Why we need to protect our vote 

So the life of Sri Lanka's 11th Parliament was, with apologies to Hobbes, overwhelmingly "nasty, brutish and short." It did not need acute political analysis to predict this fate, of course. Quite apart from the near complete parody of electoral will through which it was constituted, its internal fluctuations were bound to subject the PA government and its President to a crucial test of statesmanship, a test which it has collectively and individually, obviously failed. 

And so, this country faces another election. Let us see what the coming December election demands of us as a people. Let us forget what it asks of our present rulers or our potential rulers for if we have learnt anything in the past three decades, it is that democracy will perish if left in the hands of politicians of any party. To a huge extent, democracy has, in fact, perished in this country. The responsibility for its total demise therefore rests with us and only with us.

It is useful, for this purpose, to remember exactly under what conditions, we went to vote last time. The 2000 parliamentary elections marked a wholly negative watershed in the electoral history of the Sri Lankan people. It did so for two reasons. Firstly and fundamentally, the elections marked an almost total collapse of political faith by voters despairing of their representatives and disillusioned beyond a point with an unbelievably corrupt and violent political culture. This was well seen in the numerous opinion polls carried out islandwide just prior to the polls which granted a slim margin to one party or another but expressed profound dissatisfaction with both.

Last year's elections were also remarkable for an even more devastating loss of legal faith, manifesting the almost irreversible extent to which representative democracy has collapsed in this country. This collapse took place at many levels. On the highest level, the pre-election period witnessed news manipulation and official disregard of court settlements and undertakings in election cases reaching scandalously unrestrained heights, most notably in this regard when then Peoples Alliance Samurdhi Minister S.B. Dissanayake openly defied court orders for him not to use state officers or state resources in electioneering for the government. Petitions of contempt were filed meanwhile against state media institutions for distorting orders of court in election related petitions and for not abiding by undertakings given before court regarding allocation of media time to candidates in a fair and impartial manner. As these violations continued sans stern warning or punishment by the respective levels of the courts before which these violations were brought, the authority of the law suffered dangerously in the eyes of the people

All this meanwhile took place within a far wider brushing aside of election laws. The rule regarding the banning of posters, cut outs etc continued to be violated with impunity by all candidates excepting Southern Peoples Alliance member, Dallas Alahapperuma who abided by his promise to carry out his election campaign minus all the hoopla. More destructively, perpetrators of election violence continued to be shielded by their parties while the police looked on. This was despite clear directions by the Inspector General of Police to all police officers that disciplinary action will be taken against any police officer who intentionally disregards or fails to carry out his duties or any instructions given to him regarding taking action against any individual who violates election laws.

We saw meanwhile another farce being enacted when the action of the Elections Commissioner in ordering secret stickers to be printed (for polling cards) in order to minimise election malpractice resulted in a wildfire of controversy with accusations being levelled against the unfortunate polls chief and the state media spin doctors working themselves into a frenzy in their efforts to show that something underhand had been taking place with regard to the whole exercise. The part that former Minister S.B. Dissanayake played in this again, needs no detailed reminder.

Post election, of course, we saw the complete absence of positive moves by the government or the combined Opposition to lift this country out of its deeply frightening culture of election violence with its "Wayamba" precedent. The wholly shameless about turn of the National Unity Alliance from its initial determination to ensure that the government strip immunity from all those responsible for blatant election malpractices in Kandy remained a very interesting example of how consistently opportunistic the game of politics can be.

As contrasted therefore with the mockery that elections were the year before, what do we have this time around, to justify the belief that our vote would be an exercise of genuine and free will for whatever party and irrespective of whatever personalities on either side of the political divide?

