Category: Foreign Affairs

By Laksiri Fernando –

It is only four days to go for the Independence Day celebrations. It seems that the good input from the Minister of Foreign Affairs has come to make the celebrations far more meaningful. Earlier indication was to have the day on the theme of ‘wholesome motherland, dignified tomorrow’ (piripun maubimak, abiman heta dinak).

That was adequate if Sri Lanka have been to celebrate the occasion under standard circumstances. However, Sri Lanka is now moving away from the previous Rajapaksa policy of ‘belligerence’ and ‘militarism’ and as a result it is more pertinent to have the theme of ‘National Unity and Reconciliation’ in addition or in its spot.

It is now announced that ‘A Statement of Peace’ will be produced at the 67^th Independence Day celebrations based on some of the important principles of the LLRC Report. The Cabinet has authorized a joint proposal by the Acting Foreign Minister and the Minister of House Affairs to this effect on Wednesday.

There are two organizations, 1 primarily based in Colombo and the other outdoors the country, in Sydney, which have proposed that the National Anthem be sung in both Sinhala and Tamil at the Independence Day celebrations as a mark of country’s commitment to national unity. The Colombo based organization is the Friday Forum (FF) and the Sydney primarily based organization is the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Forum (SLRF). This is apart from a number of men and women and writers raising the issue of the bilingual national anthem. Although the Friday Forum issued a public statement (25 January 2015) to this effect amongst other matters, the SLRF has directly written to the President, Maithripala Sirisena, on this and a number of other matters (27 January 2015).

Let me initial quote the relevant section from the Friday Forum statement below.

“We urge that the celebrations be kept basic and dignified with out major military and military hardware demonstrating parades, floats, and the use of school young children. The occasion ought to promote new standards of straightforward and disciplined lifestyles. Most essential is to use the opportunity to remember the victims of the civil conflicts which Sri Lanka has endured because independence, to pledge our collective commitment to peace and reconciliation, and to resolve that there need to by no means be such violence in our country once more. We get in touch with upon the government, as a sign of our commitment to national unity, to guarantee that the national anthem is sung in each Sinhala and Tamil, and that this practice be continued.”

Just before quoting the mentioned letter to the President by the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Forum, let me briefly outline the importance of emphasising ‘national unity and reconciliation’ at the Independence Day celebrations.

Some Past Landmarks

When the Independence Day was celebrated in 1948 and even thereafter, for some years to come, the event resembled one particular of the colonial events with couple of of the artifices of the new nation state. The flag and the national anthem have been of the latter genre. As Nira Wickremasinghe noted (Sri Lanka in the Contemporary Age: A History), it was like the Golden Jubilee celebrations of Queen Victoria with flag hosting, military parades, religious ceremonies, speeches and acts of charity. The acts of charity integrated the distribution of rice packets to the poor and five cents!

The elitist nature of the celebrations largely changed right after 1956, but as an alternative, practically the exclusive Sinhala character of the event predominated. From the beginning, there was an attempt to more than- establish the Sinhala identity over the celebrations. This was a usual ethnic competition. It was not only a query of equality but the lack of inclusiveness.

Sri Lanka adopted the National Anthem in 1952. There have been no actual qualms of possessing it in Tamil at the beginning. In many celebrations, particularly in bicultural contexts, it was sung in both languages. An ambiguity was created when the Sinhala only version became incorporated in the 1978 Constitution as the Fourth Schedule. There was no certain necessity for a constitution to incorporate a national anthem at all. Ironically, it was the same constitution which recognized Tamil as a national language and thereafter as an Official Language in the 13th Amendment in 1987.

The matters became considerably worse in the course of the war. There was retaliation. There had been instances where the national anthem or even the national flag could not be employed in Tamil speaking areas. As Apratim Mukarji (Sri Lanka: A Unsafe Interlude) reported, the national anthem could not be utilised even at a sports event in Vavuniya in October 2004. This occurred throughout the ceasefire period. One particular of the most impacted Independence Day celebrations simply because of the war was in 2008. A quantity of bombs exploded setup by the LTTE in Colombo exactly where 12 civilians plus a soldier had been killed.

Right after May possibly 2009

Maybe it was again as a retaliation to some of these incidents that the military did not let the singing of the national anthem in Tamil language in Northern regions soon after May possibly 2009. They insisted that it need to be sung only in Sinhalese, even by the Tamil (only) speaking college kids. Even so, retaliation was not the appropriate policy on anyone’s element. Then there was mistaken ‘theorization’ that only in one language that a country ought to have its national anthem overlooking several of the other nations like South Africa, Switzerland, Canada, Belgium and so forth. The ‘theory’ became accepted by the Rajapaksa cabinet in 2010.

A lot worse was the way the Independence Day celebrations were held after 2009. It once more took an imperial glamour. The Rajapaksas went around the country with heavy military hardware to commemorate not the independence but the war victory in May 2009. I never ever had any problem with defeating the LTTE militarily. It was a political or a military necessity which must have been kept at that. Apart from particular atrocities that have been justified, directly and indirectly, ‘triumphalism’ was the tone of the Independence Day celebrations.

It is not only the Tamils in the North who felt excluded from the Independence Day celebrations. Daniel Bass who researched on the problem (Each day Ethnicity in Sri Lanka, p. 43) commented that “Sri Lanka’s Independence Day on February 4 has tiny meaning to most Up-country Tamils…” This was not the case amongst the Muslims previously, but things have changed significantly in current years.

It is not only in the North that these sort of difficulties of conflict existed in the country in the past. When R. Premadasa was elected to the Presidency in January 1989, 1 of his problems was what to do with the JVP? He utilized the Independence Day celebrations to appeal to the nation to desist violence and come to the primary stream. It didn’t perform quickly, but had an effect in the extended run. That was a sensible approach for social reconciliation, elimination of social alienation.

No one can say the circumstance is comparable right now or Premadasa was completely right particularly in respect of the LTTE. The predicament these days is considerably greater. The LTTE is no a lot more. The key political celebration of the Tamil neighborhood, the TNA is cooperating. Even they sit with the JVP and the JHU in the National Executive Council. For that reason, what Maithripala Sirisena could do at this Independence Day celebrations as the President is to make a genuine appeal to every person and all communities to work towards reconciliation.

In respect of the national anthem what may possibly be most acceptable is the recommendation of the LLRC. Soon after observing two views expressed by those who gave proof, the LLRC recommended the following in para eight.296.

“On the question of the National Anthem, the practice of the National Anthem getting

sung simultaneously in two languages to the identical tune need to be maintained and supported. Any adjust in this practice at the present time would only produce a major irritant which would not be conducive to fostering post conflict reconciliation.”

SLRF Letter to the President

This is exactly what the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Forum (Sydney) has also asked from the President, in a letter dated 27 January 2015 amongst other items. The Reconciliation Forum is an organization of a group of Australians of Sri Lankan origin belonging to all ethnic communities specifically living in Sydney and New South Wales with an open door policy for any individual interested in reconciliation to join. They pursue reconciliation both in Sri Lanka and in Australia.

The letter has congratulated the President on his election and in the appointment of Ranil Wickremasinghe as Prime Minister. They say, the “SLRF strongly believes that your election, which was endorsed by people of all ethnic and religious communities, would pave the way for national reconciliation in addition to democratization of the nation.” They also say:

“We complete heartedly assistance the ‘100 Day’ Program and think that you would also do your utmost to take the initial steps towards creating national reconciliation (while safeguarding national safety) inside the identical one hundred day period.”

