[ad_1]
President Ranil Wickremesinghe has reportedly told cabinet ministers that the IMF program must be given priority to ensure economic stability and that the elections will be postponed until the IMF program ends. A newspaper report said the president had actually informed the Election Commission of the decision to postpone the elections as well.
With no postponement of the elections in sight, a new debate has now emerged, mainly in Colombo circles, as to whether the parliamentary elections demanded by Basil should be held before the presidential elections provided for by the constitution. President Wickremesinghe is said to have told Basil at the time that the presidential elections would be held as per the constitution, but if MPs needed to hold parliamentary elections earlier, they should pass a resolution in parliament. This would only require a simple majority vote. Since Mahinda Rajapaksa had also supported the proposal to hold parliamentary elections in the first place, Basil undoubtedly had the political influence to get the Sri Lanka People’s Party to introduce the parliamentary elections motion in parliament and pass it. But they knew that without their own presidential candidate, their future electoral politics would be a compromise with Wickremesinghe, and they had to leave room for a path to consensus.
The main opposition party in Parliament, the SJB, has said they have no intention of supporting Basil’s suggestion of holding parliamentary elections before the presidential election. They have made it clear that they want the presidential election to take place first. The JVP/NPP leadership is seriously considering a presidential election. They are campaigning for the presidency and have put forward Anura Kumara as their candidate, who they believe has already won the election. In summary, Colombo seems to want a presidential election to bring about “radical change”, which is the same rhetoric left behind by “aragalaya”, i.e. political chaos.
Sri Lanka does need “change”
Sri Lanka does in fact need “change”. Not just “radical change”, but huge change through a brand new constitution, including a complete overhaul of the entire state apparatus and politics of governance, right down to local government institutions. This change cannot be achieved through executive presidential elections. It requires a new parliament, the legislature, to legislate the comprehensive changes that the people want. Change starts with abolishing the “executive” presidency and returning “executive power” to parliament.
The abolition of the “executive” presidency was a promise and assurance given by the political parties to the people in various elections over the past 30 years. The JVP first demanded the abolition of the executive presidency in the October 1994 presidential election. After a bloody and brutal rebellion that was crushed by the state army with equally brutal means in late 1989, the scattered remnants of the JVP regrouped and openly contested in the August 1994 parliamentary elections, teaming up with Ariya Bulaguda’s Sri Lanka People’s Front (SLPF) to contest all constituencies except Jaffna, Vanni and Batticaloa. They received only 0.1% of the votes, but the new leadership was said to be expecting a total of more than 5% of the votes, with a few constituencies exceeding the mark. The JVP only fielded Nihal Galappaththi, a member of parliament from Hambantota district, who was nominated as a presidential candidate in the October 1994 presidential election.
After the parliamentary elections, they realized that they would not get even 0.1% of the vote in the presidential election and therefore reached a compromise with the Awami League (PA) presidential candidate Chandrika Kumaratung (CBK), who was expected to win the presidential election. Through negotiations with Minister Mangala Samaraweera, a very close personal ally of CBK, the Awami League’s demand to abolish the executive presidency within six months of being sworn in as president was sanctioned in writing and the Awami League withdrew their candidate in favor of CBK.
Interestingly, at that time, the Hindu’s Colombo correspondent met former president and architect of the presidential system Jayewardene and asked him, “Sir, you said the presidential system is so powerful that it can do more than just change gender. PA candidate Chandrika has promised to abolish the presidential system. What do you think about this?” Jayewardene, after his usual arrogant smile, told him, “Come and see me after the presidential system is abolished. I will tell you then.”
No political leader will abolish this power
Jayewardene was convinced that no political leader would abolish the power of the President while enjoying legal immunity, and they were eager to do so. In almost every election since October 1994, political leaders have tried to outdo each other by promising total abolition, immediate abolition, or even using elections to get a mandate to abolish the executive presidency, saying it was the sole cause of all the evils in the country, including super corruption. Thus, all our political parties that were usually represented in Parliament agreed to abolish the dangerous authoritarian presidency, but none of them took it seriously after being elected. From Mahinda Rajapaksa in November 2005 to Maithripala Sirisena in January 2015, the presidential candidates supported by the PPP have pledged to make the abolition of the presidency a top priority after being elected. In fact, during these campaigns, the PPP loudly called for the abolition of the presidency.
Now, the PPP, in a clear political fraud, has invested heavily in the election campaign to elect the PPP/NPP candidate, Anurag Kumara Dissanayake (AKD), as president, a brutal and authoritarian presidency that they have condemned and wanted abolished for the past 30 years as the sole cause of massive corruption. They are now silent on abolishing the presidency. Even more shameful is the political narrative they rely on, claiming that they will “use the power given to them by the people to elect AKD as president to create a society with dignity and equality for all”.
Sri Lanka is indeed at a crossroads
Sri Lanka is undoubtedly at a crossroads and there is no way out. No one in mainstream politics is capable of taking the country on the right path towards a free, democratic and inclusive society with socio-economic and cultural development. These political leaders simply do not have an effective “development plan” to back up their criticism of the past and present and their demands for political power in the next “presidential” election. The bigger crisis is therefore the timidity of the educated urban polity, which has access to new information, new knowledge and new social discourse that transcends geographical boundaries. They need to acknowledge that they have a social responsibility and need to intervene to create a realistic and effective social dialogue and put pressure on the government to stick to it. Their almost complete absence of independent intervention in social dialogue has allowed political parties with their own sectarian agendas, with laundered black money, to manipulate the media, especially social media, to dominate social thought in urban circles. The country is therefore in dire need of an alternative, realistic intervention to decide how to achieve new and effective changes. First, the creation of a social lobby that can independently engage and solve the people’s problems. Next is the creation of a government that is accountable for the necessary changes. Then it’s about holding the government accountable for change and implementing the necessary reforms every step of the way, rather than engaging in self-interest as usual and only waking up when an election is needed.
So the question is not to re-elect a president to the same president that was condemned, recognized by society as a dictator and therefore promised to be abolished, to transfer executive power back to parliament. The president cannot abolish the presidency. The president cannot legislate necessary reforms. The president cannot allocate public funds for social necessities. All this requires a parliamentary government with an active social lobby to hold the elected government accountable to the people. So we are at a crossroads and need a new political phenomenon where the people decide the elections, the next government and most importantly hold the government accountable in the performance of its duties, led by a more favorable urban polity. Well, they have to accept that their social responsibility is much heavier than they are willing to accept.
—Kusal Pereira
[ad_2]
Source link
