you are, if you are not in the winner’s side, everyone will eventually betray you. At the end of your life, bitterness, regret and disappointment will be your only companions. Last but not least, you will be disgraced even after you were dead and eventually be forgotten.

Ven. Maduluwawer Sobitha Thero, May you Attain Nibbana as it is the only retreat with the eternal peace. 

Read More

The Poor Little 19th Amendment !!!

The 19^th amendment to the constitution is now debated in the parliament of Sri Lanka. At time of preparing this article it has passed the reading for the second time and at the stage of the committee debates on the changes to it. Anyway, the final outcome is still not visible. One thing is for sure; 

never before an amendment to the constitution has received public attention than the 19^th amendment. while the pro and against parties engaged in bitter struggle to consolidate their views and they are willing to go to the extent of mass protests and ‘sathyagrahas’ it is better for a citizen of Sri Lanka to go into detail of the 19^th amendment and analyze what the underlying principles of this amendment.

The amendment was brought to fulfill an election promise on curbing the powers of executive presidency and bringing independent councils. Although initially the president Sirisena lobbied for complete abolition of executive presidency later his stance was changed to removing large powers from that post. Important Sections of the amendment are briefly listed below

Article number	What shall be delivered
2	Right to information as a fundamental right
3	Reduction of presidential term to 5 years
4	Limiting the number of times for election for presidency to 2
5	Presidential duties are listed. President is considered as a symbol of national unity
6	President’s responsibility towards parliament. but how to enforce if president has breached his responsibility is not listed here. It should be only through the impossible impeachment process
7	Changes to presidential immunity. Although he cannot be brought to court, his conduct can be questioned on suing attorney general. This can be used to build a public opinion against a president who is violating his duties
10	A new chapter is added on constitutional council who gives advices on how to appoint people for important positions and the president deemed to follow it. 41A(6) – the president is compelled to make appointments to the constitutional council. If he failed to do so the council members shall be deemed to be appointed. This removed the problem in the 17th amendment.
11	Changes to the executive. 42(3) – the PM is head of the cabinet 43(1) determination of ministerial positions by PM 44 – non cabinet ministers, 46 – limiting the cabinet to 30 and other ministerial positions to 40
12	Public service commission
16	Appointing AG and IGP shall be done on the recommendations of the constitutional council
17	Limiting the parliament to 5 years
20	Every bill shall be given 14 days for the public to protest. The word every bill shall include emergency bill is questionable
21	President is prevented from going to a referendum for bills that are rejected by parliament.
23	Minimum age for contesting for presidency is 35 years
25	Election commission
26	Election commissioner’s power to control media organizations both state and private

The Supreme Court has determined that some provisions need not only the 2/3 majority but also people’s consent by referendum. Those sections are

Section 11 – 42(3), 43(1), 43(3), 44(2), 44(3), 44(5) and

Section 26 – 104B and 104(5)c changes to articles.

On the basis of these changes are contrary to the executive power of the president which is defined in article 4 which is deemed to be read with article 3 which is and entrenched provision in article 83 requiring both the super majority and referendum consent. Prime minister Wicramasinghe wanted to somehow pass the 19^th amendment so he decided to pass it on by removing the above provisions.

When the bill is put up for debated again the political party members divided them up for battle. Some wanted more and more changes to this. Composition of the constitutional council is one of such. The government agreed to grant 7 parliamentarians with 3 non-MPs to be appointed to it. It seems that they have resolved all the disputes and came to an agreement to somehow pass this on. Only one vote opposing to it has been casted in its second time reading. After third reading is passed once it ratified by the speaker, the 19^th amendment shall be officially operational.

Overall the progress on the new regime is extremely commendable given that 4 months before none of these have a mere change of passing let alone conceiving in someone’s mind.  But in the drama following the inception of this amendment, the hypocrisy of the politicians and activists, the greed for power and the reluctance to give away their powers is compellingly clear in Sri Lankan politics.  Everyone needs their share in this new amendment. Some wanted this dead on it tracks. Politicians are never going to change. Our people shall always appoint those without remorse next time also.

On the 8^th of January, the people had not expected a mere change of a regime but a change of this present vicious system. They've even sacrificed the political stability (under which people have some sort of security) for a better future and a better, more civilized political system. They can shed tears of joy.

