Bedlam in
Sri Lanka having eerie similarities to the Maldivian crisis intensifies
further. Ever since the appointment of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as
the Prime Minister on October 26th and proroguing of Parliament, there
seems to be no respite to the political drama in the Indian Ocean island. The
domestic unrest which began with Rajapaksa loyalists forcibly entering the
office of Rupavahini channel and stalling transmission has slowly spilled onto
the streets. In the aftermath of Rajapaksa’s appointment protests erupted leading
to the death of an innocent civilian.
Installation
of arch-rival Rajapaksa as prime minister by Sirisena surprised Sri Lankans and
international community as well. But former president on his visit to India in an
interview to The Hindu, aside criticising the coalition government’s poor economic
performance dropped enough hints on his keen interest in working with Sirisena.
Responding to a question on the possibility of joining hands with Sirisena, he
said, “Unfortunately he is not prepared to work with me. We have a new party
(Sri Lanka Podujana Perumna) and our president is G.L. Peiris. He must reach
out to us since we have 45% of the vote in the three-cornered race”.
A series
of events- a strong worded Wickremesinghe’s statement during his visit to India
holding President responsible for the delay in the projects, assassination conspiracy
theory, central bank bond scam, and SLPP’s trade union taking control of the
state-owned newspapers culminated in the fall of the Unity government. President
Sirisena ousted Wickremesinghe, sacked his secretary and deferred the Parliament
session till November 16th. Despite his ouster, Wickremesinghe who survived a no-confidence
motion in April refused to quit his position. He held on to his office at
Temple Greens and official residence and met delegates from US, Canada, EU and
UK. Terming the decision as unconstitutional, put up a brave front attempted to
garner support of various political parties.
On the other hand, the opportunistic Sirisena-Rajapaksa
alliance began to earn ire of people. Being a seasoned politician Rajapaksa who
led the no-confidence motion led by Joint Opposition earlier this year deeply
relied on gaining the support of minorities. Initially, Tamil National Alliance
(TNA) despite their aversion to Rajapaksa agreed to offer conditional support
provided the government pledges to draft new constitution and accept the UNHRC
resolutions for justice. Rajapaksa even counted on the support of Muslim parliamentarians.
But they left for a pilgrimage to Saudi watering down ambitious plans. Being a
old master of political game, Rajapaksa resorted to large-scale horse trading
and reports of offering Chinese money made it to the news. To keep his flock
together and lure the fence-sitters, lending credence to his decision, Sirisena
went ahead with swearing of 12 cabinet ministers.
Wickremesinghe
in the meanwhile demanded a floor test since he had the requisite numbers. Speaker
Karu Jayasuriya objected to unconstitutional prorogation of Parliament. He
strongly advocated summoning of Parliament to allay fears of constitutional
crisis. Amidst growing international pressure and domestic tensions Sirisena addressed
the nation justifying his decision saying “Politicians like us who are
committed to serve the people, should always look at what is right for the
people and will usher prosperity instead of political affiliations”. Sirisena’s
blatant abuse of political power aggravated fragile economic conditions, rupee
plummeted, tourism dropped, foreign investments fled from the markets.
Citing Section
42 (4) of constitution which enables President to appoint a Prime Minister but
don’t permit his/her arbitrary sacking or replacement, Wickremesinghe urged
speaker to reconvene Parliament. He even submitted document with signatures of
125 parliamentarians. To restrain authoritative tendencies of the President 19th
amendment of Constitution made provisions to consolidate Prime Minister’s
position. It enunciates that the office of Prime Minister can never fall
vacant, baring three instances- death, constitutional crisis and loss of
support in the parliament. Accordingly, the ouster of Wickremesinghe who enjoys
the confidence of the house is untenable and unconstitutional. Firmly rooting
on the constitutional provisions, Wickremesinghe insisted on proving majority on
the floor of the house. At the same time, in an interview, he expressed willingness
to work with President Sirisena to end this political crisis saying, “the
constitution doesn’t make provision for personal prejudices”.