They are especially cheerful about the formation and the composition of the National Executive Council which includes virtually all the relevant political parties and a specific mention is created about the TNA’s participation. What they have not stated about is the desirable inclusion of the leader of the opposition in the Council.

The concentrate of their letter being on reconciliation, they have appreciated the following 3 steps so far in that path.

• Appointment of a civilian Governor for the Northern Province.
• Lifting of the ban on overseas passport holders to check out the North and East.
• Appointing a Committee to look into the military presence and land connected concerns.

As it was mentioned previously, they have expressed that, as they say, “We hope that you would enable and encourage the National Anthem to be sung in each Sinhalese and Tamil starting with this Independence Day celebrations.” One particular of their major focuses has been on the “full implementation of the LLRC recommendations,” by “ensuring a effectively-resourced and powerful mechanism firmly in spot to do this.” The letter advocates a synergy amongst excellent governance and reconciliation as a corollary of democratization in the nation and says the following.

“We strongly think in the reintroduction of the 17^th Amendment, which along with the setting up of the needed Independent Commissions and the abolition of the executive presidency, would pave the way for good governance, accountability and guaranteeing the independence of judiciary and rule of law, which in order will boost the reconciliation approach.”

Yet another highlight of their letter has been on human rights. For that reason, they have emphasized “the value of safeguarding and promoting human rights by way of a mixture of channels, which includes legislation, institutional mechanisms and education” and expressed the view that “This, we believe, should have an additional focus on ethnic, religious and social reconciliation and understanding.” The following appears to be their motive behind their letter and the efforts for reconciliation.

“Though living in Australia, we are deeply committed to helping Sri Lanka create as a peaceful and just democracy exactly where all the citizens of the country can appreciate the fruits of its prosperity and growth.”

It appears that this is only an initial letter that they have sent. They have said, “As it is not achievable to place forward all our proposals in this quick letter, we would appreciate if you could kindly inform us of any institution or particular person with whom we need to communicate to submit our proposals and go over methods in which we can contribute.” Possibly what they are pointing out is the lack of a focal point for reconciliation at present (i.e. a Minister or President himself taking up the initiative) for them to submit their proposals or tips.

The letter is signed by Samira Wanigatunga, Sris Ponniahpillai and Shanaz Razeem, on behalf of the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Forum. Copies of the letter also have been or are getting sent to the Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe Minister for Resettlement, Reconstruction and Hindu Religion, D. M. Swaminathan Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mangala Samaraweera Higher Commissioner for Sri Lanka in Australia Higher Commissioner for Australia in Sri Lanka and all Members of the National Executive Council.

By Tisaranee Gunasekara –

“Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my personal safety’s sake!” &#8211 Robert Bolt (A Man for all Seasons)

Mohan Pieris had to go. Regrettably the indicates utilised to eject him seem also Rajapaksa-like for comfort.

Right after they got rid of Shirani Bandaranayake by way of an illegal-impeachment, the Rajapaksas could have replaced her with one more Supreme Court justice or a legal luminary with some degree of independence. Alternatively they chose Mohan Peiris, a man infamous as a Rajapaksa-cipher. By doing so the Rajapaksas indicated clearly the subservient and partisan function allotted to the judiciary in their Sri Lanka.

Mr. Pieris did not disappoint his masters. He acted not as the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka but as the Rajapaksa Chief Justice. Provided this record, his questionable presence in the Temple Trees in the early hours of the morning-soon after-elections is hardly questionable. As ‘Chief Justice’ he created Sarath N Silva seem a model of probity and rectitude. That is saying fairly a lot.

Mr. Pieris could have resigned honourably but he opted not to. Yet another impeachment with an clearly preordained outcome would have turned the whole procedure into a negative joke.

Probably the legal technicality used by the government is a valid one. Nevertheless items could have been done in a manner which did not look so arbitrary, so redolent of abuse of energy. At the least, the President could have informed the parliament and the nation formally of what he intended to do and why &#8211 just before it was accomplished. Maybe parliamentary approval and judicial sanction could have been sought. Such measures may possibly have been absolutely nothing much more than window-dressings, but their absence bares the excessive use of executive energy and of political muscle.

The alleged depredations of Provincial Councillor Azath Salley render the entire saga even uglier. Mr. Pieris has lodged a complaint accusing Mr. Salley of threatening him. That complaint need to be investigated speedily and impartially, and if tenable, Mr. Salley have to be brought prior to the law. Mr. Pieris was an execrable chief justice but a technique which fails to provide him the protection he is entitled to as a Lankan citizen is no greater than him – or his Rajapaksa masters.

Political sins cast quite lengthy shadows. The very first episode in the ugly drama of the final few days was enacted for the duration of the presidency of Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. Desiring a more amenable judiciary, she bypassed Justice Mark Fernando and gave the CJ position to her handpicked-favourite, Sarath N Silva. Mr. Fernando had carried out significantly to defend the fundamental rights of the citizen against the excesses of the state and the government. He was learned, fearless and impartial. Because there was no way to impugn his impeccable character, it was whispered that his religion (he was a Catholic) made him ‘unsuitable’ to be the Chief Justice and that the Chief Justice ought to be a Buddhist. Lankan judiciary never ever recovered from that outrage. (Ironically, a couple of years later, the JHU utilised the same ‘religious’ argument to advance the claims of Mahinda Rajapaksa to the premiership, over the far a lot more appropriate Lakshman Kadiragarmar).

The new Chief Justice will be the senior-most member of the Supreme Court. That is the only commendable point in this really murky saga. That the post of Chief Justice is provided according to seniority ought to be turned into a constitutional provision. Such a provision together with the restoration of independent commissions can hopefully bring to a definitive end the deadly practice of the executive/legislature interfering in the judiciary.

The manner in which Mohan Pieris was ejected have to not grow to be an additional lethal precedent. That danger can be averted only via a new constitutional arrangement which revitalises and strengthens separation of powers.

Premier-Presidentialism

The transition from Rajapaksa familial rule to democratic normalcy is a complex affair due to the very nature of the Rajapaksa project. The Siblings’ goal was to turn the Lankan state into a patrimonial oligarchy. Consequently a conscious work was made to impose familial dominance on every little thing, from the military to the judiciary, from the bureaucracy to the economy.

The alter Sri Lanka is experiencing is as a result a lot more than the common replacement of one particular government with yet another. The National Executive Council (NEC) is a distinctive experiment born out of the specificity of this conjuncture. In that structure, the JVP and the UNP, the TNA, the SLMC and the JHU are functioning together with a degree of maturity which would have been unimaginable just a month ago.

This week, the controversial UPFA politician Nishantha Muthuhettigama informed the media that “a Mahinda Rajapaksa era will be born in this country once again in 3 and a half months”[i]. His statement indicates, again, that diehard kith and kin are dreaming/plotting a Mahinda Rajapaksa comeback. Preventing such an outcome is in the interests of not just the former ‘Common Opposition’ but also the post-Rajapaksa SLFP. The new Leader of Opposition also ought to be brought into the NEC, to render the entity a lot more representative and to enhance the isolation of Rajapaksa-diehards within the SLFP/UPFA.