It is pretty sure that the joy of the 19^th amendment is temporary. There are serious questions about its affectivity on curbing the powers of the president. President’s powers are not limited, he still the head of the government. Only silver line is that independent commissions. Believe me, the pessimism will surely come. There is a strong possibility that the 19^th amendment being just a carbon copy of 17^th amendment and even its operation be neglected by the successive governments.   

We have a long way to go in making a civilized political society in Sri Lanka. This amendment is just a one small step for politicians which should become one giant leap for the politically civilized society. We need another amendment to change the electoral system and probably a brand new constitution as well. As I always say we can’t celebrate this because threats are looming everywhere. Brace yourself for impact; expect disappointments along the way. My friend, we have long long way to go…

Read More

Are We Independent? : Independence Day Special

Today is the 67^th independence day of Sri Lanka. Celebrations are undergoing for the whole day including the state Independence Day celebration at the capital. While overjoyed Sri Lankans celebrate this Independent Day, how many of us know the real meaning of Independence.  Are we celebrating the Independence on its broad meaning or just a mere transfer of power from a foreign invader to the social elite of our country? It is really important to know the answers to these questions.

The term, independence has a broader meaning. According to Oxford English Dictionary,

“The condition or quality of being independent; the fact of not depending on another (with various shades of meaning: see the adj.); exemption from external control or support; freedom from subjection, or from the influence of others; individual liberty of thought or action. Rarely in bad sense: Want of subjection to rightful authority, insubordination”

Independence is always a controversial topic with divergent definitions. When analyzing all, we can come to a general idea of independence as the capacity to act and think on someone’s discretion. Although it is possible to cage the different notions of independence into the above definition, in practice, independence means a lot more than individual discretion. Can independent people act according to their discretion? If not how can we say that they are independent? Above all how much independence is independent?

In Sri Lankan context, we say that we gained independence from the British Empire in 1948. We revere the political and social leaders of that era as national heroes. Actually what happened in 1948 was the representatives of the people in Sri Lanka got the sovereign power to enact and execute laws according to a constitution manifested by the British themselves. A power transfer is all what we gained at that time but indeed it was the pivotal moment in the recent Sir Lankan history as the people in Sri Lanka has the power to govern themselves.

Before the British Empire the Dutch and the Portuguese has controlled Maritime Provinces of Sri Lanka imposing their will on the subjects living those areas. Even before that Sri Lanka was subjected to the control of the South Indian invaders so we can conclude that according to the narrow concept of recognizing a power-transfer as independence, the people of Sri Lanka had lost independence occasionally to foreign powers. The written chronicles of Sri Lankan history start with King Wijaya settling down in the island of Ceylon which was considered as the beginning of Sinhala nation. There were communities with advanced economic and social system living at that time. They had the power to decide the matters of the island according to their discretion. King Wijaya was the one who ended that so in the perspective of the natives of Ceylon, their independence was lost. Were those native tribes independent? Was there a loss of independence or just a power-transfer from one community to another making the latter the masters of the others while the discretionary powers of the former getting lost.

The further we think of the endless wars, sharing-hands of cities and countries the further we get lost in the abyss of the definition of independence. The concept of independence will definitely be a utopian one if the free will to do anything we need without the slightest interference from any entity is incorporated. The above utopian independence actually exists in the wild at least among the non-social animal species. For example a bear can freely roam in its territory and invade others’ (of course with severe repercussions). It can lead a solitary life. Eat, sleep, hunt and mate at his discretion. This privilege is not for all the animals as the communal animals can’t act on their own. It can then be clearly seen that no absolute individualistic independence is possible for most animals including humankind but among many species a collective independence which was expanding and contracting continuously can be seen.

Sri Lanka, as a nation, enjoys collective independence. It means the people as a whole can act collectively at their will. It can also be similar to the sovereignty of the people. Although Sri Lankans, as a nation be independent from the outside influence at least in theory, is every individual citizen independent from each other economically, socially and politically? No. Economic dependency is the cornerstone in human civilization. Even self-sufficient villages have economic-intra-dependency among its villagers. Modern economy needs an army of interdependent entities working like fine clockwork to run the system smoothly. If citizen can do whatever they want, anarchy will rule and the law of the jungle will prevail in more brutal way than it is established in the modern society. Independent thinking is a topic for hot debates. People insist on independent thinking while contributing to controlling our thinking. What they don’t know is our ideas are based on the notions what we get from others. A clear independency can’t be found on any of the so-called independent ideas.

While lot of questions remains, the existing question list may go on forever. If we want to get totally independent, we need to lead a self-sufficient solitary life not affected by others. According to Hermann Hesse, ‘Solitude is independence’. Indeed it is correct but in practice, we surely can’t live in complete isolation.

The concept of independence is misused everywhere. It is very important to understand that getting the power to govern a country for its citizens in really not the total independence. We can’t be independent in this inter-connected world. Humans don’t need to get independent at all because, it is against the true nature of the humankind. What we need is a relative level of privacy in deeds and thoughts. The threshold of privacy may vary from society to society, country to country so it is really difficult thing to exactly pinpoint what really it is. As a human, (Most of the homosapien sapiens around me might have a contrary idea) I don’t believe in independence but a controlled grant of privacy for man because, the complete independence will shake the very foundation of human existence. 

Read More

Presidential Election 2015; The Tale of Two Horses and Other Stories

Only a handful of days left for the Presidential Election. Public engagement in the process is to the extent never before. In a previous blogpost, I’ve compared this election in to a poker game with the country at stake. It can also similar to a great horse-race where only two horses are participating and the twenty million people have bet all of theirs and their future generations’ lives on the outcome of it. At the heat of the preparations to the race, the people have polarized themselves into two camps helping either of the horses but nobody seem to care about the long-term impact on winning of either horse. It is well known fact that while horse-racing ruined many lives and the only winners are the jockeys, race-organizers and betting center owners. As a safety measure it is important not to bet all your savings on one horse. Nevertheless we should as the question from ourselves; ‘will the future be better?’

There are 14 million registered voters in the country. Although Sri Lanka is the Asia’s first democracy, the public conscience on democracy and politics are not influenced by rationality or policy. The factors that influenced their political opinion are discussed in the previous blogpost. But in the end of the day the problems facing the Sri Lankans except the chosen few are the same and still the improvement is at a snail pace. Economy remains the prominent worry among the majority. The government is unveiling its development achievement like never before. Cities, at least Colombo and suburbs are getting better. New roads are being constructed, train links to Northern parts have recommenced, and ambitious real estate projects are spreading like wildfire in lavish neighborhoods in Colombo city and not to mention the newly built Airport and Seaport in Hambanthota district. For an alien eyes looking in a birds-eye view, Sri Lanka appears as the next Dubai or the true ‘Wonder of Asia. Have the lives of the Sri Lankans been reborn have their living conditions seem sound or are they contented with their country?

Sri Lanka was a war-ravaged country for more than 30 years. The logical reason for dragging the war for so long was the lack of strong political leadership. The leadership given by the President Manhinda Rajapaksha and the Secretary of Defense was the main reason for quick and relatively just ending for the war. Half of the credit should go to the former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka who was stripped from his ranks for contesting against the president in the 2010 Presidential Election. Although Mr Rajapaksha was bombarding his post-war conduct and asserting that he has kept all the promises of his election manifesto, the only thing he has delivered was a country free from LTTE terrorist organization. Majority of Sri Lankans consider that is a legitimate reason for giving Mr. Rajapaksha another term. When a person is saved from the clutches of death, it is natural that he gets obliged to the savior forever. Most of the village communities in northern frontier are more than willing to vote for Mr. Rajapaksha regardless of his questionable post-war conduct.

Mr. Rajapaksha might have come with the legitimate objective in the first term to bring peace to the country either by waging a war or through peace talks. When the peace talks have failed, he boldly took the path of war (of course with the pressure from Sinhala nationalist parties like Jathika Hela Urumaya). After defeating the LTTE militarily, he had the golden opportunity none had before. He could have gone into the history books as the leader who not only waged a war and defeated a terrorist organization but as the person who brought a lasting peace and prosperity for the country but nothing has been done to address the root cause in the ethnic problem. There were two insurgencies in the past; in 1971 and 1988-89. The leaders back then at least partially try to address the causes for those uprisings but for the civil war, no progress whatsoever except for the LLRC report whose recommendations were not implemented at all although Mr Rajapaksha promised in his election manifesto. Hatred among communities is now at record high.

There are two main black marks for Mr. Rajapaksha’s government, long term economic decay and the erosion of democracy. Although it is good to have big development projects, a developing country like ours needs to prioritize its development goals. Lack of infrastructure still haunts rural communities. Irrigation, road network are underdeveloped. Tanks and canals are under-developed. Many small tanks in the North Central province are abandoned. It is not wrong to say that the irrigation system is in a poor state than which it was in 1500 years ago at the golden age Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa kingdoms. The main problem in the post-war development in Sri Lanka is the lack of prioritization of the development goals. Since a considerable amount of Sri Lankans still depend on the agriculture sector and primary industries, road network in the rural areas should have been developed. Decaying irrigation system should have been repaired to its full potential.