In terms of institutional strength, that the 17th Amendment is now part of our Constitution is a definite advance from what existed before as far as the practical authority of the Election Commissioner is concerned. The Elections Commissioner is positioned as an independent officer of the State by Article 103 of the Constitution. By Article 104, he is authorised to exercise, perform or discharge all such powers, duties or functions as may be conferred or imposed on or vested in him by the law for the time being in force relating to elections. Similarly, Sections 128 and 129 of the 1981 Parliamentary Elections Act No give him the authority to exercise general direction and supervision over the administrative conduct of elections under the said Act and to take special measures on the arising of an unforseen situation on due notification. The independence of his office was classically noted by the Supreme Court when President Chandrika Kumaratunge postponed elections to five Provincial Councils by emergency regulations in a clearly politically motivated exercise in 1999. The Commissioner's failure to exercise his independent mind to fix a new date for elections even after the original date had passed and after the Regulation had lapsed, was censured by the Court who reminded the Commissioner that the Constitution assures him independence so that he may fearlessly insist on due compliance with the law with regard to all aspects of elections, even, if necessary, by instituting appropriate legal proceedings in order to obtain judicial orders.

The 17th Amendment, in the absence of the setting up of the Elections Commission, consolidates this position of the Elections Commissioner. Importantly, it gives the Commissioner the power to prohibit the use of any movable or immovable property belonging to the State or any public body for electioneering purposes. Provision has also been made for the Inspector General of Police to make available to the Commissioner, the facilities and the police officers required by the Commissioner for the holding of a particular election, who then shall be deployed by the Commissioner in the manner calculated to promote the conduct of orderly polls. Contravention of these provisions amounts to an offence, punishable by a fine and/or to imprisonment not exceeding seven years. The Commissioner is also empowered to issue guidelines to the electronic and print media regarding in the conduct of balanced election coverage.

This, then as far as the Commissioner of Elections is concerned. He cannot, of course, work alone. In the intervening months to come before the December elections, it is therefore the responsibility of the citizens in this country, irrespective of personal political affiliations, to make the call for a return to representative democracy as strongly as they can, whether it is in writing letters to the newspapers, joining hands on public streets, forming neighbourhood electoral watch groups or petitioning the courts on issues of public interest. December 2001 could well be our last chance to turn our failures around.

Will CBK convert her crown of thorns to olive branch?

In December 1964, the government of then Prime Minister Sirima Banda-ranaike was defeated when a group of ruling party Members of Parliament led by the Leader of the House C. P. de Silva crossed the floor and the Premier made the famous remark of a "stab in the back" by her own party men .

In that defection, even Mahanama Samaraweera, father of Mangala, crossed over to the UNP and Esmond Wickremasinghe, Ranil's father, played a key role behind the scenes. Ms. Bandaranaike's government collapsed and by January, Dudley Senanayake and the UNP were back in office.

Thirty seven years later, the scenario is eerily similar. On the date of the first death anniversary of Ms. Bandaranaike, her daughter is forced to dissolve Parliament, (despite Justice Minister and LSSP leader Batty Weerakoon's suggestion for yet another prorogation) in the face of impending defeat at a no-confidence motion. The Brutus of the cast though is S. B. Dissanayake, General Secretary of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party and one-time Man Friday of President Chandrika Kumaratunga. Ranil Wickremesinghe is the protagonist but mercifully, Mangala Samaraweera remains loyal to Kumaratunga.

Why, must be a question that many SLFPers are asking themselves. S. B. Dissanayake after all is no neophyte in SLFP politics, and cut his political teeth as a student leader. What then made him switch sides, sit side by side with Ranil Wickremesinghe, smiling cherubically like a Cheshire cat and lampoon the president about her total inefficiency Ex-Minister Lakshman Kiriella complains about her lack of professionalism, G.L. Piries laments about her lack of consultation.

Why do we have The Maha Nayakes of Asgiriya and Malwatte refuse to see the Head of State for months; the late Ven. Walpola Rahula compares her disparagingly with her another, especially about time management and her own trade Minster Ronnie de Mel publicly lectures the President on how JRJ used to conduct Cabinet meetings, arriving 15 minutes early and being thoroughly briefed about matters-thereby implying that Kumaratunga was usually late and seldom prepared? Is it open season for bashing the presidency? Is it not time for her to do some soul - searching?

If it is President Kumaratunga's charm, spontaneity and natural bon-homie that catapaulted her into power over a disunited UNP Government, is it her inexperience, ad-hoc, impulsive and irrepressible style of governance that led to her undoing?

But it cannot all be attributed to inexperience and here, comparison with Sirima Bandaranaike is inevitable. The world's first woman Prime Minister's only experience in public life prior to becoming a Premier's wife was at the Mahila Samithiya and her schooling in the rough and tumble of Sri Lankan politics confined to vignettes gleaned from the drawing rooms of Tintagel rather than in Parliament.

Chandrika Kumaratunga in contrast, despite a liberal upbringing and a Sorbonne education has found it difficult to sustain even her closest political and administrative associates. Most of her key officials who held office at the outset of her rule in 1994 are no more with her sacked or disgraced, and now her party stalwarts are slowly but surely deserting what they believe is a sinking stinking ship.

And in her parting of ways with the dissidents, there appears to be more to it than opportunistic politics or ideological differences- there is a definite tinge of personal acrimony and that makes it even harder for the die-hard SLFPer to come to terms with.

The President did not say that she was stabbed in the back; instead she claimed the SLFP was cleansed of 'rogues' who defied her when she cracked down on their alleged-and much disputed- 'irregularities'.

Of course, the average citizen would like to question the President why she personally canvassed for a 'rogue' in her own books over and above more senior people to the post of general secretary of the party founded by her father and nurtured by her mother and Kumaratunga would perhaps have a convincing explanation for that too. But as the haemorrhage from the SLFP continues, her options are becoming increasingly restricted.

Theoretically though, unlike in 1964, the President is still Head of Government and Head of State in addition to being the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Media and in full command of all executive presidential powers under the J. R. Jayewardene-designed 'Bahubootha' constitution. The question is, what will she do next, in the aftermath of the December 5 poll?

If the PA wins the election with an absolute majority, the President's hand will be strengthened but that is being optimistic at this stage In the event of the UNP led, rebel backed coalition emerging as the single largest party, what would be the response of Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga?

President Kumaratunga could do what her predecessor Dingiri Banda Wijetunge did and allow Ranil Wickremesinghe to run the government in a spirit of live and let live. But Kumaratunga is on record saying she cannot work with Ranil Wickremesinghe and her periodic tantrums against her brother's classmate suggests that she detests this practice.

In 1994, in her first campaign for the Presidency, the blurbs described Chandrika Kumaratunga as the 'daughter of destiny'. 

Despite losing her father and husband to political assassinations, destiny has been kind to this daughter of two Prime Ministers: she zoomed from zero to zenith in politics in just 18 months, lost an eye but survived a bomb attack and rode a wave of sympathy to secure re-election as President.

Now, it seems her hour of reckoning has come. President Chandrika Kumaratunga must choose between redeeming her presidency or revenge from her political rivals.

She has the chance to convert her crown of thorns to an olive branch. The nation surely hopes that she has the courage to take that chance.
The Sunday Times Economic Analysis

Mismanagement at the top and lessons from JR

This scant respect for others' time was indicative of inefficiency at the top. This way of handling business incurred incalculable costs. Perhaps the whole nation's sense of time management was eroded by the example from the top.

Mr. de Mel has pointed out that President Jayewardene arrived early for cabinet meetings thereby ensuring by example that his ministers were there on time. 

His punctuality was by no means reserved for cabinet meetings. Officials were often given enough prior notice of the meetings and the subjects for discussion. These meetings too began on time.

The inefficiency of the government was not confined to the issue of punctuality alone. 

There was a lack of follow-up of decisions taken at meetings. Ministers were not conversant with the subjects they were dealing with. A bureaucratic weakness had also occurred by the time the PA government took over. The calibre of the bureaucracy in 1994 and thereafter was not comparable to that of 1977. The government, especially the President, made things worse by selecting hand picked officials for their loyalty rather than competence. The number of hand picked officials selected and subsequently rejected by the President herself is staggering. 

