News
The untenable interpretation of the people’s mandate
View(s):While some patterns in the presidential election held on November 16, are clearly discernible, a comprehensive analysis of the whys and wherefores of the peoples’ will expressed at the polls will have to await authentic information coming in from the grassroots. 
It is evident that the majority of the majority community voted for President Gotabaya Rajapaksa while the majority of the minorities opted for Sajith Premadasa. Yet while this reflected a polarisation of the electorate it did not mean that the country divided itself on the basis of the different communities.
What it really meant was that the electorate was divided on the basis of how it viewed the issues faced by the country. The issue of national security was in the forefront of the campaign of the SLPP and it seems to be one of the main factors that have influenced those who cast their vote for the Nelum Pohottuwa. On the other hand those who exercised their franchise in favour of the Swan have considered the strengthening of democracy critical among the issues facing the country. The majority of the Muslims and Tamils have through their vote undoubtedly articulated the position that the security of the minorities is an essential component in ensuring national security.
Yet it would be incorrect to state that the minorities voted on communal lines. There were three Muslims and one Tamil who contested the presidential election but they were simply ignored by the voters from their respective communities. The majority of the Muslims and Tamils voted for an alternative Sinhalese candidate in Sajith Premadasa based on his vision of the direction that the country should take.
It is also interesting to note that Negombo and Wattala electorates where the majority of the voters are Catholics and therefore were the direct victims of the April 21st terrorist attacks did not respond positively to the national security argument enabling the UNP to win the two electorates.
Another fall out of the presidential election result is the discussion about the mandate. The Constitutional architecture provides two different elections- presidential and parliamentary. The mandate given by the people at either election cannot be read to have an impact on the other. The argument that the 2016 Presidential Election result serves to oust the existing mandate enjoyed by the Legislature is an argument that cannot be sustained because it was an election designed only to elect an Executive President and not a change in the Cabinet which must only flow from a change in the composition or power balance in Parliament.
If the mandate received at the presidential election could be used to change the composition of the Cabinet including the Prime Minister, then in 2001 when the UNP received a mandate at the Parliamentary Elections, on the basis of that mandate the then President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunge should have abandoned the Presidency and allowed the UNP to run the Government.
However it is because the the framers of the Constitution envisaged that the legislature and executive should cohabit even if two different political formations were in control that the President and Prime Minister of that Government continued to govern together until 2014. Basically the framers of the Constitution provided for two power centres to exist in Government despite the disastrous consequences that the country has to face as a result.
This clearly strengthens the argument for the abolition of the Executive Presidency.
Although the Constitution allows two power centres to exist it does not however mean that in a given situation one of the parties that control such power centres should not opt to give up its right to remain in charge for strategic or other reasons. When the UNP decided to withdraw from the Government and allow the SLPP to form a new Cabinet after last week’s election it took what was probably the most prudent decision in the given circumstances.
The UNP has for its part not articulated its decision to do so clearly. It could be because it has fundamental differences in policy with the SLPP and therefore cannot be party to what the Executive President would seek to implement. Or it could be for strategic political reasons to allow its cadres and supporters to regroup for the next battle, namely the forthcoming general elections.
But most certainly it can never be on the basis that the mandate received at the Presidential Election could be stretched to change the composition of the Cabinet.
Another notable fallout of the outcome of the November 2019 presidential election is the fault finding that has begun in the ranks of the UNP. When political parties are defeated it is inevitable that divisions emerge and such parties are weakened. It is not for no reason that it is stated that victory has many fathers while defeat is an orphan.
Be that as it may while the UNPers have a stake in the future of their party the country too will be an interested spectator in how things unfold in the Green Party. A strong Opposition is a vital need in a democratic country and the UNP has therefore a critical role to play.
The immediate task will be to have a meaningful post mortem and correct its failures in governance as well as in reaching out to the people. The SLFP and the SLPP never carried out a study of their failures prior to 2015 but were fortunate enough to overcome such failures due to a variety of circumstances.
The UNP should not hope that they too can rely on the frail memories of the voter to return them to power at some point of time without adequate introspection and corrective measures. Probably the most effective way of doing so is to commission a set of independent professionals to carry out this task which will have a definite impact on the future of the UNP and therefore of the country.
(javidyusuf@gmail.com)