According to media reports the NEC has reached agreement on a constitutional amendment replacing the executive presidency with a dual-executive system. Even though information are not offered, the new arrangement is likely to veer towards a premier-presidential program rather than a presidential-parliamentary method. A premier-presidential program will mean that the PM and the cabinet are accountable exclusively to the elected parliament. It will also prune a lot of of the presidential powers. The resultant division of executive energy amongst the president and the prime minister in conjunction with the Independent Commissions will restore separation of powers in a a lot more strengthened form and give the Opposition a actual say in governance. This new democratic amalgam (including a hybrid electoral system and the Correct to Details Act) will generate critical systemic impediments to the overweening ambitions of energy-hungry political leaders.

Economics enabled Maithripala Sirisena to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa. As a result paying attention to economic needs of the ordinary folks is vital to avoid a Rajapaksa return to power. So far the new government has acted in a manner which has made people hopeful about significant improvements in their living situations.

There is a need to have to make ordinary individuals, specially amongst the majority community, realize the degree to which the Rajapaksas abused power and state resources. But the existing practice of running hither and thither right after rumoured racing automobiles and sea planes need to be replaced with a much more orderly and legal work to uncover Rajapaksa excesses.

Crimes need to not go unpunished. But at instances like this, the line in between justice and revenge can be a quite fine a single. The new leaders need to make certain that their a lot more radical supporters do not overstep that line. Replacing prosecution with persecution would be contrary to ‘good governance’ and intelligent governance.

Zeal for justice have to be tempered with doses of mercy, practicality and prudence enabling the Rajapaksas to don martyrs’ robes will be a negative notion indeed. In the absence of written orders it will be impossible to make legally tenable charges about the alleged coup. But when it comes to the billions the Rajapaksas owe the state for the use of buses, helicopters and media for election purposes – these will be open-and-shut situations certainly.

[i] Ada Derana – News – 26.1.2015

By Sumanasiri Liyanage –

Given that the profitable execution of one hundred days plan of President Maithripala Sirisena is crucial to the future of his strategy for a national government, it is instructive to redo it via the reflection of the aspirations and hopes as they have been expressed by the folks at the election. Of course distinct peoples have had various expectations and hopes. At least their priorities could be different. The interests of the urban middle class when they voted at the final election may have been democracy and very good governance. Practically all may have been despised bribery and corruption. However, numerically modest nations would have seen election as a space of raising the problem of security and guarding their identity. It appears the government is now functioning on bringing in 19th Amendment to the Constitution by repealing the infamous 18th Amendment that negated independent commission set up by the 17th Amendment. Also it allowed president to hold office more than twice. We nevertheless do not know for certain what would be integrated in the 19th Amendment, but it appears it will be in line with the proposal submitted by Rev Athuraliya Rathana, MP and his pivithuru lowak movement. As the 100 days system was careful in even mentioning the national query, the problem may possibly not be specifically be addressed in the 19th Amendment.

In my opinion, there is a major drawback in the pre- as nicely as post- election democracy discourse in Sri Lanka. Mr Sumanthiran, a TNA leader was reported to have said that the reestablishment of democracy in basic will assist the numerically tiny nations in general and Tamils in certain. I do not contest that, but the establishment of democracy in general is not adequate for the resolution of the specific democratic troubles of the numerically small nations. It is instructive to note that common democracy prevailed in the 1st two decades soon after independence, but democracy of numerically small nations, especially of Tamils were curtailed in the same period later leading to an armed conflict. Both Lenin and Trotsky defining democracy in broad historical terms recommended three main tasks of democratic transformation, namely (1) democratization of the state (two) national integration that incorporate self-determination of oppressed nations and (3) resolution of the agrarian query, i.e, abolishing feudal and pre-capitalist remnants in the rural sector. Mr Sumanthiran and several other individuals focused only on the very first aspect of democratic transformation and their discussion was confined to its positive side effects on numerically smaller nations. My submission is that this restricted version of democracy will not assist in attaining democratic transition in Sri Lanka. The second and the third issues ought to be consciously addressed and incorporated in the struggle for democracy. I add. If we are rereading and enriching the 100 days program in the light of electoral expertise, particular proposals on those issues ought to be integrated.

It is interesting to see that some top members of the new government have observed the national query as an issue that is inescapable. Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera has in India raised that the new government will go for de-militarization of the North and East. It is commendable and the appointment of civilian Governor to the Northern Province ought to be duly appreciated. As far as we know the Governor of the Eastern Province had imposed so a lot of restrictions for functioning of elected provincial council. Has he been removed?

Prime Minister, Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe, has also mentioned the implementation of the 13th Amendment. He mentioned: &#8220We will introduce these reforms whilst preserving the unitary character of the Constitution. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution will be implemented subject to that principle.&#8221 The statement sounds promising, but the qualification is absurd. 13th Amendment was introduced inside the framework of unitary state as enshrined in the Write-up two of the Constitution. What is the which means of the qualifier, ‘subject to [unitary] principle’?

I do not argue that in subsequent 100 days the nation need to move from unitary state to federal state. I prefer to adopt a reformist position in spot of a revolutionary position in constitution-making and state restructuring. Such a strategy would avoid putting undue stress on the new government. So it is instructive to appear at doable reforms within a brief period, could be in one hundred days, to address the burning problem of national question that has been evolved in the final ten years incorporating new dimensions. Let me suggest 4 reforms that can be implemented without having two third majority in the Parliament.

1. 13th Amendment need to be implemented completely and the restricted police and land powers in the Amendment must be devolved to the Provincial Councils without additional delay.
2. LLRC report advised separation of the police force from the Ministry of Defence. It need to be gazette that the Department of Police be integrated in the Property Ministry.
3. Mr. Somapala Gunadheera wrote in the Island last week that the provincial Governor need to be the alter agent in the province. Recently, Rev. Maduluwave Sobhitha has also attempted to inflate the position of Provincial Governor. I consider this view might destroy the notion of devolution decreasing it to mere decentralization. Therefore, the Chief Minister and the Cabinet must be produced principal modify agents in the province and all district secretaries should be put under the Provincial Secretary as far as functioning of the provincial subjects are concerned. As a result Provincial Secretary should be the principal executive officer of the province. To facilitate this procedure, de-militarization of the North and Eastern Province is imperative.
4. An amendment to the constitution has to be introduced mainly due to the fact of the inadequacy of the 13th Amendment to Constitution as a answer to the national query. The concept of federalism was rejected by many in the past arguing Sri Lanka is a small country. Federalism requires into account not only the concerns of size in the country but a lot more importantly diversity of the country. Nevertheless, the existing situation will not permit to go for a major surgery in the field of constitution-generating. Additionally, the concern of Muslims goes beyond territoriality. There is non-territorial dimension in Tamil and Kandyan Tamil question as well. How could we address this concern? I would suggest a setting up of a bicameral legislature. The second chamber elected by an electoral college consisting of all elected provincial councilors following the Ponnambalam Principle of 50: 50 that in my opinion a single of most innovative proposal for constitution-creating in a diverse society. What does it imply? I propose 35 member of second chamber. Out of 35, 15 need to be elected by Sinhala Provincial Councilors and 15 by the provincial councilors belonging to other nationalities. The Election commissioner may choose how 15 seats allocated on the basis of their respective population share. The remaining 5 members may possibly be appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council to represent Malays (1), Burghers (1), Veddas (1), Colombo Chettis (1) and others (1). Any legislation that has an impact on ethnicity and religion can to be vetoed by the second chamber. 20th Amendment to the constitution may possibly set up a second chamber and amendment may also contain a minor adjust to several articles of the Constitution which includes Report 4 (a). Does it need a referendum? I do not feel so, but legal experts can give a definite answer to that question.

*The writer is the co-coordinator of the Marx College &#8211 e-mail: [email protected]

By Dayan Jayatilleka –

There are at least two basic challenges facing the new Sri Lankan government and each are of extended standing. 1 is the North-South question, which is my shorthand for what is variously known as the Tamil National Query or the ethnic dilemma. The other is the South-South Question.

While this latter naturally embraces the celebration political competition, which is now intra-party as properly as an inter-celebration concern, that is not the hub of the difficulty. The crux of the South-South difficulty right now is that of forms of government: Presidential or parliamentary.

The North-South and South-South difficulties intersect and interact, since they combine into issues not merely of forms of government, but forms of state. The possibilities are:

(a) Presidential/unitary

(b) Presidential/non-unitary

(c) Parliamentary/unitary and

(d) Parliamentary/non-unitary.

Within the new government there are two positions concerning matters of program and structure. They are each flawed, but a single is much less flawed than the other.

The very first position is that of the abolition of the executive Presidency, by which is meant the transfer of the executive powers and function from the presidency to the Parliament, basically the Cabinet and the PM. This position is that of the shift from Presidential to Prime Ministerial government. In Sri Lankan terms it is a reversion to the pre-1978 predicament of a neo-Westminster model. Inasmuch as the state is formally characterized as unitary, it is the reversion to the 1st Republic of 1972 rather than the non-republican classically Westminster model contained in the Soulbury Constitution. In stricter terms, it is a dismantling of what Prof AJ Wilson called “the Gaullist method in Asia” (1980), i.e. the French model of the Fifth Republic (with no the important element of secularism), instituted by President JR Jayewardene in 1978 and the restoration of a quintessentially British (colonial) model.

Politically, this very first position is shared by Ranil Wickremesinghe, Chandrika Kumaratunga, the TNA and the JVP. Ranil and Chandrika quantity to what I would contact the ‘UNP Plus’, with the Plus standing not for the SLFP but the neoliberal ideologues of the CBK Sudu Nelum constituency. It would not be inaccurate to say that if one particular had been to exclude the JVP, the advocates, like the born again advocates of the abolitionist agenda are the old ‘peace constituency’.

The second position within the new Sri Lankan government is not that of the abolition of the executive Presidency but its drastic shrinkage, leaving it with certain core or residual powers. I call this a skeletal and minimalist, but not merely nominal, Presidency. This notion holds that the Presidency should retain the portfolio of Defence and absolutely nothing else or nothing at all else of significantly importance. The votaries of this view are hardcore supporters of President Sirisena, ideologues of the erstwhile Reformist (‘rebel’) faction of the UNP, and the JHU. They appear to be concerned about the centrifugal consequences, not least the ethnically centrifugal consequences, of the de-facto abolition of the executive Presidency by means of the wholesale transfer of executive powers to the Cabinet and the PM.

My personal position is a third a single, which I fondly believe is the unvoiced sentiment of the majority of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party. Quite obviously the nation has to bid farewell to the maximalist Presidency of the Jayawardene vintage, which reached its zenith with Mahinda Rajapaksa’s 18^th amendment and the abolition of term limits. Nevertheless, the answer is neither abolition nor even a minimalist Presidency. It resides in what I would recommend is a Buddhist-Aristotelian viewpoint in which one need to search for the Middle Path and the Golden Mean.

The essence of the Buddhist-Aristotelian paradigm is the avoidance of excess. This would imply the identification of the excessive powers of the Sri Lankan Presidency and their deletion, transfer or diffusion/sharing. This avoids the twin extremes of maximalism and minimalism.

All of this sounds quite good but how would it perform out in reality? It is genuinely really simple indeed. The Aristotelian tradition originated in the comparative study of the Constitutions of the Greek city states. In order to stay away from controversy, let us set aside the Eurasian Presidential models such China, Russia, Vietnam. Let us instead appear at the most exemplary variants of Presidentialism inside the liberal-democratic tradition, Western and Eastern worldwide Northern and Southern. These are US, France, Brazil, South Africa, Philippines, Indonesia and South Korea. Whatever powers, role and functions that the Sri Lankan Presidency possesses, which are not amongst these that these liberal democratic Presidencies appreciate, should be shed. All powers enjoyed by the liberal democratic Presidencies in the above described states, need to be retained.

Succinctly place, my perspective is one particular of structural reform and re-engineering as opposed to systemic modify. I urge that the Executive Presidential technique of the Second Republic (1978) stay, but by no implies untouched. Whilst the “Gaullist System in Asia” as Prof AJ Wilson defined it, should stay, that system demands structural reforms, not abolition or gutting.

Concretely, I do not see the need to have for something qualitatively a lot more than the replacement of the 18^th amendment with the restoration of the two term limit and the entrenchment of an independent public service (abolished only recently by President Rajapaksa, but initially and for decades by the Sirimavo-Felix-Colvin troika in 1972).

The centrist method to Constitutional change that I have outlined here has as an accompaniment, the outlook of gradualism. It needs deliberation, discussion, debate, examination, indeed dispassionate scrutiny—and by large all inclusive and representative collective body so as to ensure broad national consensus. A Constitution should evolve it must not be overturned or overthrown. A Hundred Day quickly-track is precisely the wrong a single for fundamental constitutional alter.

By Izeth Hussain –

Say not the struggle naught availeth – Arthur Hugh Clough

Practically nothing straight can ever be made out of the crooked timber of humanity – Immanuel Kant

Following the Presidential elections which are extensively regarded as obtaining been “stunning”, most Sri Lankans are now engaged in attempting to appraise their significance. We have to start by trying to establish why precisely Mahinda Rajapaksa lost. In my post “Following the elections”, published on January ten but sent to the Editor nicely just before the election outcomes were announced, I wrote, “If Maithripala Sirisena squeaks by way of, or wins with a substantial majority as I have been confidently expecting, the prospects will be much brighter for a restoration of a fully functioning democracy”. The underlying cause for my confident expectation was something that has been properly-known considering that people started living under the State, by which I mean amongst other items a centralized physique holding exclusive coercive energy. It has been established beyond dispute that energy tends to go to the head, an excess of power tends to go excessively to the head, from which follows folly and hubris, the pride that goes just before nemesis, the fall. It seemed to me that MR especially by his participation in the creation of an utterly egregious Muslim ethnic problem showed folly and hubris of an order that had to lead to his nemesis.

                                    That was the underlying cause for my confident expectation of his nemesis. The a lot more distinct causes had been as follows. Like virtually everyone else I anticipated a massive minorities vote against him. But given that the minorities are only 25% of the population their vote would have been far from sufficing to defeat MR. For that there had to be a substantial drop in the Sinhalese vote for him. I was confident about that drop primarily for two factors, the initial of which was that men and women – especially in the modern globe – want adjust since there is a prospect of alter for the greater or due to the fact a government has become stale by way of lengthy durance. MR had been in energy for ten years and the SLFP for twenty years, and it seemed affordable to count on that a significant proportion of the individuals would really feel that adequate is sufficient. The require for governmental alter needs analysis since it seems to involve a lot far more than the superficial attraction of novelty: the want for the new could spring from a deep human desire for self-renewal. My second purpose for expecting MR’s nemesis was that the modern day market place-oriented capitalist economy breeds inequality and hardship for a significant proportion of the individuals, and this seems to be true even when the economy is reasonably effectively-managed – as it apparently was under the final Government. To bolster my argument I cited books by Thomas Piketty and John Gray, and given that then I have come across Joseph Stiglitz’s The Price of Inequality. I need to have not go into particulars about how financial inequality and hardship could influence on the voters.

By now there have been several professional analyses of the election results and the picture seems to be reasonably clear. 80% of the Tamils voted against MR, and an even larger percentage of the Muslims did so. MR got 55% of the Sinhalese votes, representing a clear Sinhalese majority, but that figure represents a large drop of 10% from the 65% that he scored in the previous election. These statistics can of course be interpreted in various methods. MR declared at a public meeting in his property electorate that he lost due to the fact the minorities in the North, East, and the Nuwara Eliya district voted against him. They can also be interpreted to mean that MR lost simply because the minorities voted against him massively and in addition he failed to get an sufficient proportion of the Sinhalese votes to compensate for that loss. Each interpretations could be valid but MR and other folks who have been pushing the racist neo-Fascist line would prefer the former interpretation. That would point to a sharpening of the ethnic polarization.

However, even though the ethnic polarization continues we need to now view it in the context of a new political configuration that has been taking shape in recent years, a improvement that I believe is of immense significance for Sri Lanka’s future. I refer to the convergence of our two main parties, the UNP and the SLFP. The cross-overs that have been taking location on both sides is certainly a deplorable phenomenon considering that they are motivated for the most part, though not necessarily often, by the drive for money and power. But there is a good aspect to the cross overs since they signify that the policies and practices of the two parties have turn into largely interchangeable, although there could be significant variations of emphasis. The market-oriented economy has come to remain for each parties, the welfare network has not been dismantled, and now that the Cold War is more than their foreign policies are much more or significantly less the very same.

The convergence signified by the cross overs became spectacular when the SLFP stalwart Maithripala Sirisena crossed over to become the widespread Opposition candidate of a coalition in which the main element was the UNP. He contested the elections although retaining his position in the SLFP, and he won the Sinhalese votes mostly in the regions traditionally dominated by the UNP. Soon after his victory he has been established as SLFP leader, but he heads a Cabinet that consists largely of UNP members. The Island of January 21, in but one more of its perceptive editorials, has noted a glaring anomaly. MS will have to select the SLFP’s Prime Ministerial candidate for the Basic Elections scheduled for April. “He will be faced with the unenviable process of major the UPFA’s election campaign from the front and convincing the public that his personal party’s prime ministerial candidate is much better than the Prime Minister he has just appointed – Ranil Wickremasinghe.” Other anomalies have been aired in letters to the Editor. The explanation for them is the convergence to which I am pointing.

The convergence obviously calls for in-depth analysis which I can’t undertake here. Fundamentally it has to be along the following lines. The transformation effected in 1956 had a truly revolutionary character. It represented the upsurge of the lower middle class and the underprivileged castes led by the 3 low-nation castes against the hitherto dominant Westernized bourgeoisie of the Western littoral. For the most portion they lacked higher education, expert qualifications, and they lacked the capital and expertise to thrive in company, which meant that they could make their upward ascent only via a large state sector. That was the basis for the “socialism” that prevailed in numerous Afro-Asian nations. Since the ‘seventies the market economy has prevailed over the state-centric a single, there has been phenomenal economic growth, and the erstwhile lean cats of the SLFP have grow to be fat cats not significantly different from the UNP fat cats. That seems to be the most important purpose for the convergence.

I will now situate our ethnic problems in relation to the new political configuration that is taking shape due to the fact of the element of convergence. The election benefits certainly signified an exhilarating victory for democracy against dictatorship. They ought to also be noticed as an exhilarating victory for democracy against the racist neo-Fascism for which MR became notorious right after 2009, which was ideal noticed in the humiliations heaped on the Tamils in the North and the blatant backing for the anti-Muslim campaign. The victory became achievable not only because of the votes of the minorities. Even more crucial was the truth that a large segment of the Sinhalese individuals joined them.

I see a new political configuration taking spot with our two main parties converging and becoming more democratic and less racist than in the past, with the enormous gain that our politics will turn into less conflictual and more consensual, conducing to some sense of national unity in this badly divided nation. But the issue will stay of hard-core racists who are present in each key parties and have been specifically virulent in the SLFP. They should be extruded from each key parties to kind a neo-Fascist Party. The international climate for such a party is quite favorable. Practically each Western country these days has neo-Fascist parties, and huge financial and other backing would be assured from Islamophobes in Norway and other Western nations. The prospect for neo-Fascism in Sri Lanka is fairly vibrant. Nonetheless, I think that the prospect for democracy is even brighter.

By Priyakala Manoharan –

The existing diplomatic moves of the new regime of Sri Lanka, after deposing Mahinda Rajapaksha from his decade-extended throne, imply that Sri Lanka has after once more adopted India as its prime foreign policy ally. Even the Indian media is quite good about this unprecedented democratic upsurge. Does this climate augur good yields for India? This is as well early to infer but a lot more about this sooner or later.

Following the groundbreaking victory of Excellency President Maithripala Sirisena who defeated the invincible personality of his predecessor, Indian Prime Minister Narendrn Modi, was the first one to extend his wishes to the President and promptly invited him to pay a go to to India. In return, the new President stated that his initial foreign visit next month would be to India and his foreign policy would give India a prominent place.

In one more event that affirms India’s continuous solidarity, India’s envoy in Colombo Y.K. Sinha in particular person showered his effectively-wishes on the President. In contrast, Wu Jianghao, China’s ambassador could meet the president rather very late right after his victory.

The initial foreign go to of Mangala Samaraweera to India, following assuming as the External Affairs Minister marks the age-old rich significance and cooperation reserved in the agenda of Sri Lanka. What the new government’s approach towards India showcases is the resurrection of the standard bond shared in between them and the withdrawal from the policies of former President Mahinda Rajapaksha whose reign maintained strained ties with India owing to its continuous show of pro-China tilt.

Ranil Wickremesinghe, the Prime Minister has in an interview to NDTV mentioned “The strategy of the former president Rajapaksa to play India against China and vice versa came a cropper”, and the new government would overview the feasibility of all heavy investment-laden foreign contracts, particularly the Colombo Port City project exactly where land for this mega project will be reclaimed from the sea. This mega project is anticipated to be a milestone in China’s conceived Maritime Silk Road.

Like India, China will be closely seeking at the unfolding events owing to its deep-rooted interest in the geopolitical location of the Island in the Indian Ocean which is what requires no alter no matter what ever miracles take location. Indian policy makers will make a blunder if they think that a change of regime, which nevertheless leaves ripples of shockwaves in the nation, tends to make both Sri Lanka and India freer since new improvement eclipses the exposure of China in the Sri Lankan soil and leaves a greater say to India.

What culminated the voters’ power is not necessarily marked by their resentment over China rather their lengthy-whispered allegations of nepotism, opacity and corruption the earlier government wallowed in. China’s role in terms of infrastructure development and investments is engraved by means of out Sri Lanka. Its funds and muscle power and lust for power in the Indian Ocean by way of its String of Pearls Strategy keeps its motive revived in the Island and entices the higher-rise ambitions of the Sri Lankan economy. India alone can not compete with China as she herself receives monetary positive aspects from China.