As voices
of Sirisena’s unconstitutional approach began to gain ground, he initially agreed
to convene parliament on November 5th. But he swiftly overturned the
decision after failing to cobble the required numbers for majority in
Parliament. On Nov 9th Sirisena dismissed 225-member Parliament and issued
Gazette notice for snap polls on January 5th, 2019. Soon Sirisena loyalists
began to seek the refuge of Article 33 (2) (C) that enumerated the powers of
President to justify his decision. The
article explicitly states, “in addition to powers, duties, and functions
expressly conferred or imposed on or assigned to the President by the constitution
or other written law, the President shall have the power to summon, prorogue,
and dissolve parliament”. But Election Commission expressed its inability and
sought the opinion of Supreme Court for fresh elections saying, “there was
no vacancy in the Parliament”. Meanwhile, Constitutional Expert, Asanga
Welikala, pointed that after final enactment of Amendment 33, it was decided
that “Parliament can’t be dissolved by the President in the first four and
half year of its term, unless Parliament itself requests dissolution by a
resolution passed by two-thirds majority”. Even lawyers citing Amendment
19A challenged the authority of President. Aggrieved UNP decided to legally
challenge President’s decision and simultaneously launched efforts to impeach
President.
Sirisena’s
decision of dissolving the Parliament earned him international ire. Speaker
issued orders to public servants not to execute President’s orders triggering a
crisis in general administration and governance. Orders of snap polls created a
panic in general public who feared Sri Lanka’s return to authoritarianism. Collectively,
all the opposition parties and one of the election commissioners who challenged
the Gazette order to conduct “illegal election” moved Supreme Court
against dissolution of Parliament.
Three
bench Supreme Court which received petitions on 11 fundamental rights petitions
stating Sirisena’s decision as unconstitutional. Court stayed the dissolution
of Parliament until December 7th and cancelled Gazette order for
fresh elections. SC clarified that President can’t use Article 33 (2)
independent of Article 70 (1) which sets limits on Presidential powers. SC cautioned,
“you can’t cherry pick the provisions, the constitution has to be read whole”.
SC’s decision offered much needed respite to the brewing political crisis. The next
day, Parliament reconvened.
To strengthen
his winnability in elections, Rajapaksa who is popular among Sinhala majority ends
association with Sirisena’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) joined the Sri Lanka
People’s Party (SLPP) created by his supporters. Along with him several of his
loyalists also joined the new party weakening Sirisena’s political clout.
On
November 14th amidst disruptions in the voice vote conducted by Speaker,
122 members supported no-confidence motion (NCM) against Rajapaksa invalidating
his installation. But President alleging speaker ignored constitutional traditions,
standing orders and Parliamentary procedures rejected the NCM document. As expected,
Rajapaksa camp rejected the NCM terming it illegal. NCM inflicted death blow to
Rajapaksa’s appointment. Undermining the sanctity of NCM, Rajapaksa occupied
Prime Minister’s bench and addressed the house next day. When Speaker announced
that house doesn’t recognise him as Prime Minister any longer, incensed by
speaker’s reference to him as just a member of Parliament, SLPP party members created
ruckus. They attacked speaker and in the subsequent brawl, a MP who was injured
was hospitalised.
Miffed by
President’s defiance Wickremesinghe’s UNP (United National Party) supporters
took to streets. Overwhelmed by public anger that threatened to engulf peace
and stability of the country, Sirisena held meetings with Speaker and other political
parties. As per latest reports, President has softened his stance, promised to
resolve the crisis in two-three days. But he expressed reservations over the
first resolution of the NCM. As an act of reconciliation, speaker agreed to
conduct a fresh round of note confidence motion on 16th November. In
all likelihood, with Sirisena obliging to abide by constitutional provisions, show
of strength by Wickremesinghe might bring some respite to unwarranted political
crisis racked up by Sirisena. Startling political twists and turns highlighted
loopholes of liberal democracy which can be trumped by political opportunism.
To usher
Sri Lanka into realms of prosperity and economic progress in 2015 Unity Coalition
ascended power. Moving away from the traditional political arrangement of
like-minded parties coming together ideologically divergent, centre-left SLFP
and Centre-Right UNP joined hands to form government epitomising the attributes
of a thriving democracy.
Since
2008 nations there has been perceptible rise in authoritarian populist regimes.
Ever since the fanatic waves of authoritarianism began to engulf poor nations. Even Sri Lankan shores were stuck by such
waves. The timely judicial intervention and mature democratic institutions as
of now averted the crisis. Essentially, democracy is not impervious to the
strong undercurrents of authoritarianism. Hence nations must perpetually make
efforts to strengthen institutions to bolster and preserve democratic credentials.
@ Copyrights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment