Columns

The outcome of the parliamentary elections on November 14, will undoubtedly shape and determine the future trajectory of the country in more ways than one. The economic challenges, the required changes in political culture, the rooting out of corruption, uniting a fragmented nation, reorganising and rebuilding the education and health sectors will require a strong Government which will support and facilitate the goals of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the National Peoples Power (NPP).

All indications are that Thursday’s elections will result in a majority for the NPP thus enabling them to complete the process of forming a government which began with its victory at the presidential election in September. While such an outcome will ensure political stability in the country, the way people vote will also constitute a manifestation of the peoples verdict on how the country was governed since the presidential election of 2019.  

Indeed democracy requires voters to hold the representatives they elected to account for their acts of omission and commission during the time they held office. At the presidential election held on September 21 the sovereign people expressed their sentiments about the Gotabaya Rajapaksa/ Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) government by convincingly defeating the three segments into which the SLPP had split. The poor showing of Ranil Wickremesinghe, Namal Rajapaksa and Dilith Jayaweera (who represented the three segments of the SLPP) at the presidential poll was a clear indictment of the Gotabaya Rajapaksa/ SLPP government.

The parliamentary elections will be an opportunity for the voter to call to account his or her representatives in the legislature for their acts of commission and omission as well as their overall performance in the legislature. How each voter evaluates the conduct of his or her representative will vary from individual to individual and is largely subjective.

However there are many objective indicators that can guide the voters in making a decision. For the first time in the political history of this country there is a judicial determination as to who was responsible for the unprecedented economic crisis that the country was plunged into and how the affairs of the country were run during the past few years.

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, former Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, former Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa, former Governors of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, Prof W.D Lakshman and Ajith Nivard Cabraal, former Secretary to the Treasury S.R. Attygala, former Monetary Board, and former Secretary to the President Dr. P.B. Jayasundera (who had been named as Respondents in the Petition to the Court) violated the public trust and breached Article 12 (1) of the Constitution, in their administration of the economy, leading to the economic crisis in the country.

In its judgement the Supreme Court determined that the conduct of the respondents directly contributed to the results that led to the crisis situation. The respondents ought to have known and should have taken action to resolve matters that negatively impacted the economy and not further aggravated the impact and were responsible to act in the best interest of the country. Public officers have a responsibility to discharge their duties in the best interest of the public. The respondents were bestowed high power to uphold public trust and were duty-bound to discharge duties according to directives of the Constitution. The respondents could not shirk responsibility by merely stating that the decisions they took were policy decisions. It was within the full power of the respondents to prevent such a calamity as they had full knowledge of the situation. It is clear that they did not act and take all measures to remedy the situation in the public interest. Cumulative actions and inactions by the respondents led to the debacle. The public trust reposed in the respondents was not a higher one and is bestowed on all officers, and therefore the respondents were obliged to act in a responsible manner. Actions, omissions and conduct of the respondents contributed to the economic crisis.

By extension of the reasoning of the Supreme Court, it can be concluded that all those parliamentarians who were part of the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government as well as its supporters including those who worked to bring that administration into office have to take responsibility for the economic crisis as well as other failings of that government.

Equally there are other matters that the voter will have to take into account. Supporting the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, supporting and or keeping silent during the decision to forcibly cremate Covid-19 victims, not making any effort to investigate the Easter Sunday attacks, not making any effort to investigate high profile cases such as the murder of Lasantha Wickremetunge and Wasim Thajudeen are only few of the other matters that the members of the last parliament have to account for.

The call for accountability of the associates and supporters of the administration led by Gotabaya Rajapaksa has sought to be countered by suggesting that experienced individuals too should be elected to parliament and that fresh blood alone will not result in good governance.

The cry for experienced persons to be elected to parliament is being led by former President Ranil Wickremesinghe and can only be interpreted as a means of trying to ensure the re-election of those who are tainted by association with the Gotabaya Rajapaksa presidency.

How the public will react to the call to vote for the ‘experience’ of former parliamentarians like Mahindananda Alutgamage, Rohitha Abeygoonewerdene, Nimal Lansa, Prasanna Ranaweera, Chamara Sampath Dassanayake and others in preference to fresh faces will be known by the end of the week.

Among the other factors that will come into play with the voters will be perceptions of the integrity of would be legislators, their commitment to principled politics as opposed to opportunism, how many times they have changed sides during their political career as well as how much they have contributed to the deterioration of the political culture in recent times.

It goes without saying that the composition of the new parliament will determine the direction that the country takes in the next few years as it attempts to overcome the mistakes of governance of the past few years. (javidyusuf@gmail.com)