Searching at the footprints of China, its leverage would only fatten in the Island. Thereby, India, keeping the newly developed harbinger in its thoughts, must efficiently deal with the Island to regain its alienated status without having to place its domestic politics in jeopardy.

By Emil van der Poorten –

The post-Rajapaksa bravery of some political commentators and my personal encounter

I recently had, from an old pal in Australia, an e-mail suggesting that I could commence writing fairly freely to the media once more since I had been tempting fate even though the Rajapaksas were ruling the roost by writing critically of their government and that this threat was now behind us. The suggestion was that, eventually, I had succumbed to stress from my buddies and household and gone silent and I should now take up cudgels again.

I identified this fairly intriguing, not to say bemusing, in the context of what has actually been the case for Sri Lankans with journalistic pretensions both before and following the removal (nonetheless temporary) of the Rajapaksa monstrosity from the body politic.

Many of these seemingly exhorting me to “again” begin writing to the mainline English language press, seemed totally unaware that newspapers in that category &#8211 with the exception of the Sunday Island, headed up by a single of the handful of principled journalists in the country &#8211 had “shunned” me for the longest time for coming across as “anti-Rajapaksa” and, for that purpose, probably to be a stain on their “national loyalty” escutcheon. Their need to demonstrate all round fealty to our Ultimate Leader whilst pretending at ethical objectivity in journalism was the name of the game. Lengthy prior to I began a four-year association with the Sunday Leader, right after the death of Lasantha Wickrematunge, and until Frederica Jansz was driven into exile, I had contributed columns on a normal basis to several English language newspapers. In fact, the first of these was Lakbimanews, then edited by the indescribable (far more suitable terms come to thoughts, but…) Rajpal Abeynayake. That association ended when he insisted on sending me a cheque produced out to the pseudonym that I employed for those columns which bore no resemblance to that carried by anybody in Sri Lanka, leave alone the initial and last names to which I answered! Offered the established character of Mr. Abeynayake, I consider I want hardly suggest the motivation for this irrational behavior.

I employed to create, at their invitation, a column with a rural slant to a component of the Sunday Occasions beneath the pseudonym “Haris Tumpane.” Nonetheless, that contribution was “tapered off” and disappeared due to the fact I was told that marketing revenues were paramount and rural political commentary had to make way for it when circumstances so dictated. My take on this was somewhat diverse and borne out by the response I got when, following what I believed was a lengthy sufficient time, I produced inquiries about the column getting reinstated. The answer was that I “couldn’t be touched with a barge pole!” To me this constituted proof, however again, if proof be needed, of the Wijeya Newspapers self-censorship which I have constantly identified more reprehensible than the pandering that naturally pro-government newspapers are guilty of. Why? Since jackals in sheep’s clothing are much more destructive than the undisguised range! Not far removed from all of this was the fact that, when I inquired about a fairly-innocuous Letter to the Editor from me not being published in the Everyday Mirror, I was told that I had to be out of my mind to believe that a paper in that group would publish Anything critical of what the late S.L.Gunasekera had written in their pages! The purpose? The late Mr. G was the newspaper’s lawyer! Journalistic ethics and independence, any individual?

As for the finish of the road with the Sunday Leader, that is a different story. Whilst I had my variations with Frederica Jansz and a few phone donnybrooks to go with them, I also found her to be completely truthful. When Asanga Seneviratne’s participation in the Sunday Leader was imminent, I had a raised-voices discussion with Frederica on the subject. Suffice it to say that subsequent events proved her to have been trusting to the point of gross naivety and yours actually correct in his assessment of who and what Asanga Seneviratne was and what he represented. The really week that Mr. S took over, my column was dropped with Mr. S responding to a query from, I believe, Colombo Telegraph, that it “wasn’t up to standard” or some thing to that effect, this coming from a man whose claim to fame in journalism (and literacy) was being the rugby coach of the Heir to the Throne! This was followed by a cockamamie story to Colombo Telegraph, about there being some sort of “mix up” that had resulted in my column becoming “missed.”

In any occasion, in spite of the sweetest of conversations with Frederica’s successor, I was “jacked around” and eventually, with the Sunday Leader still owing me payment for numerous columns, I threw my hand in.

A footnote here would not be out of location. The grapevine had it that Tisaranee Gunasekara and I were going to be kept on for about six months following Frederica was turfed to develop the illusion that the Sunday Leader was politically independent. Tisaranee wrote just one particular column prior to the definitely unethical behavior of Frederica Jansz’s successor compelled her to cease writing for the Sunday Leader. What followed beggars description and would very best be spoken to by TG. However, suffice it to say that it indicated how low the Sunday Leader and these now at its helm could stoop.

Let me make now make a couple of observations that need to be only also clear to any individual reading Colombo Telegraph.

The 1st is that simply removing the Rajapaksa Dictatorship from the equation will not restore media freedom as lengthy as the likes of Wijeya Newspapers is permitted to play its sly and unprincipled games. The matter of media freedom and, by means of it, freedom of info for an complete nation needs to be examined far more closely and, if necessary, a technique, nonetheless complicated, be place in place to ensure that this cornerstone of democracy is restored and maintained. Simply letting men and women write is hardly adequate when, for the most unprincipled of factors, what they have to say is dictated by the whims of those who consistently steer clear of what they perceive as “inconvenient truths.” I was fortunate in that I have by no means been a professional journalist dependent on my personal computer keyboard to feed my loved ones. Professional journalists do not appreciate this luxury and therefore can be pressured by “the media reality” to bend to the will of those who sign their spend cheques. Talking about “media freedom” in such a context is basically empty rhetoric till such time as law and regulations are place in spot to make sure that freedom.

The subsequent matter I’d like to address before closing is that of the blocking of web sites by Web Service Providers such as Sri Lanka Telecom and Dialog. Just put, there needs to be swift punitive action taken against those individuals who carried out the patently illegal orders of the Rajapaksa Regime. It ought to be straightforward sufficient to discover out who signed the memos which resulted in a blackout of dissenting voices, following which, they ought to be prosecuted and punished as the law provides, for this contravention of the fundamental democratic rights of every single Sri Lankan to info. Practically nothing much less will suffice and this wants to be carried out with no delay.

From a predicament where it was a declining quantity of the “old faithful” (inclusive of the Sycophants Brigade of Dayan Jayatilleka, Malinda Seneviratne, H.L.D. Mahindapala and Rajiva Wijesinha) that chose to create to Colombo Telegraph, its columns have all of a sudden blossomed in a veritable Sri Lankan spring of writers critical of the Rajapaksa Regime! 1 doesn’t have to be a Sri Lankan Sherlock Holmes to ascertain why there has been this sea change. It is now protected, or seemingly so, to write critically of the MaRa bunch and its monumental criminalities! All fine and good except that these men and women who have abruptly grown backbones are fairly capable of obtaining that essential portion of their anatomies achieve a jelly-like consistency after once again if faced with anything resembling threat and repression. Oh properly, a single must be thankful for tiny mercies, even though it is definitely crucial to bookmark events of this nature for future reference!

Hitherto, with the exception of a few males such as Kumar David, the ranks of the brave in Sri Lankan English-language journalism have been populated exclusively by those of the feminine gender. I would suggest that, if the Sirisena government ends up in opposition, there could effectively be a return to that status quo and Colombo Telegraph must prepare for that eventuality returning to haunt us once once again since our “saviours” will, as soon as once again, disappear into the woodwork from which they emerged only when President Sirisena was elected!

