Views
5 years ago

Sri Lanka in the midst of a politico-constitutional crisis

A Parliament Member, who is backing newly appointed Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, throws a chair at police who are there to protect parliament speaker Karu Jayasuriya (not pictured) during a parliament session in Colombo, Sri Lanka on November 16, 2018.  	—Photo: Reuters
A Parliament Member, who is backing newly appointed Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, throws a chair at police who are there to protect parliament speaker Karu Jayasuriya (not pictured) during a parliament session in Colombo, Sri Lanka on November 16, 2018. —Photo: Reuters

Published :

Updated :

Sri Lanka has plunged into a politico-constitutional crisis since October 26 in the wake of President Maithripala Sirisena's decision to sack Ranil Wickremesinghe as prime minister, appoint former president Mahinda Rajapaksa as new prime minister, dissolve parliament and call for a snap election for January 05, 2019. All This was aimed at ending the stand-off between the President and Ranil Wickremesinghe.  The President's action has triggered protests leading to violence which caused one death.

Many has described President Sirisena's move as unconstitutional as under the Sri Lankan Constitution, the dissolution of Parliament can occur only if at least  four and a half years elapsed since the most recent election or two-thirds of the member assent to a dissolution. Neither of those two conditions has been fulfilled. The Speaker of Parliament, Karu Jayasuriya described the dissolution of Parliament as "severe violation of democratic principles that should not have occurred in a democratic society''.  But President Sirisena responded by claiming that the dismissal of Prime Minister Wickremesinghe was necessary in 'national interest' and also citing a provision in the constitution which empowers the president to appoint any member of parliament (MP) who is most likely to command the confidence of parliament. Furthermore, the President has taken the position that since he is the appointing authority of  prime minister, therefore, he has the implicit power to sack  him/her. But according to the constitution the Prime Minister is not a public servant, so cannot be sacked by the appointing authority.  Many of Sirisena's opponents described his action as 'a political coup'.

Sirisena and  and Wickremesinghe come from  traditionally opposing parties but they cobbled up  a surprise  coalition in 2015 to defeat the then President Mahinda Rajapaksa, a controversial Buddhist nationalist, who otherwise remains  popular a political figure for the key role he played in ending the  brutal 25-year-old civil war in the country. Rajapaksa was accused of committing serious human rights violations while he was in power from 2005 to 2015. He also allegedly used intimidation to silence opposition.

The Sirisena- Wickremesinghe coalition was doomed when Rajapaksa's party emerged as the clear winner in recent local elections. This was the likely reason for President Sirisena to go for realigning himself for the future parliamentary election. Sirisena in fact defected from former President Rajapaksa's (now Sirisena's newly appointed Prime Minister) government in November 2014 and joined hands with Wickremesinghe to contest the 2015 presidential election. He criticised Rajapaksa for his anti-democratic rule and attacks on civil liberties and promised good governance. Behind all these rhetoric, Sirisena and Wickremesinghe were part of a US-led and India-executed regime change exercise to oust pro-Chinese Rajapaksa. At that time Rajapaksa accused Sirisena of  political backstabbing.

But now Rajapaksa says his bonds with Sirisena is well-cemented and could not be broken. Some commentators see the current crisis as a geo-political tussle between China and India, with India preferring Wickremesinghe and China Rajapaksa. However, at the end it is all about domestic politics.

But far more important was the fundamental difference between Sirisena and Wickremesinghe over how far to accommodate Indian interests and that primarily contributed to open confrontation between the two, leading to the sacking of the latter as prime minister. Tensions between the two were also building up on major economic policy issues since the coalition government was formed in 2015. This was further compounded by deteriorating economic condition in the country. Wickremesinghe has been more inclined to   neo-liberal economic reforms than Sirisena which contributed to their increased differences in approaches to the issue of economic reforms.

Wickremesinghe  forged close ties with India while Sirisena accused that he was the target of an assassination attempt by RAW, the Indian intelligence agency. Many consider that Sirisena replaced Wickremesinghe with veteran pro-Chinese politician Rajapaksa to indicate a pro-China tilt. But Sirisena accused his political rivals of trying to create a wedge between him and the Indian government by labelling him as an anti-Indian.

Meanwhile, both China and India have exercised extreme caution in dealing with the evolving political crisis in Sri Lanka. But diplomats from Western countries called for immediate reconvening of parliament for a floor vote. The USA and its allies, the UK, EU, Canada and Australia, as well as  UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres have expressed their deep concerns at the deteriorating political situation in the country resulting from the sacking of the prime minister and asked for reconvening of parliament. Washington was hostile to the Rajapaksa government's deepening ties with China while he was in power. The US still considers Rajapaksa to be pro-Chinese and does not want him make a political comeback. By contrast, China described the political changeover as  'internal affairs' of the country and reiterated that China follows a 'non-interference policy'.

In the fast-developing political situation, Rajapaksa did not lose time to quit President Sirisena's party,  Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP)  and joined a newly-formed party led by his brother Basil Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka Podujana Party (SLPP) and launched his election campaign following the controversial dissolution of parliament. This move by Rajapaksa significantly weakened Sirisena politically, but he has already concentrated significant state power in his own hands as President giving full control over the military and police.

Meanwhile, confident in his victory in the coming election, Mahinda Rajapaksa declared that the election would truly establish the will of the people and would make way for stable country. Both he and his brother were well known for their ruthlessness in the prosecution of the civil war and also supported the move by the president to remove Wickremesinghe from his office.

But Wickremesinghe refused to  recognise the presidential order to sack him and continues to occupy the prime ministerial residence in Colombo called Temple Trees. Rajapaksa has been doing everything possible to establish himself as the new prime minister. Such a situation has left the country in effect with two prime ministers leading the country into a  serious political deadlock which is now further compounded by a no-confidence motion  passed in parliament against Rajapaksa on November, 16. But Rajapaksa's son Namal said his father would not resign because the Speaker acted out of order in conducting the vote.

The speaker Jayasuriya conveyed the result of no-confidence motion to the president on the same day it was passed (November, 16). The speaker also adjourned parliament until 1:00 pm, Monday, November 19, in view of the serious disruption to parliamentary proceedings caused by brawling MPs - one even brandishing a knife.

President Sirisena, however, refused to accept the no-confidence motion passed in parliament on November, 16 and said on the same day that he would not prorogue parliament under any circumstances. He also made it quite clear that he would not appoint Wickremesinghe as prime minister again.

Now the political drama in Sri Lanka has further intensified as the country's Supreme Court has weighed into to resolve the crisis and issued an interim order overturning President Sirisena's  dissolution of parliament; it will issue its final verdict on December 07. This may prevent Sri Lanka from further sliding into democratic dysfunction and intensified political violence which has a danger of turning into ethno-religious violence, given the country's past experience. In effect, the Supreme Court decision enabled the reconvening of parliament on November 16.

While Wickremesinghe and his supporters and other opposition forces welcomed the Court decision, President Sirisena responded to it by convening a meeting of the National Security Council and military commanders. To compound the political crisis, the no-confidence motion   passed in the Parliament against Rajapaksa, now rendered the country without a prime minister. Under the circumstances, President Sirisena is the only one holding his office but without a prime minister at least at this point in time. He will have to appoint one soon to get the country running.

The Supreme Court decision helped Sri Lankan democratic process to move on but that process has significantly been weakened and still remains on the edge of the cliff. According to the constitution, President Sirisena will have to name a prime minister who will command majority vote in parliament. He indeed told a visiting delegation of MPs to prove their majority in parliament and would act according to the existing law. While Wickremesinghe  believes he has the required number in parliament, the acrimony between him and the president may likely result in choosing a compromise candidate as the new prime minister.

Muhammad Mahmood is an independent economic and political analyst.

[email protected]

 

Share this news