Concessions should have been given to the small industries sector but the government is at a spending frenzy on mega-development projects such as airports, seal-ports, high-rise towers which have little or no use apart from digital transmission and tourist attraction, expressways and performing arts theaters in which it takes a fortune to watch a show let alone to host one. Of course there is the contribution to the national economy from those projects but the positive impact on the livelihoods of the common man is nonexistent.  What is the use of development projects which doesn’t contribute to the benefit of the people? Fancy projects to show that a country is on a par with other developed countries are a common occurrence in oil-rich Middle Eastern countries. Can a country like Sri Lanka who barely lifting its head off from a civil war affords such petty things?

It is important to make the country attractive by building public spaces and extravagant waterfront properties. It is good to give foreign investors the chance to develop luxurious real estate projects. Indirectly it may create a positive impact on the booming tourism trade. But first things first; is it really important to fund the less important projects while neglecting infrastructural development in the key areas of the economy from which the majority of the people make their living from? Can they bask on the glory of Nelum Pokuna Mahinda Rajapaksha Rangahala, Maththara Mahinda Rajapaksha Airport, Magampura Mahinda Rajapaksha Port and Nelum Kuluna while struggling to get their food on the table? These projects can be done after ensuring the basic needs of the people are met. First there should be adequate number of industries or at least a long term plan to build heavy-industries for the building of a port in a remote part of Sri Lanka. Road network in the entire country should be brought to standard before building expressways crisscrossing the country. Most of these projects are funded by China. While giving the monetary support, Chinese companies undertake their construction by Chinese engineers and workers. They shrewdly pump the money back to China while making un indebted to China for the generations to come.

The problem not lies with these projects. We never think that these projects are not needed for a country but the time period of the projects is the problematic factor. The government always finishes last things first while the things needed to be done beforehand are either deliberately delayed or not done at all. That is the fundamental problem in the so called ‘development’ in this country. Unimportant but colossal projects fuel the President’s ego and carry on his legacy while extravagant commissions and frauds benefit the political goons behind him.

Today although there are petty concessions on fertilizers, lack of funding for the irrigation and long term agricultural development are creating a long term deterioration of agricultural sector. Today the agrarian community is facing a debt crisis like never before. Almost all of the small and medium sector agriculturalists are burdened with debt. People quitting the agricultural sector are a common occurrence. Still the government hasn’t a plan for agricultural exports even though there are plenty of opportunities in foreign market for staple crops and non-traditional exports. This is the bitter situation in a country ruled by a government which boasts about self-sufficiency in food while depending on foreign imports for the basic staple foods.

Situation in small industries is also bleak. Lack of demand in the local sector, high energy cost and inability to access foreign markets are the main problems in this sector. Electricity tariff for small industries sector is among the highest in the developing world. Only the multinational companies and mega-industries have the chance to survive in Sri Lanka making small industries an endangered species. The government is boasting about the emerging knowledge-based economy. That sector shows a marginal growth for now but with the brain-drain due to the unsatisfactory economic and social conditions in Sri Lanka will surely pose a major threat to this. Even now most of the upper-middle class educated people and students are not planning to stay in this country. Australia, New Zealand or Europe is their safe heaven. With the lack of funding for state sector education and higher education, other developing countries may soon take whatever small share secured by Sri Lankans in the new knowledge economy.

Erosion on democracy is the next problem. Mr. Rajapasha promised twice to abolish the executive presidency and failed. He had the chance but he deliberately retained from doing so. It is a truth that the power corrupts man. When someone has power above all, even above the law of the country, it is natural to feel greedy to secure the power forever and seek for more power. Mr. Rajapaksha did exactly that. He abolished the 17^th Amendment and brought the 18^th Amendment which removes the term limit of reappointment for the president and independent commissions implemented by the 17^th Amendment at the mercy of the President. We cannot blame solely the President. Two-third of the Parliament, even the people shouting against the President have voted in favor of it giving Rajapaksha a free reign to bring the democracy into the guillotine.