By Malinda Seneviratne –

Of all that is pernicious in all resolutions tabled in the UNHRC against Sri Lanka the most scandalous and disgusting possibly is limiting investigations calls for to the final few months of the war. We are talking about a conflict that dragged for practically three decades. We are speaking about a couple of hundred thousand killed. One particular life can not be significantly less worthwhile than an additional. A single murder can not be much more despicable than one more. The grief of a single mother can not be significantly less than that of one more mother. The very same goes for fathers, young children, lovers and buddies who grieve.

We are reminded of this monstrous ‘logic’ nowadays when there’s a call for the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime and wrongdoers therein getting held responsible for wrongdoing a call for a complete investigation on many allegations. Now, ss a person stated ‘compassion’ (maithree) is all good but this does not mean that wrongdoing and wrongdoers need to go uninvestigated and unpunished respectively. Strangely, although, Champika Ranawaka of the Jathika Hela Urumaya who spearheaded Maithripala Sirisena’s campaign and was clearly the most articulate critique of the regime on all counts like corruption has picked a period, 2004-2014. This is arbitrary and worse it smacks of witch-hunting.

Accurate, it is the regime that was defeated that is under scrutiny. Correct, investigation of corruption charges was a key theme of the Sirisena campaign and it can be concluded that people did vote for such an inquiry. Corruption and wrongdoing on the other hand could not have begun in November 2004. We are right after all talking about a constitution and institutional arrangement that made for abuse and pilfering in a big scale as nicely as a culture of impunity that was effectively and actually made use of by numerous who wielded energy for decades but especially given that 1977. Bheeshanaya (terror) and dhooshanaya (corruption) let us not neglect have been charges leveled by those in the opposition at least since the 1988 Presidential Election.   They had currency.

Some may claim that the bheeshana-dhooshana levels of the past ten years had been unprecedented, but they would be those who have brief memories thinking about what occurred in 1988-89 and towards the tail end of Chandrika Kumaratunga’s initial term (just before her wings have been clipped by the Parivasa arrangement with the JVP, the 17th Amendment and the short UNP Government of 2001-2004).

We can’t go to Year Dot. This is clear. Nonetheless, considering that those who have been charged (but not investigated) are nonetheless about and given that this Government has come to clean up, so to speak, we ought to commence at least from 1994 which is when coalitions led by the SLFP initial came to energy. Most importantly it includes the period 2001-2004 when the UNP held sway. If there’s going to be adjust, it have to be underlined by wholesomeness, not revenge-intent.

These days we have a President who is also the Chairman of the principal celebration of the coalition led by the opponent he defeated. All those who supported ‘the corrupt regime’ have now pledged allegiance to President Maithripala Sirisena. He has as his essential coalition partner, the United National Party, which as well is not specifically a party of saints. A single of his important backers was ex President Chandrika Kumaratunge, a particular person described as Chaura Regina (The Thieving Queen).

It is good to clean up. It is necessary to investigate. It is non-negotiable that the constitution and institutional arrangement be reformed so that corruption can be stumped. Mark it with ‘vengeance’ and we can shed all illusions about this regime getting ‘better’ (neglect ‘compassionate’).  Bring to book the crooks of the earlier regime by all implies, but let other crooks go free and you would be performing a wonderful disservice to those who voted for ‘change’.

*Malinda Seneviratne is the Chief Editor of ‘The Nation’ and his articles can be found at www.malindawords.blogspot.com 

The US government has been accused of not providing access to data that is essential to investigate the &#8216white flag case&#8217.

In an interview with the Foreign Policy magazine, Steven Ratner &#8211 a professor of law at the University of Michigan adn ex-member of a UN Panel that examined the commission of mass atrocities that occurred in the final phase of the Sri Lankan war, created this remark as he commented on the concern of Stephen J Rapp -the US Ambassador at big for war crimes, stepping down right after five and a half years of service.

“Rapp had tiny achievement forcing American intelligence agencies to share details they’ve collected about human rights abuses abroad,&#8221 Ratner mentioned as he recalled a visit to Rapp&#8217s workplace during the time Ratner was investigating war crimes in Sri Lanka on behalf of the U.N. panel set up by the U.N. Secretary-Basic Ban Ki-moon.

He had been looking for details concerning allegations that have been becoming levelled against the Sri Lankan officials about summarily executing senior rebel commanders soon after the United Nations brokered their surrender.

Ratner had heard a rumor that the U.S. Embassy had picked up some intercepts with data related to the case.

“They made it clear to us there have been pretty powerful constraints on what they were going to be capable to share with us. . . In the finish, they didn’t give us anything,&#8221 he mentioned.

There are several accusations against the US government like pressing the case for accountability for crimes selectively and passionately and advertising the international prosecution of political rivals.

“In Sri Lanka, Rapp has conceded that it is unrealistic to count on that Colombo will assent to conduct investigations into mass war crimes by government forces in the course of the bloody final months of the country’s civil war. But he has urged the government to at least exhume the bodies of victims in order to give their families some sense of closure,” the Foreign Policy magazine stated.

Ambassador Stephen J. Rapp visited Sri Lanka from January six-11 final year to meet with government and political leaders, civil society, and to tour former conflict zones.

Issuing a statement on his visit, the US Embassy Colombo last year mentioned: &#8220He heard about the progress created because the conflict, but also the Sri Lankan people’s continuing desire for reconciliation, justice and accountability.

“During Ambassador Rapp’s discussions, he listened to eyewitness accounts about critical human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law, which includes these that occurred at the end of the war. In that context the government of the United States encourages the government of Sri Lanka to seek the truth by means of independent and credible investigations, and where relevant, have prosecutions.

“The United States remains committed to working with the Government of Sri Lanka to promote higher peace and prosperity for all of the individuals of Sri Lanka. It is important that all sides come to an agreement on events, have suitable redress, and move forward as a unified nation that upholds the rule of law and respects the principles of democratic governance.”

By Lionel Bopage –

By far the most crucial problem for the constituents of Sri Lanka at the final week’s presidential election was about opening a pathway for the formation of excellent governance. Even so, just electing a new president does not develop good governance. A president and his/her government should enable, nurture and strengthen excellent governance by steadily institutionalizing political processes and advertising universal values that are intrinsic to very good governance. The new President, Maithripala Sirisena, and his revamped government have embarked on a journey with the proclaimed aim of establishing excellent governance, though some measures taken so far appear counter-productive and certain pronouncements appear rather utopian.

Nonetheless, I believe, we could contribute ingeniously to moving towards good governance – by engaging constructively, patiently and vigilantly – maintaining the momentum of all diverse forces that brought this unprecedented positive outcome for the individuals of Sri Lanka alive. What follows is a brief evaluation to see exactly where we are now ahead of we appear at the path ahead for reaching our aims.

Background of the election

The folks have taken component in the election campaign overwhelmingly and enthusiastically, though it was not totally totally free and fair, nor peaceful or democratic. Participation in the election was quite higher at 81.five percent. There was a substantial turn out by voters in the north. In spite of the partisan interpretation of final results by numerous groups with particular interests, this election can be deemed as the very first election since the 1990s exactly where a candidate was elected by the participation of the diverse spectrum of communities belonging to Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims. The problems connected to ethnic or religious troubles, which had been dominating the elections since the 1950s, did not play a major part in this election.

