Columns

Last year’s aragalaya (the peoples’ struggle) was unprecedented in more ways than one and achieved for the country a brief respite from hitting rock bottom economically and otherwise.

It was unprecedented because the people took matters to hand and brought an end to the most incompetent and inept government in the country’s history. It was also unprecedented because it was not the result of an organised campaign or movement led by political forces but rather the outcome of a spontaneous uprising by the suffering citizenry to free themselves from the consequences of the flawed decision in November 2019 to elect President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to the office of President.  

The aragalaya began with spontaneous protests across the country by farmers agitating against President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s decision to make an overnight switch from chemical fertiliser to organic fertiliser. The government’s mismanagement of the economy resulted in severe inflation, daily blackouts, a shortage of fuel, domestic gas and other essential goods and proved to be a rallying point for the middle class and urban elite who pitched camp at the Galle Face green urging then President Rajapaksa to step down.

The striking feature of the aragalaya at Galle Face was its peaceful nature and extraordinary discipline while rallying round the slogan “Gota Go Home.” Despite the absence of an organised leadership the disparate and diverse groups that pitched camp were unrelenting in their solitary objective of holding the President accountable for his economic mismanagement by demanding the President to step down.

The success of the aragalaya in achieving its objective of ensuring Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s forced exit from the office of President also brings home a glaring lacuna in the Constitutional architecture of the country with the system not providing for an unpopular President to be removed from office.

Under the present Constitution the only way the Executive President who is elected by the people can be removed for his failing in office is by direct action of the people as exemplified by the success of the aragalaya.

According to the Constitution the only way a President can vacate office is through a long drawn out procedure which involves obtaining a two third majority in Parliament and an inquiry by the Supreme Court. The grounds for such removal as laid down by the Constitution are mental and physical infirmity, intentional violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, misconduct or corruption involving the abuse of the powers of his office or being guilty of any offence involving moral turpitude. Such a process has to be initiated by two thirds of the members of Parliament and after inquiry by the Supreme Court once again approved by two thirds of the members of the Parliament.

Strangely enough there is no provision for removal of a failed President who has lost the confidence of the people. By default the people are left with no option except to resort to direct action in the manner of the aragalaya. This is hardly a satisfactory option and it is best that the Constitution provides for an orderly change in Government when the occasion demands.

In the Parliamentary form of government when the incumbent Head of Government (the Prime Minister) has lost the confidence of the people by his acts of omission or commission he can be expeditiously removed through a vote of no confidence by a simple majority of the Parliament.

The aragalaya ‘moment’ which resulted in President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s forced exit from office is an addition to the long list of reasons for abolishing the Executive Presidency. It should be a core feature of the system change that aragala activists and supporters are demanding for better governance.

Returning to the phenomenon of the aragalaya, the disciplined and peaceful nature exhibited by those who participated in such protests was first disturbed by the actions of those who attacked the protestors in front of Temple Trees and attacking those present at Galle Face on May 9, last year.

The failure of law enforcement agencies to prevent such attacks contributed to the unrest and uncertainty that developed in the country in the next few weeks.

Soon after the attacks on peaceful protestors outside Temple Trees and at Galle Face on May 9, last year, violence erupted in the country with a series of utterly reprehensible incidents taking place.

The attacks and torching of the residences of several Government Parliamentarians including the killing of Amarakeerthi Athukorala took place on the same day. The attacks were viewed by many as a reaction to the attacks on aragalaya participants by government supporters on the morning of May 9, last year.

However taking into consideration the time lag between the attacks outside Temple Trees and at Galle Face on the morning of May 9 and the attacks on Government Parliamentarians which took place in the early afternoon of that day, in different parts of the country, and the speed with which the attacks were launched, it was more likely the attacks were pre-planned and the attackers were waiting for a signal to move into action.

The second incident that defied logic was the attack on the private residence of then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on July 9, last year. Up to then, the Prime Minister had up been supportive of the aragalaya and was quoted saying the aragalaya must go on. In such a context, why the arsonists targeted the Prime Minister’s residence is baffling.

Here again, the failure of law enforcement officers was a matter of concern. There were reports that a large contingent of officers were present just before the incident, but seemed to have done nothing to stop the attacks. Even if the officers were not present the attack took place over a sufficient length of time for law enforcement officers to be rushed to the scene.

In the past few days a new take with regard to the aragalaya has emerged from within the ranks of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP). Parliamentarian Namal Rajapaksa has alleged the aragalaya was a conspiracy to remove the Rajapaksas from government and that was why Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa was removed.

However this is at variance with the facts. It was President Gotabaya Rajapaksa who called for the SLPP Leader to step down and subsequently appointed Ranil Wickremesinghe to the position. The SLPP politicians have been repeatedly blaming Sajith Premadasa and Anura Kumara Dissanayaka for not accepting the position when offered to them by then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

The fact that the latter did not offer this position to Mahinda Rajapaksa or any other SLPP-er was an admission that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa himself did not have confidence in anyone in his ranks and hence his invitation to others outside his government to help him out. The conspiracy theory thus seems far fetched although SLPP-ers when questioned as to who the conspirators are promised to reveal their names at the correct time. Of course this is the standard response of politicians and as usual, the correct time never comes.

(javidyusuf@gmail.com)