This is not unusual in a democratic setup. A vigilant opposition will always wait for the opportunity to grab power within the confines of the constitution while acting responsibly. But whether Sri Lankan political parties act in this manner is the question.

The UNP in opposition precipitated a political crisis, which eventually forced President Chandrika Kumaratunga to dissolve parliament after it completed one year. And now the PA appears to be going the same day at a time when the government is burdened with the twin task of achieving peace and putting the economy back on track.

What the opposition should take into consideration is the ground situation that prevails.

The public perception is that the government has successfully entered into a ceasefire agreement with the LTTE under the supervision of the international community, and on the economic front, too, it has taken some steps, which hold promise. In this backdrop, any move to topple the government through a constitutional coup could be counterproductive.

Is the PA ready to take over the government? No, say opposition stalwarts. Another pertinent question is, 'can the PA handle the delicate ethnic question the same way the UNP handles it?'

Going by the pronouncements made by PA top rungers after the so-called 'coup' disclosure, it appears that the PA is not ready to take over the burdens that the UNF government is carrying now. The PA thinking is that the UNP would be compelled to take unpopular measures if it is to solve the ethnic question and build the economy. So it wants the UNF to take that risk. If the UNF succeeds, the PA does not lose. If the UNF fails, then the PA will gain. That the PA is not ready to take over the government is evident in its reluctance to face a snap poll.

PA stalwart Mangala Samaraweera, the alleged author of the coup document, said that although they were not scared to face elections, they felt it was not the right time for elections because it would be an additional burden on the people.

If the PA is not ready to take over the government and doesn't want an election right now, what is the objective behind the document? PA Parliamentarian Sarath Amunugama says they receive various documents from the party intelligentsia, suggesting ways and means of overthrowing the government democratically. "This is one such document."

Some analysts feel that the PA deliberately leaked the document to precipitate the crisis.

If this is so, has the PA acted as a responsible opposition?

The PA regime was routed after its dismal performance. Though it came to office in 1994 on a platform of peace and good governance, it achieved neither objective. At the tail end of its seven year rule, there was economic chaos and corruption with the crime rate soaring. Besides, it faced allegations of mass-scale polls rigging. In other words, the PA was thrown out of office with its image tarnished. In the circumstances, the PA has to show to the country that it is yet an active opposition party.

Another pertinent question that arises is whether the UNF handled the situation prudently. Most analysts feel the UNF over-reacted and played into the PA hands by giving undue publicity to a questionable document.

If the objective of the PA is to precipitate a crisis, the manner in which the UNF reacted added fuel to the fire.

The main grouse of the PA appears to centre on the dissolution threat held out by the Prime Minister if the President does not accede to three demands. One of his demands is aimed at restricting the powers exercised by the President to dissolve parliament.

The UNP wanted the President to exercise this power in consultation with the Prime Minister, especially when a party enjoys a majority in Parliament. The UNF also wanted the Presidential consent for the conscience bill and a move to set up an executive committee system.

The PA maintains that the Prime Minister should have discussed the matter seriously with the President before giving deadlines. The Prime Minister's threat came out of the blues, one PA stalwart told this column. He accused the Premier of not taking steps towards ensuring a healthy cohabitation with the President. If the Premier is keen on cohabitation politics, he should have discussed the matter with the President without creating major media hype.

But reports indicated that UNP Chairman Malik Samarawickrama had a lengthy discussion with the President over the matters and the President had agreed in principle to some of the UNF suggestions.

As far as the dissolution of parliament is concerned, the PA maintains that the original power vested in the President is discretionary.

Article 70 of the Constitution deals with dissolution and gives the discretionary power to the President. However, there are limitations placed in the Constitution in this regard. The President is unable to dissolve Parliament within the first year of an election unless otherwise resolved by Parliament by way of a resolution.

The PA's position is that if Parliament passes a resolution to this effect the President need not abide by such resolution since the original power vested in the President is discretionary.

The Article 70 of the Constitution states as follows:

70. (1) The President may, from time to time, by Proclamation summon, prorogue and dissolve parliament: Provided that -

(a) subject to the provisions of subparagraph (d), when a General Election has been held consequent upon a dissolution of Parliament by the President, the President shall not thereafter dissolve Parliament until the expiration of a period of one year from the date of such General Election, unless Parliament by resolution requests the President to dissolve Parliament;

However, some experts differ from the PA interpretation of Article 70. They believe that a resolution by parliament over-rides the one-year restriction placed on the President.

Article 70(1) states the President shall not dissolve parliament until the expiration of a period of one year from the date of the General Election unless parliament by resolution requests the President to do so.

This would seem to mean the President has no alternative but to dissolve parliament.

Some legal experts expressed the view that the President should be practical and act in favour of the decision by Parliament.

The executive should not attempt to dilute the legislative sovereignty. One cannot enhance the executive sovereignty at the expense of the legislative power, one expert said.

PA seniors allege that the dissolution threat by Prime Minister Wickremesinghe is merely to encourage some crossovers from the PA to the UNP to enable him to introduce a series of constitutional amendments. But they say the move has backfired with UNF backbenchers now trying to cross over to the PA as they lacked courage to face a snap poll.

Whatever it is, the country would slip into a further crisis if both the UNF and the PA do not act prudently and make things workable.

Both these parties should consider the country's interest before their self-centered interests.

The coup document has also exposed a subtle move within the PA to sideline the Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapakse. Though he had dismissed the document as a UNF fabrication, he initially did not have any knowledge of it.

There are also others in the PA who say the document was a UNF concoction aimed at diverting the people's attention from a controversial stage in the ceasefire agreements - the troop withdrawal from public buildings in the north and east by August 2 deadline.

In another important development, the President has expressed the view that the government should take steps to abolish the executive presidency rather than doing away with certain powers associated with the President.

The President in other words said that powers of the executive should not be abolished in a piecemeal basis when it suited the government in power.

The President's remarks came when she expressed her opinion on the UNF move to abolish the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry Act introduced by the UNP in 1977.

The UNF must act fast now, when the President herself has agreed in principle to abolish the Executive Presidency. If the UNF acts prudently at this stage it could surmount all the obstacles it is facing in the form of an executive presidency.

In fact, it was the UNP's stance, too, sometime ago to abolish the executive presidency though it has not expressed its views on the matter after it came back to power following the December 5 General Election.

Amidst this political jigsaw, it is encouraging to note some moves aimed at a thaw. Presidential advisor and former foreign minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, is playing the role of a troubleshooter to defuse the crisis situation.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster