Legitimacy of Sirisena’s move and missed options

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa being sworn in as the new Prime Minister by President Maithri-pala Sirisena on Friday

By Chandani Kirinde

President Maithripala Sirisena has plunged the country into an unprecedented political crisis. His arbitrary actions have pitted the Legislature against the Executive and made a mockery of the mandate given by the people, both in the January 2015 Presidential election and the Parliamentary elections in August the same year, to move away from the divisive politics of the Mahinda Rajapaksa era and build a more tolerant and inclusive society.

In his address to the nation on Sunday night, Sirisena sought to explain his actions, but fell short of justifying his hasty and ill-thought-out move of sacking Ranil Wickremesinghe from the post of Prime Minister and appointing Mahinda Rajapaksa instead. The validity of his actions is being hotly debated, and no doubt its legality will become clear in the days ahead.

One of Sirisena’s grumbles often has been the UNP’s, and particularly Wickremesinghe’s, disregard for “our values/culture”, and this is one issue that brought about the drastic parting of ways.

It’s common knowledge that Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe were like chalk and cheese. They come from very different backgrounds, and hence their lifestyles, values, and outlook on life will differ. The socio-economic policies of each of the political parties the two men belong too also vary: maybe not as sharply as in the pre-1977 era, but still the SLFP and its affiliated parties have always sought to portray themselves as the custodians of “our-ness” in Sri Lankan society. 

When Sirisena decided to become the common candidate in 2015, to face off against then-incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa, he was aware of these differences. He needed the votes of the right-leaning United National Party (UNP) to win the election, and of its leader, who is often accused of showing disregard for traditional /cultural values, selling state enterprises, of favouring privatisation etc. Sirisena was aware of these traits in the man who played a major role in securing him the post of President, and hence ranting about these differences now is juvenile, unbecoming, and in no way justifies the constitutionally questionable step he took of removing Ranil Wickremesinghe from the post of Prime Minister.

The President’s comments on Sunday about the conduct of Ranil Wickremesinghe with regards to the Central Bank bond scam, on the other hand, are legitimate, as are other matters relating to corruption and favouritism in awarding of contracts for mega projects etc. An incident he referred to was his visit to the Central Bank in the wake of the unfolding bond scam saga in July 2015, only to have Ranil Wickremesinghe and then-Governor of the Central Bank Arjuna Mahendran make an unannounced appearance. This, he said, was the beginning of many other such instances where Wickremesinghe interfered in matters by passing or ignoring the Executive. There is no bigger blunder made by Ranil Wickremesinghe during the past three years, than bringing in his buddy Arjuna Mahendran to head the Central Bank. As revealed before the Commission appointed by the President, there is little doubt a massive fraud took place, with Mahendran and his son-in-law Arjun Aloysius key players in it. The case is now pending in court, but this will certainly not be the last time we hear about the bond scam and Wickremesinghe’s links to it. But even given the seriousness of this scam, the President choosing to sack the Prime Minister nearly three years after the incident took place, and months after most of the details regarding it were made public, only to replace him with a man who has far more serious allegations - not only of corruptions, but of more serious nature - stacked against him, in no way justifies his action.

The President also referred to an alleged assassination plot against him. It’s a matter that must be viewed with utmost seriousness, given the history of political assassinations of this country. Starting from the assassination of S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike in 1959 to the assassination of President Ranasinghe Premadasa in 1993, and the attempted assassination of President Chandrika Kumaratunga, this country has had more than its fair share of violent attacks on politicians of all hue and colour. The President’s bitterness at a matter affecting his life being take lightly by the UNP and its leader is understandable. But these are concerns he could have voiced publicly, and used the powers he has as executive, to ensure that proper investigations are carried out regarding these allegations. This, again, is no excuse for sacking Wickremesinghe, only to replace him with the man who Sirisena himself accused of trying to, not only kill him, but also his entire family.

There were other legitimate ways for Sirisena to remove the Prime Minister. With the Budget around the corner, if he and his accomplices in the Rajapaksa camp were confident of having a majority in Parliament, they could have defeated the Budget. This would have meant the fall of the Wickremesinghe Government, and would have enabled the President to appoint a new Prime Minister and a Cabinet, with no questions raised about the legitimacy of his move.

The President could have also taken the people who voted him into office into his confidence, and addressed them first, before collectively stabbing them in the back by appointing to the Office of Prime Minister the very man that voters in 2015 were more than eager to see the back of.

As of now, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya holds the key to ending this escalating crisis. His post is secure as the head of the Legislature, and he can take a cue from a ruling given by a former Speaker Joseph Michael Perera, who, in 2003, ruled that the prorogation of Parliament, by then President Chandrika Kumaratunga, without consultation with the Speaker, was an act done deliberately to prevent the due functioning of Parliament. His lengthy ruling points to steps that can be taken to get out of a quagmire slimier to the present scenario.

Mao Zedong, the founder of modern China, famously said revolution is no dinner party. Neither is politics. It means, staying tough and keeping emotions at bay and fighting the good fight. President Sirisena often refers to his over 40 years in politics, and this he should know better than most others in politics today. Gravitating through Sri Lankan politics is like walking through a minefield, and one wrong move would result in things blowing up in your face. President Sirisena’s actions have turned the whole country into a minefield through which everyone has to tread carefully. One wrong move would put parliamentary democracy, which the people of this country have safeguarded for over 70 years, through insurrections and separatist wars and numerous ups and down, at peril.

Sourse: https://onceuponabook.blog/2018/10/29/legitimacy-of-sirisenas-move-and-missed-options/