The biggest blunder was of course the selection of a cabinet of 44 by a president who had promised to prune it to 20. As we pointed out in these columns when the huge cabinet was selected, it was not the cost alone. 

The inefficiencies such a large cabinet inevitably led to with the bifurcation of subjects among several ministers were the real cost of this irresponsible action. It was a signal that the government did not take the business of government seriously.

By pruning the cabinet owing to pressures of the JVP, the government is saddled with as serious an internal political problem as the problem of staying in power the coalition was expected to resolve. No doubt the government created its own monster whose decapitating might result in its own demise. The JVP has succeeded in weakening the PA.

Mr. de Mel has underscored the need for a manageable cabinet by suggesting as small a cabinet as 12,arguing that even Britain has only a cabinet of 15. Whatever the precise number a smart, efficient, small cabinet is the need for this country. Perhaps the number and some portfolios in the cabinet should be stipulated in the constitution itself to prevent the formation of an obese inefficient cabinet in the future.

In the final analysis, much of the problems of the government have arisen out of the inefficiencies it exhibited over the years. While much of the economic policy framework was laudable, the government's inability to implement policies has been at the root of the economic as well as the political crisis it is facing. 

The power crisis is the most dramatic evidence of this. Over time the business community lost its initial faith in the government and is today a very disillusioned lot awaiting a change. It is for this reason that Mr. De Mel's good advice to the private sector not to moan and groan but produce more, appears to be falling on deaf ears.

Last days of the PA government 

By Victor Ivan

When President Chandrika Kumaratunga started her career as President, people pinned all hopes on her. Although she entered the field quite suddenly, people expected a just administration, in spite of her lack of experience. 

They expected that she would put an end to the corruption that had infiltrated to the state administration. They expected that she would put a stop to state terror. They expected that she would end the ethnic war and bring peace to the country. 

She came to power on sympathy of the people. However, within a short time she forgot all that. She may be considered the most arrogant ruler who came to power after independence. 

It can be said that she ruled the country as a feudal fife, without the slightest feeling for the country. 

Although she did not resort to large scale terror because there was no rebellion of the youth, she by her cruel and fearsome policies showed that she had the capacity in ample measure to be cruel if the need arose. 

Among all her failings, the greatest is her inefficiency. Presently, the state machinery and also the whole country, is in a state of inefficiency. 

Although her Cabinet may not have been experienced or able, there was the possibility of making them all act in good faith if she as the leader wanted it sincerely. However, she failed to become an example to them as a leader. 

She deprived herself of the possibility of controlling corruption on the part of her political colleagues because she permitted a few henchmen to exploit the country on a large scale. Although there was corruption in the country even under rulers like J.R. Jayewardene and R. Premadasa, there was also a great deal of development too. Ms. Kumaratunga's period of administration may be considered the only period in which there has been no development and only corruption. 

Except for the development caused by the natural expansion of the forces of the free market, there was no development at all. The best index of the miserable state of the country is the power crisis. 

The savings of the Electricity Board at the beginning of Chandrika's administration was Rupees 80 billion, the extent of the debt today too is Rupees 80 billion. 

In a democratic political system it is the people who must have sovereign power ie the right to vote. Every election was won through thuggery and dishonesty since the 1997 local government elections. The success at the parliamentary election as well as the presidential election of 2000 cannot be considered a clean victory. 

Even in an Executive Presidential system, the Cabinet is considered the main executive of the country. 

In the modern world no ruler however clever took over the subject of finance along with the position of the head of state. 

Even the most efficient of Finance Ministers has to spend seven or eight hours a day for the daily functions of that ministry alone. 

Although the President had no proper understanding of that subject she took it over and led not only the financial management of the country but also its state management into turmoil. 

Her practice of citicising Cabinet colleagues in their absence led to loss of respect and became the butt end of their ridicule. 

–The writer is the Editor of Ravaya