Unfortunately, the election occurred in an environment in which multifarious hurdles have been laid against the campaign of the widespread opposition candidate. The Rajapaksa campaign was heavily racialist and abundantly financed. Almost all state resources which includes human, material, economic and media were utilised against the opposition campaign. One particular of the significant concerns impacting all other vexed troubles in Sri Lanka – the national question – was not discussed at all.

The opposition’s election campaign, which highlighted the incumbent’s authoritarianism, corruption, fraud, waste, household nepotism and politicisation and militarisation of civil administration seems to have been effective in urban regions, but not as efficient in the rural locations, especially down south. The election campaign of the UNP has been more organised, coordinated, and properly-oiled and more grass-roots based. The assistance the frequent opposition candidate received from Tamils and Muslims improved, due to the authoritarian and mono-cultural method adopted by the Rajapaksa regime to stay in energy.

Election outcome

This election outcome has been and will be analysed in a lot of diverse methods according to the planet outlook of the analyst (which includes myself), and whose interests and privileges that analyst is trying to safeguard. Currently many interested parties like pro-Rajapaksas and nationalists with some from the Sri Lankan left groups have tried to interpret the election outcome by means of identity politics. While the ethnic breakdown of the electoral outcome may be not-so-important, it should not be below-emphasised. The abolition of executive presidency and appointment of independent commissions are being offered priority at this presidential election. There were a lot of other concerns highlighted throughout the election campaign such as good governance, rule of law and democratic practices, fight against corruption, cost of living, employment opportunities, and far better access to healthcare and education etc. Those on the left also raised the problem of the need to address the national question, but it did not acquire a lot traction.

In spite of the assistance of the Tamil National Alliance in the North and East and the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress in the East and elsewhere, attributing the total election outcome just to ethnic or religious identity is an oversimplification. Although the overwhelming votes cast by the Tamils and Muslims of the North and East may have tipped the balance in favour of Maithripala Sirisena, the argument that the election outcome is in support of separatism or devolution of energy is misplaced, for the statistical breakdown of the election final results shows that 84% of the votes cast for Maithripala Sirisena came from the rest of the nation.

The Rajapaksa regime and its torch-bearers carried out a massive all island Tv and radio campaign primarily based on mono-cultural nationalistic and racialist propaganda. This could have influenced much more racialist thinking Sinhalese to vote for Rajapaksa, whilst much more Tamils would have been influenced to vote for the common opposition candidate. We are also conscious that some separatist groups and specific radical groups advocated boycotting the election. That was also an exercise of their bourgeois democratic proper. By carrying out so they efficiently forfeited their own democratic proper. They may possibly claim that they have collectively convinced about 20 % of the voters to stay away from voting, although this is disproved by the fact that this time there had been more men and women prepared to cast their vote in favour of one of the two key candidates.

I think the Tamil neighborhood wants to be applauded and welcomed for their participation in the election, in spite of the fierce propaganda of the pro-Rajapaksa elements of the preceding regime, and the constrictions placed on the opposition’s agenda of obtaining to keep the national safety status quo, and the unitary nature, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation. My conclusion is that given that the 1940s, this is the first election in the history of Sri Lanka, where ethnicity and religion did not play a major role in influencing the outcome of the election.

The immediate future

The President and the new Cabinet has assumed duties. Some secretaries have been appointed. The 100 day reforms plan has been launched. The greatest tips I could give to this new interim government, is that it should choose the ten most important issues pertinent to each and every department and Ministry, create appropriate policy calculi to address these problems and implement them. This will significantly help in creating the confidence of folks in the new President and the government. President, Ministers and Ministries need to have to take choices in consultation with every other in a participative manner. Deferment of considerable troubles or vacillation on decisive troubles could grow to be deadly for the future.

This is important because the Rajapaksas and Weerawansas will not stand idle. They have begun to spread the lie that they lost because of the voters in the north and east and the plantations. They are silent on the reality that they got portion of their votes because they had been able to use state sources to bribe, intimidate, frighten, and cajole some by raising the spectre of LTTE and separatism in the national psyche of the Sinhala Buddhist majority.

The Rajapaksa plot to keep in power utilizing the military and emergency laws was thwarted, thanks to the integrity of Elections Commissioner, Inspector General of Police and the Army Commander – to all of whom we are grateful. This anti-democratic behaviour demands to be provided ample exposure amongst the people and the suspects need to be charged according to the law. Some of the suspects in this regard have gone overseas, almost certainly with the tacit expertise of some bureaucrats, who have been directly helping them previously. Some of the prominent youth organisations who have been closely operating with Rajapaksas and at times with Nil Balakaya (Blue Corps) have been trying at all costs to paint a democratic picture of the Rajapaksa’s reign. When required in future, they will no doubt try to support resurrect the remnants of the Rajapaksa regime dressed up in democratic garments.

There have been a lot of criminal allegations against the Rajapaksa regime like the disappearance of journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda, disappearance of Frontline Socialist Party activists Lalith and Kuhan, assassination of Editor Lasantha Wickrematunge, the massacre of 17 help workers of Action Contre la Faim, the massacre of five higher college students in Trinco, and assassination of arrested criminal suspects mostly in Colombo. There are allegations to the effect that unarmed and peaceful civilians have been killed during strikes, peaceful protests and for the duration of the civil war. The Rajapaksa regime openly, unhesitatingly and flagrantly violated the election laws by employing violence, intimidation and bribery. Such criminal activities and offences require to be effectively and independently investigated and the perpetrators need to be brought to justice.

Conclusion

The new regime is taking its 1st baby actions in opening up a more democratic space for civil society to operate. Nevertheless, in the implementation of its one hundred day program just before going for the subsequent Common Elections, the new regime is getting forced to rely on at least some of the existing politicians, bureaucrats and systems of the previous autocratic regime. Obviously, this situation is not in favour of the anticipated journey towards establishing excellent governance and rule of law. The new President and the regime want to remain vigilant in this regard. Vacillation and marching time will be deadly and tantamount to committing suicide.

The non-violent regime change was mostly a outcome of the social discontent of the suffering masses of the nation like workers and peasants. The non-Sinhala communities have expressed their wish for democratic reform and a way forward to negotiate and resolve problems certain to their communities. If the hopes and expectations of these masses are not fulfilled, then the predicament will be conducive for emerging struggles. The initial step in the right direction will be for the new regime to take bold measures with the consent of the people to appropriately address such concerns in the extended term interest of the individuals and the nation.

In the meantime, the remnants of the former Rajapaksa regime will attempt their very best to resurrect the bogey of racialism and nationalism by resorting to the lowest levels of deception. This tendency and the autocratic and repressive nature of the Rajapaksa regime compelled numerous folks, groups and organisations to come forward and assistance the typical opposition candidate for overturning the autocratic executive presidential technique.

This unprecedented dynamic collective that was not involved in partisan politics, opened the doors for this change of direction. We need to have to maintain this momentum for modify alive, by means of sustaining the peoples’ desire for modify, so that any hesitation or vacillation on the part of the new regime can be prevented. Then the new regime will have no alternative but to implement what they have pledged during the election campaign. Regardless of the possibility of deferments and vacillations of the new regime, this social collective need to be much more organised, energetic and vigilant so as to maintain up its momentum for adjust lively.