Columns
Maithri must retain some powers to give meaning to the vote
View(s):
The opposition’s joint election platform took some semblance of a shape during the week with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding by opposition’s ‘common candidate’ Maithripala Sirisena and an assortment of opposition figures and groups on Monday.
The main significance of the agreement in practical terms would lie in Sirisena’s deal with UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe. Unlike the civil society groups and individual politicians backing the opposition project, it is the UNP that has the resources and organisation to fight a national election. President Rajapaksa admitted as much at a breakfast meeting with editors at Temple Trees on Friday where he is reported to have said something to the effect that ‘although Ranil may have lost 29 times he has the machinery to face an election.’
Sarath Fonseka indicated that his Democratic Party supported “80 per cent” of the MoU’s contents, while the JHU in a separate agreement signed the next day pledged conditional support, for a 100-day period, for the realisation of similar but more specific goals.
JHU’s agreement
The JHU’s more moderate proposals would seem to reflect greater foresight, just as its mini-revolt against the government showed signs of having thought things through to a greater extent than other factions in the opposition camp. For example the party asks for reforms that would curb the excessive powers of the executive presidency, not its abolition, and that too with the proviso that the reform should not jeopardise national security or territorial integrity. The JHU calls for action against attempts to bring the president or members of the armed forces before any foreign war crimes tribunal.
The visual cues were unmistakable at the signing ceremony at Vihara Maha Devi Park open air theatre, where Sirisena sat flanked by Wickremesinghe and former president Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunge on the stage. Having midwifed his arrival as ‘common candidate,’ these two personalities are likely to influence his political journey in the days ahead.
What the MoU doesn’t say
The campaign issue of abolishing the executive presidency which originated in Ven Maduluwawe Sobitha’s Movement for Social Justice remains the focal point of Sirisena’s agenda. In addition, the MoU’s Common Programme as published in newspapers, pledges among other things to introduce a parliamentary system of government, repeal the 18th Amendment and restore independent commissions for the judiciary, police, elections, public service and like institutions with a view to safeguarding democracy and rule of law. These proposals seek to bring about much-needed course correction.
What the MoU does NOT tell voters is what their vote for Sirisena will do to Sirisena after he relinquishes his presidential powers. What role will he play? All that the MoU says on this count is that “Under the parliamentary system, the President will symbolise national unity and have duties and powers appropriate to the position.” This statement needs to be clarified in order to give meaning to the vote that the opposition candidate solicits. Is he asking for the people’s mandate merely in order to be a vehicle for someone else’s trip to power, to become a mere ribbon-cutting figurehead after 100 days? Would this not be a waste of Maithripala’s strengths that have galvanised the opposition campaign as none of the other prospective opposition candidates could have done?
Who will hold Defence?
Sirisena could avoid this fate by retaining the Defence portfolio which carries the responsibility of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If he intends to vest this power in Wickremesinghe who, he has said, will be ‘made the prime minister’– voters need to know this important fact, so that they may factor it in when they consider whether to vote for Sirisena. Voters may recall that it was Wickremesinghe who signed a flawed Ceasefire Agreement with the LTTE in 2002.
Sirisena having defected from the government comes across as a strong crusader against the corruption. When he reveals details of bribe-taking, fraud, waste or interference he would be speaking from first-hand experience of it unlike criticism coming from opposition political parties.
One of the most shocking revelations he made relates to the non-implementation of Prof Senaka Bibile’s National Medicinal Drugs policy, designed to make quality drugs available at affordable prices. The policy would save millions of dollars in foreign exchange by eliminating unnecessary imports. Sirisena has revealed that a (unnamed) person had accepted bribes of Rs 2.5 million each from 400 pharmaceutical companies to block the relevant legislation, which has been delayed for years.
Other matters that have engaged the attention of the former health minister are the stymieing of his efforts to introduce 80 percent pictorial warnings on cigarette packs, and the plight of victims of the chronic kidney disease that blights Rajarata farmers. CKD is suspected to be related to the use of imported agrochemicals.
Corporate lobbies
The pharmaceuticals, tobacco and agrochemical industries thought to be responsible for these problems are among the world’s most powerful transnational corporate lobbies, known to use their enormous profits and clout to influence local politicians in order to make inroads into third world markets. It is a sign of Sirisena’s mettle that he has shown readiness to take on these giants.
In the event he seeks to expose and take action against the corruption he has witnessed, he would need to beware of pressures that may be channeled through his new-found political friends and mentors who may have affiliations with governments in the west where these industries are based.
It’s worth recalling that Bibile died under mysterious circumstances while in Guyana where he was on a UN mission to introduce his drug policy there. It is widely believed he was murdered by the ‘mafia’ of the pharmaceutical industry whose profits were threatened.
Sirisena as one who has information on scandals inside government involving mega dollars and multinationals will be a controversial head-of-state figure for western governments to accept – much as they would like to see a ‘regime change.’ If the rumours that external powers are seeking to interfere with the outcome of the election are true, those powers are probably disappointed in the surprise candidate who eventually emerged to lead the opposition’s fight.