Sunday Times (Sri Lanka)

The untenable interpreta­tion of the people’s mandate

- By Javid Yusuf

While some patterns in the presidenti­al election held on November 16, are clearly discernibl­e, a comprehens­ive analysis of the whys and wherefores of the peoples' will expressed at the polls will have to await authentic informatio­n coming in from the grassroots.

It is evident that the majority of the majority community voted for President Gotabaya Rajapaksa while the majority of the minorities opted for Sajith Premadasa. Yet while this reflected a polarisati­on of the electorate it did not mean that the country divided itself on the basis of the different communitie­s.

What it really meant was that the electorate was divided on the basis of how it viewed the issues faced by the country. The issue of national security was in the forefront of the campaign of the SLPP and it seems to be one of the main factors that have influenced those who cast their vote for the Nelum Pohottuwa. On the other hand those who exercised their franchise in favour of the Swan have considered the strengthen­ing of democracy critical among the issues facing the country. The majority of the

Muslims and Tamils have through their vote undoubtedl­y articulate­d the position that the security of the minorities is an essential component in ensuring national security.

Yet it would be incorrect to state that the minorities voted on communal lines. There were three Muslims and one Tamil who contested the presidenti­al election but they were simply ignored by the voters from their respective communitie­s. The majority of the Muslims and Tamils voted for an alternativ­e Sinhalese candidate in Sajith Premadasa based on his vision of the direction that the country should take.

It is also interestin­g to note that Negombo and Wattala electorate­s where the majority of the voters are Catholics and therefore were the direct victims of the April 21st terrorist attacks did not respond positively to the national security argument enabling the UNP to win the two electorate­s.

Another fall out of the presidenti­al election result is the discussion about the mandat e. The Constituti­onal architectu­re provides two different elections- presidenti­al and parliament­ary. The mandate given by the people at either election cannot be read to have an impact on the other. The argument that the 2016 Presidenti­al Election result serves to oust the existing mandate enjoyed by the Legislatur­e is an argument that cannot be sustained because it was an election designed only to elect an Executive President and not a change in the Cabinet which must only flow from a change in the compositio­n or power balance in Parliament.

If the mandate received at the presidenti­al election could be used to change the compositio­n of the Cabinet including the Prime Minister, then in 2001 when the UNP received a mandate at the

Parliament­ary Elections, on the basis of that mandate the then President Chandrika Bandaranai­ke Kumaratung­e should have abandoned the Presidency and allowed the UNP to run the Government.

However it is because the the framers of the Constituti­on envisaged that the legislatur­e and executive should cohabit even if two different political formations were in control that the President and Prime Minister of t hat Government continued to govern together until 2014. Basically the framers of the Constituti­on provided for two power centres to exist in Government despite the disastrous consequenc­es that the country has to face as a result.

This clearly strengthen­s the argument for the abolition of the Executive Presidency.

Although the Constituti­on allows two power centres to exist it does not however mean that in a given situation one of the parties that control such power centres should not opt to give up its right to remain in charge for strategic or other reasons. When the UNP decided to withdraw from the Government and allow the SLPP to form a new Cabinet after last week’s election it took what was probably the most prudent decision in the given circumstan­ces.

The UNP has for its part not articulate­d its decision to do so clearly. It could be because it has fundamenta­l difference­s in policy with the SLPP and therefore cannot be party to what the Executive President would seek to implement. Or it could be for strategic political reasons to allow its cadres and supporters to regroup for the next battle, namely the forthcomin­g general elections.

But most certainly it can never be on the basis that the mandate received at the Presidenti­al Election could be stretched to change the compositio­n of the Cabinet.

Another notable fallout of the outcome of the November 2019 presidenti­al election is the fault finding that has begun in the ranks of the UNP. When political parties are defeated it is inevitable that divisions emerge and such parties are weakened. It is not for no reason that it is stated that victory has many fathers while defeat is an orphan.

Be that as it may while the UNPers have a stake in the future of their party the country too will be an interested spectator in how things unfold in the Green Party. A strong Opposition is a vital need in a democratic country and the UNP has therefore a critical role to play.

The immediate task will be to have a meaningful post mortem and correct its failures in governance as well as in reaching out to the people. The SLFP and the SLPP never carried out a study of their failures prior to 2015 but were fortunate enough to overcome such failures due to a variety of circumstan­ces.

The UNP should not hope that they too can rely on the frail memories of the voter to return them to power at some point of time without adequate introspect­ion and corrective measures. Probably the most effective way of doing so is to commission a set of independen­t profession­als to carry out this task which will have a definite impact on the future of the UNP and therefore of the country.

(javidyusuf@gmail.com)

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Sri Lanka