The Presidency

"Unuth Ekai, Munuth Ekai"

In contemporary, Sri Lankan history, for J.R. Jayewardene it may have been the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord. For Ranasinghe Premadasa, it must have been the day the Motion of Impeachment was entertained. Both those regimes were never the same thereafter.

Then, for Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and her now four-and-a-half-year old government, that defining moment may well have been Monday the twenty fifth of January, 1999, the day of the Northwestern Provincial Council election.

On paper, the People's Alliance swept the polls winning all electoral districts with well over fifty per cent of the vote. In reality, the President and her government has lost that essential element so vital for success in politics - the trust the people placed in them.

For four years Chandrika Kumaratunga was telling the people of this country that she intended to keep her election promises. Most of those promises were not kept. Yet the people-many of them at least especially the rural folk - continued to have faith in Chandrika Kumaratunga.

After all in 1994, her credentials were excellent. There was no past record at governance at the national level that embarrassed her. She appeared to have the courage and the charisma that was needed to end the darker more sinister days of the pervious regime. And, most of all, people were captivated by her smile, moved by her seeming innocence and believed in her sincerity.

Then, once in power, President Kumaratunga faltered every now and again. Her promises were easier said than done. The Executive Presidency remained. So did the North-East war. And there was the odd scandal which had a whiff of corruption.

But, by and large, the Sri Lankan electorate was prepared to bear with President Kumaratunga. The economy, though not leaping to greater heights as promised, was stable in the face of an Asian recession. Yes, the war continued, but even opposition parties had no solution to offer to that crisis. And, perhaps the people also appreciated that had the Presidency been abolished, the fragile People's Alliance coalition would have fallen apart.

Then, there was another factor in the political equation - the opposition. The good deeds of the UNP were soon forgotten and the misdeeds were still too fresh in the minds of the electorate to forgive them so soon. Besides, that party lacked credible leaders with the possible exception of Ranil Wickremesinghe. And even the latter was no match for waters accustomed to the likes of J. R. Jayewardene, Premadasa, Athulathmudali or Gamini Dissanayake.

At the other end of the political spectrum, it was again proved beyond any reasonable doubt that there was simply no room for a third force in Sri Lankan politics. 

The JVP, though possessing immense organisational capacity never translated that ability to crosses on the ballot paper. And, the DUNF went the way of a pervious third force - the Sri Lanka Mahajana Pakshaya - into political oblivion following the assassination of it's leader.

Against these minuses of the collective opposition, there was a significant plus point for President Chandrika Kumaratunga. 

Following an initial ap proach in antagonising national newspaper editors with criminal defamation cases, she quickly changed course. The very fact that there was so much criticism against her and her government in the print media and in a mushrooming array of political commentaries on television, was ample testimony that dissent was even grudgingly tolerated.

There were personal idiosyncrasies - President Kumaratunga is even now, almost always late for public functions - but these were not grandiose tamashas that wasted state funds and coincided with her birthday.

Even state occasions were relatively simple and subdued and did not portray the President as queen of all she surveyed.

Even amongst her ministers, it can be appreciably said that there were few, if any, builders of their own empires, unlike during the UNP days when everyone had their own pet project - an Udagama, Mahapola or the Mavaveli - to nurse. Yes, there was the occasional ego that needed to be massaged, but even such personalities were cut down to size when they tried either to inspect guards of honour or horseback or imply that they themselves had prepared the Budget.

And so it could be justifiably said that even after four and a half years in government at a time when the deficiencies and inefficiencies of the People's Alliance and President Chandrika Kumaratunga were becoming increasingly apparent; many people of this country again largely in the Provinces were still prepared to keep faith in her.

It may have been a Hob son's choice for them. They may have been choosing the lesser of the two-or-three? -evils. Whatever it was, it would be a fair guess to say that had the Presidential elections been held, say, at the beginning of this year, as was threatened, Chandrika Kumaratunga would have been re-elected.

And it is in this context that the hullabaloo at the Wayamba Provincial Council becomes even more baffling.

To begin with, it is now accepted that some irregularities did occur at Wayamba and that People's Alliance supporters were responsible for most of it. Now, this is not the first instance where an election was blemished in this country nor will it be the last.

But what makes these "irregularities" so startling and abhorrent is the scale in which it was perpetrated and that too by a government which the people believed was sincere in it's commitment to a free and fair electoral process, whatever it's other shortcomings.

Even more puzzling is why such tactics had to be resorted to when there was every indication that the government party may have pulled through and win at Wayamba, at worst after a tight contest.

