A year on

Today marks a year since the constitutional crisis that tested and proved Sri Lanka’s democratic credentials. The 52-day crisis showed the true depth of commitment by Sri Lankans from all classes and backgrounds to protecting their democracy, but 365 days later, many would argue that the Government failed to maximise and take forward this hard-won triumph.

Many have been the odes written to how the constitutional crisis was overcome. For over a month, there was almost a daily battle mounted by the moderate and law-abiding public that demanded the Constitution of the land be respected, irrespective of political affiliations. They stood by and supported the Speaker, who emerged as one of the heroes of the battle to protect Sri Lanka’s democracy. 

As the days ticked along, seasoned activists stood alongside members of the public who had never stepped onto the streets before, and they collectively took ownership of Sri Lanka’s democracy. The young and the old, the rich and the poor came together for one battle that transcended all divisions. Civil society gathered and filed petitions before the Supreme Court, a few media organisations carried out their duties and an unlikely stand against abuse of power was born. This refusal to dismiss Sri Lanka’s democracy for the political advantage of a few eventually ended when the Supreme Court upheld the 19th Amendment and ensured that the Constitution was returned to its rightful place. 

As difficult as those 52 days were, there was a sense of collective achievement when it ended. This was not a victory of a politician or a party but something that was gained by the people for the people. However, a year down the line, many who stood for democracy may feel that their fight did not yield the respect that it deserved. There are several reasons for this view. 

Almost immediately after the constitutional crisis ended, at least one key Minister who had been accused of corruption and removed from his ministerial portfolio was recycled into the new Cabinet. The investigations into high level corruption cases as well as attacks and the death of Editor Lasantha Wickrematunge were left to inch forward as earlier. While some cases were put before Trial-at-Bar hearings, which was progress, it is arguable whether these accountability measures were on par with what was expected. Some may even argue that it was too little too late. 

Subsequent reports from presidential commissions were also not released to the public. There were also no additional measures to ensure transparency at high levels of Government with even the standard Cabinet briefings for media suspended. Key reforms needed for the economy continued to be delayed. The new Cabinet receded behind closed doors and carried on with business as usual. 

Undoubtedly the biggest and most painful lapse was what happened during the Easter Sunday attacks. The Parliamentary Select Committee’s report this week clearly showed how the responsibilities of national security given to the top officials of government were not carried out. Some of them were direct beneficiaries of the restoration of democracy after the constitutional crisis but then overlooked their responsibilities, which the whole of Sri Lanka paid the ultimate price for. A year on, Sri Lanka stands at the threshold of an election that will impact the health of its democracy. Whether the same pro-democracy forces will prevail is now under question, and this is to a large extent because there was little genuine appreciation of the victory a year ago.