Are people willing to pledge allegiance to Mr. Rajapaksha? Of course there are. People may vote for Mr. Rajapaksha for mainly two reasons. One is on the gratitude for ending the war bringing peace. For the people in rural areas directly affected by the war and frontier communities in the North-Central and Eastern provinces, Mr. Rajapaksha is more of a God-like figure. It doesn’t matter even if he eradicates the democracy. People feel safe in his hands. There were no bomb-blasts in the country after the war. People can travel without any fear without the presence of military roadblocks and unpleasant security checks so it is natural that people tend to deeply fall in love with Mr. Rajapaksha as a strong personality with reassuring words is always the choice of the majority of people. For the supporters of Mr. Rajapaksha camp, jobs and business opportunities are not rare. It is just like ‘if you are with us, you’ll be alright, but if you go against us, that’s the end of you’. Since the politicization of the state sector people have to be on the winners’ side to survive. That may motivate many to vote for Mr. Rajapaksha.

On the other side, the join opposition is no good either. It is a common problem in Sri Lankan politics. There is no one whose hands are clean. People at the opposition will do the same if they got the power. This leaves the voters frustrated and may prevent a lot from either not voting for any main candidate or refusing to take part in the election process while leads to the death of the fundamental principal of democracy. Nevertheless, it is a progressive move by the opposition to pledge for a chance in the whole political system, a ‘new political culture’, they say. In theory it is appealing. Abolishing the executive presidency, reinstating the independent commission and making the executive responsible for the Parliament are progressive moves. They are also not impossible to achieve.

What Sri Lanka need is a change in the system, not a face change. What if the common opposition candidate be just like Mr. Rajapaksha. People may not be willing to take the risk of chasing one oppressor and electing another one same or even worse than the previous one. A system with properly implemented checks and balances is the only hope for Sri Lanka. It is not important who is going to give it. Mr Rajapaksha, the common candidate or anyone else but people should press on curbing of executive power, making the corruption and fraud minimized if not impossible and above all prioritizing the development goals serving everyone equally. We all are looking forward on 8^th of January with crossed finders and pounding hearts for a better election, a better system and a better country. 

Read More

Political Opinion, the Factors Contribute to it and How It Affects Us.

There are a handful of days to the Presidential Election 2015. Election heat was in the air never before. Even politically inactive people are fuelling the public opinion and actively participating in discussions about the election. Although Sri Lankans have some notion about the politics, most of them have not viewing politics in a balanced mind. Many factors have influenced their political inclination. The above mentioned situation is common in any country. Even the so-called developed democracies cannot escape from it but in Sri Lanka, party politics have gone to the extent that people have been blindly following what the media and politicians at political rallies have said. Even their family’s political inclination has affected to shape their opinion. The need for a politically sound population is needed to for a working democracy. After all democracy is all about people’s participation in their governance. Their independent and unbiased opinion should decide the fate of the government. Unfortunately, in Sri Lanka the question remains as to whether the elections represent the honest opinion of the people.

In this article, I have intended to analyze each of the factors which shape political inclination and the adverse effects of irrational political opinion.

Media

This is the most effective method shaping the political opinion. It is considered as the fourth organ of the government recognizing its impact on people. Nevertheless it is media is like a double edged sword. The principle task that the media is supposed to do is the deliver information for the public but not anyone’s opinion. The opinion has to be formed by media receivers. As expressed in the theme of one of the main news providers in Sri Lanka; ‘We report, you decide’. When looking at the behavior of Sri Lankan media today, serious doubts remain to their impartiality. There are mainly three kinds of media in Sri Lanka; government controlled state media, private media and social media. These three methods evolved with time.

From the independence, the government media has played the role of the government propaganda machine. Before the arrival of private media, the media monopoly lied with the government. It is not a secret that the even the governments which were relatively democratic to the present government has manipulated the media machinery to quash the opposition and sabotage trade union actions by spreading false information. Although, with the arrival of the private media companies, the state monopoly has lessened, but then the information flow vested in the hands of media tycoons who either has close links with the politicians or they themselves involve in politics. Manipulative work on the media previously done only by the government only has now taken over jointly by the private media tycoons and the government. The situation has worsen in the resent years polarizing the media field by rival factions of pro-government and anti-government media but now with almost all the private media are either owned by the people connected with the governing party or are supportive of the government, independent media has become virtually non-existent.

The pinnacle of the conduct of bias media can be seen in the days leading in to the presidential election 2015. Government media news items have become campaign advertisements for the incumbent president. The head of one of the government radio stations is in the vanguard of bashing the opposition candidate. His vocabulary cannot be justified under any civilized standard. In some rural parts of Sri Lanka, only the state media channels have the reach. Alternative media cannot contribute to the political opinion in those areas giving the government a free reign to bombard the rural community with anything regardless of the media ethics and standards of independent media. It is apparent in the so called government owned Independent Television Network which is all but ‘Independent’

Social media have been immensely popular among young and urban population and spreading like a wildfire to the other communities as well. Its relative independence and ease of access has led it to be the safe haven of many critics of the government. The digital divide (the polarization of the community by the access to information and communication technology) is limiting factor of this third front but it is not be underestimated as this is the main collaborator for many popular uprisings such as the Arab Spring. IT literacy among young people is growing fast. Mobile phone connections rose exponentially with the technology getting cheaper and cheaper social media is becoming a common factor in shaping the public opinion.

Family background

A child usually gets the perspective of his parents. Family and peers have profound effect on shaping how the child thinks. Even he is older enough to vote, the deep rooted political opinion of his family fuels his judgment. Sometimes it overpowers the rational thinking of a young voter. Children of ‘Die Hard’ party members have a higher tendency to follow their parent’s political opinion and become supporters of the same political party of their parents. Nowadays with the free access to social media and education, young people forming contradictory opinions from the age-old politics of their fathers and grandfathers are not an exception. This situation is a positive remark on the awareness and active involvement on rational politics by the young.

Education

Education, especially knowledge about politics and governance is important for a sound political opinion. Sadly, Sri Lankan education curriculum hasn’t offered a prominent place for political science and history. Only a part of the student population who choose Political Science for tertiary education will gain and insight to politics. Only a handful of youth know what is good governance, rule of law or separation of power. The majority of young minds may not get a sound political knowledge leading in to politically uneducated young population ready be exploited by politicians thus raising suspicions of a master plan by the politicians to create a politically unsound population by withholding the treasure trove of political knowledge from the youth.

 Rural and Urban

The aspirations of Sri Lanka’s rural and urban population are fundamentally different. Most of the rural community is either farmers or small industrialists. The farming community has its distinct needs such as better irrigation system, better prices for their crops etc. The lack of reach of alternative media leads to solid political opinion favorable for one party. It is not wrong to say that serious political issues and government corruption are not considered as factors in choosing candidates. A strong personality with an appealing looks and exaggerated ‘village roots’ will surely appeal to the rural community. When the youth in the villages go to cities for education and for work they might be changed but their peers and family members back in villages are always reluctant to be politically enlightened but there are positive changes with the lessening gap between urban and rural communities.

Urban community is politically active. They are the first to experience the economic policies of a government. Considerable amount of them have higher education standards than their rural counterparts. They tend to choose more liberal and capitalistic economic policies. That’s why the comparatively liberal United National Party has a sound political backing in urban centers while the nationalistic Sri Lanka Freedom Party has their strongholds in rural areas.

Religion, race and caste

Religion, race and caste have shaped politics unlike in any other country and it always will play a prominent part in the future. Minority communities such as Tamils, Muslims and Tamils living in up-country have their own political parties from which they’ve gain bargaining power with the governing party. Coalition governments with minority parties are a common occurrence. The questions remains whether these minority parties have done any progressive work for their community and whether the successive governments have done any favor for the minority communities although they have given ministerial posts for the leaders of those minority parties.

Caste is another issue which is becoming taboo but it plays a vital role in politics. It is an accepted reality that a low caste person cannot be the leader of Sri Lanka. Caste seems to be one of the issues that reduced votes for the common opposition candidate in the election in 2010. Sometimes caste has become the lottery for winning at elections for many provincial politicians because they can secure votes in villages of law caste people as they are always inclined to vote for the law caste candidate.

Most of the above discussed factors which shape the political opinion hinder the chance of taking a rational decision at elections. Some of the people who are blinded by their long established opinions are reluctant to make a change in the society. It is understandable that people become frustrated with the entire political system of Sri Lanka which circled around two political parties who are notorious for not keeping their election promises and not sticking in to their election manifestoes but this vicious system has to change now. Accountability has to be brought in to politics by somehow or other. It can only be done by the public choosing the candidates who are relatively honest, intelligent and capable candidates at elections.

Before we change the political system or politicians, our political opinion needs to be changed. We need to think differently about politics and set aside our pre-conceived notions fueled by media, our family or our race and religion. There are many promising young politicians emerging who really need to make a change. All of us need to rally before them and push them to implement a progressive change in Sri Lankan politics.  

Read More

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