As is usual, there have been many theories as to what happened at Wayamba, but these explanations have done more harm than good to the President. And in what is now being cited as typical of this government these theories are conflicting and paradoxical.

The fact is that there was a distinct possibility that the PA could have won the elections as much as the UNP could have. Either way, the margin would have been narrow. Any student of politics could have seen that there was no way for thumping majorities. Given this scenario it would have been best for the President to have limited her campaign. May be 7 to 10 electorates. That would have given her heads I win tails you lose position. If the PA won it would have been because of her entering the campaign that they won. If the PA lost it would be because she campaigned in only 7 - 10 electorates.

Instead, she panicked. She campaigned in all 19 electorates in the Province forcing Ranil Wickremesinghe who was originally down to visit only 10 electorates to up it to 19 himself.

The President raised the stakes of the campaign to the level of the Presidency. To her, personally, it was not a test of strength between the PA and the UNP at Wayamba, but her own personal popularity was put to test.

The low turnouts at her meetings may have worried her. But that is to be expected. People shy away from these meetings fearing bombs. Only the faithful flock to them. And in any event public meetings are no barometer of votes.

Having done that, she couldn't lose, she had raised the stakes and couldn't afford to lose. The old equations had changed. The myth or otherwise of her popularity was now actually going to be voted on. Tactically, she was committing political harakiri.

Then, when things go terribly wrong, and by Noon of January 25 the Elections has turned sour and into a joke, she looks for an escape route. On the one hand, on polling day itself, the President "Recommends" to the elections Commissioner that result of certain polling stations be cancelled - a tacit admission, if ever there was one, that the poll was rigged.

On the other had, ministers talk of a conspiracy theory saying that the poll monitors were funded by NGOs linked to the UNP and even threaten to sue the monitoring bodies for their disparaging observations. In similar vein, the state print media makes a valiant attempt to portray a clean election, quoting statistics that show that the UNP vote has risen in certain electorates and resorting to quoting the likes of Sirisena Cooray, whom they not-so-long-ago portrayed as Mr. Evil Personified in the former UNP.

Still more confusingly, it is revealed that President Kumaratunga tongue-lashed her ministers for being over enthusiastic in their deeds at Wayamba at a Cabinet meeting after the poll. The latest episode in this comedy of errors is the appointment of a committee to probe the election, which reminds us of that pithy Sinhala saying "horage ammagen pena ahanawa", or translated to asking the thief's mother to look into the crystal ball.

After what happened, it is only understandable that President Kumaratunga sought to distance herself from the incidents, lest her image be sullied by those deeds. But it is also unthinkable that the PA's campaign managers indulged in such acts without at least a covert nod of approval from the party hierarchy. And it is this sentiment that would do irreparable damage to the image of Chandrika Kumaratunga.

The sentiment that she is happy with the victory, but unhappy that there is too much egg on her face in how that was achieved.

Even the way she started her post-Wayamba Cabinet meeting betrayed her happiness at the PA victory. When some Ministers began praising her saying "it was all because of you Madam that we won," she replied saying "No, lets be honest you all contributed". And only later did she refer to the violence and the rigging and say was useless her campaigning if this is what was done.

The available evidence is not helpful to the President. The chief architects of the campaign - Ministers S. B. Dissanayake, Jeyaraj Fernandopulle and Mahinda Rajapakse - are close Kumaratunga's confidants. The pre-election period was marred by hundreds of incidents about which the President did little. Even in her own campaign speeches, Kumaratunga was guilty of being abrasive and not conciliatory in her approach, conveying the impression that she was condoning what was obviously about to happen.

Only five Ministers came un-scathed and un-sullied by operation Jaya Sikurui at Wayamba, the three Lakshmans (Peiris, Kadirgamar, Jayakody), Ratnasiri Wickramanayaka and possibly Thondaman who was in India though the same could not be said of his grandson. 

So, when Chandrika Kumaratunga now appears to regret what happened at Wayamba, the electorate must be pardoned if they are sceptical about it all.

They must be remembering how J.R. Jawawardene - a man who resigned his Colombo South seat in the House, protesting the extension of the term of the 1970 Parliament - himself then extended the 1977 Parliament by Referendum in 1982, without calling for an election. 

To appear as a paragon of democracy, JR then held by-elections in electorates which rejected the Referendum proposal. JR retained his five sixth majority in Parliament, yes, but he lost the enormous goodwill he had generated as a dynamic and respected leader he acquired the nick name Jathiya Ravatapu and retrospectively, that was the beginning of his decline. 

The Sri Lankan electorate, having learnt such lessons from history only recently, must now be asking themselves whether they see a budding JRJ in President Chandrika Kumaratunga. And so, the "Unuth ekai, Munuth ekai" concept gains credence. 

What Wayamba has done then, is to give the UNP an issue on which they could genuinely go to the masses. It has even transformed Ranil Wickremesinghe from a sulking Leader of the Opposition into a potential saviour of democracy. Indeed when he appeared on a TV talk show this week he was articulate, indignant and what's more, very convincing because he was simply telling the truth. The only aspect of his demeanour that was incongruous was his attire which was more suited for a matinee idol in a Hindi Film! Apart from augmenting the stock of the UNP President Kumaratunga would also now have to contend with the reaction of the JVP to the events of January the twenty-fifth. 

When the Wayamba results first filtered in, the JVP high command was being interviewed live on TV. Their emotions were plain for all to see. They confessed they had spent more money on the Wayamba campaign than they had for Rohana Wijeweera's 1982 Presidential Election bid. They felt cheated and disillusioned and even went to the extent of saying that they would seriously have to re-think their decision to enter democratic politics. 

We care certain that another southern insurrection is not on Chandrika Kumaratunge's most wanted list. Wayamba by itself may not precipitate such a catastrophe. But if the trend set at Wayamba were to continue, it might be a different story. 

Other events have also not been kind to President Kumaratunga in recent times. Hot on the heels of the furore over Wayamba came the Supreme Court verdict ruling which held that the President's decision to postpone polls in five other provinces was flawed. Now polls are due in these councils within three months. 

Ironic as it may seem, this very verdict could afford the President an opportunity to salvage some of her lost credibility. Chandrika Kumaratunga's political maturity is something of an unknown quantity but if the President is shrewd enough, she could test her real popularity by ensuring free and fair polls in these provinces. 

Such a move, of course carries an inherent danger, coming on the heels of Wayamba, if the other provinces revolt and endorse the UNP, that could have a snowballing effect on general and Presidential elections due next year. The President and her strategists must be only too aware, of this, having themselves been the beneficiaries of a similar tide in the 1993 provincial polls, which carried over into 1994. This, we suspect, must have also been the reason for the PA to be so "enthusiastic" - to use an euphemism - in Wayamba. 

But, to do otherwise - to continue the Wayamba strategy in other Provincial Councils - would be to commit political suicide by the PA. It would also paint the UNP as a innocent political victim of PA intimidation. And, the electorate will surely react to that next year. 

So, at this juncture of her Presidency, with five Provincial Council polls looming, Chandrika Kumaratunga has few options, really. And in a sense one can understand her anxiousness therefore to jet away to cooler climes in Switzerland soon after the Wayamba Faux Pas, come back to go through the motions of an Independence Day speech where she lay all blame on the media, and catch an Airbus to Sunny Jamaica, far far away from the howl of her subjects.

Wayamba violence screams for reforms

By Rohan Edrisinha

1. The Denial strategy: Arguing that the elections were not as fraudulent as people might think; 

2. The Conspiracy strategy: Claiming that the election monitors and civil society groups are part of a massive UNP led conspiracy;

3. The "Its the System" strategy which blames the system of proportional representation system adopted in Sri Lanka for the violence and malpractices.

The Denial strategy lacks credibility. The malpractices were so blatant and transparent that those who make this claim gain nothing but lose their own credibility. Showing that in a handful of constituencies the votes for the UNP were similar to the votes received at the elections of 1994 does not take into account the widespread unpopularity of a governing party of 17 years and the mood for change at that time, and the fact that governments more than four years into their terms invariably are at a low point in the opinion polls. 

The Conspiracy strategy is perhaps the most unconvincing given the fact that most of the individuals and civil society groups monitoring the election were at the forefront of the campaign against the authoritarian rule of the UNP Governments of 1977-94. Presumably the religious leaders and Mr. Ashraff and Mr. Hakeem too are part of this conspiracy!

The "Its the System" strategy employed by hapless ministers and P.A. M.Ps on television programmes after the election, is both dangerous and hypocritical. The Government seems to be pursuing this strategy by appointing a Cabinet sub-committee last week to study the present electoral system and proposing changes. This "strategy" warrants some comment.

Blaming the system is a convenient way of passing the buck and trying to escape responsibility. This is why it is dangerous. The present electoral system in Sri Lanka certainly has its defects, but preventing opposition candidates from campaigning, assaulting political opponents, abducting polling agents, barging into polling stations, threatening voters and preventing voters from casting their votes, are not part of the system. Reviewing the system cannot be a substitute for taking strong action against the party stalwarts who violated democracy with impunity.

Several government ministers have called for the reintroduction of the first- past- the- post or simple plurality electoral system that existed before the introduction of the Constitution of 1978. 
They assume that the only alternative to the present system is a return to the old one. It is important to note, however, that there are other kinds of proportional representation which may be more appropriate for Sri Lanka. 

Furthermore, imagine the result of the Wayamba election if the thuggery, intimidation and violence had taken place within the framework of a simple plurality system. The People's Alliance would have won all the seats in the Council. There would have been an even greater distortion of the people's will. Where there is a Government committed to winning elections at any cost, it is safer to have a system based on proportional representation. 

The Government's argument that the system was to blame is unconvincing for another reason. Despite promises to the contrary and widespread opposition to the preferential voting system, the Government's Draft Constitution of October 1997 retains the present system of proportional representation, including the much maligned preference voting system. 

Indeed the provisions of the 1978 Constitution are reproduced verbatim. So much for the radical reform promised at the 1994 elections! This is despite the fact that perhaps the only issue in the area of constitutional reform on which the People's Alliance and the UNP agreed, at the last Parliamentary election in 1994 was on the need to introduce the mixed German system of proportional representation, which seeks to combine the positive features of both the simple plurality and proportional representation systems. 

Constitutional Reform and Expediency

But the excuse trotted out by leaders of both the People's Alliance and the United National Party for the retention of the 1978 Constitution provisions on proportional representation is that the (so-called) minority parties opposed the German mixed system. The logic of this goes something like this:

a) All parties including the P.A., UNP, and the minority parties oppose the P.R. system a la the 1978 Constitution.

b) The P.A. and the UNP support the mixed German system and in terms of a mandate have received overwhelming support for that commitment.

c) Parties representing the minorities have some reservations about the mixed system. 

(This is based on my discussions with several leaders of these parties who are willing to accept the mixed system with modifications to protect minority interests. They all recognised the positive features of the mixed German system.)

Therefore, the proportional representation system a la the Constitution of 1978 is retained!
The absurdity of the position is evident. Surely the appropriate approach would have been to address the concerns of minority parties by providing for multi-member constituencies in certain areas and/or weighted representation and other constitutional devices such as double majority voting within the overall framework of the mixed German system. But perhaps this is too much to expect from a constitution making process which has in general, lacked creativity, imagination and commitment to first principles. 

Since most leaders of the minority parties accept the merits of the German mixed system, and since they have failed to offer a better alternative, they should not allow the Government to use them as an excuse for failing to fulfil its clear election mandate. 

The leaders of the so-called minority parties must continue the tradition of involvement in national issues while not merely acting on a parochial basis. TULF Leader, Mr. Amirthalingam's response to the unjust deprivation of Ms. Bandaranaike's civic rights and indeed, Minister Ashraff's response to the Wayamba election fiasco are two examples (one old, one recent) of this commitment to larger national issues and principles. 

Recently, various groups have called for the abolition of the party system. This dangerous development highlights the tragedy of Sri Lanka's politics.

We abhor political parties. We are against political parties, and we should have none, is echoed by various political and religious leaders. The argument is dangerous and flawed. Calling for the abolition of the multi-party system in Sri Lanka is as absurd as suggesting that all newspapers be banned or abolished merely because one is fed up with the sycophancy of the state controlled newspapers and the sensationalism of some of the independent newspapers. Reform not abolition is the answer. The people get the political parties (and newspapers) they deserve. The multi party system is an essential prerequisite for a liberal democracy. Abolishing the party system will propel us from the frying pan into the fire. 

The Wayamba election has demonstrated the need for institutional reform to protect the democratic process. Strengthening both the authority and independence of the Elections Commissioner and his office, depoliticising the police and the public service, introducing the German mixed system of Proportional Representation and providing incentives for politicians of a better calibre to enter politics by providing for the freedom of conscience of MPs and reducing the patronage power of politicians, are some of the urgent reforms necessary. Sri Lanka's political leaders seem uninterested in pursuing these reforms. It is not expedient for them to do so. It's time for the people to wrest the initiative and adopt a Constitution that looks after their interests.

( The writer is Senior lecturer in Law at the University of Colombo)

More News/Comments

Return to News/Comment Contents