Constitutional Coup
No Confidence Motion: how ludicrous in its logic
IBy Ranga Jayasuriya n a mature democracy, a government (Or for that matter, a Prime Minister) cannot and should not be impeached simply because the Opposition can do so or garner enough votes to do so. The elected representatives of the people are expected to act with responsibility and restraint; that is more so, when a new government, even a minority one, has its legitimacy underwritten by 6.2 million voters in a recent election.
The composition of the incumbent Parliament, which is dominated by the oldguard, does not erode the legitimacy of the new Government, which has a more recent mandate given to the President.
And John Exter, the first governor of the Central Bank was an American economist. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, when he was appointed the Defence Secretary was an American citizen. Later he obtained the dual citizenship.
The president appointed the new government as part of an election promise, in order to usher in a series of democratic reforms, he pledged in his election manifesto.When the Opposition, or the regressive elements within it, obstruct this process of democratic reforms by exploiting constitutional loopholes, or as in our case, resorting to the distorted composition in the current Parliament, they are, in fact, trying to pull off a constitutional coup.
The composition of the current Parliament is a distorted reflection of the original mandate of people in the 2010 general elections and was achieved by the ex-president, who facilitated crossovers from other political parties in return for pecuniary benefits extended to the MPs.
There again, what we are experiencing is the residual effects of shoddy political practices of the former regime.
To witness the disturbing repercussions of such insidious manoeuvrings, we do not need to look further than our neighbour, the Maldives, which sometime back underwent a constitutional coup hatched by the Old-Guard and now has its former president in jail and democracy rolled back. .
That is exactly what the Rajapaksa cronies in the Opposition are trying to achieve. But, their chances of success could well be limited.
In our recent past, only Chandrika Kumaratunga, the then President successfully pulled off a constitutional coup in 2004, ousting the then short lived government of Ranil Wickremesinghe.
This time around, the same constitutional powers, which Mrs Kumaratunga had then, are vested with the President, who could, either resort to a prolongation of Parliament or dissolution, in the event of the No– Confidence Motion against Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is taken up for vote.
Either of those options falls short of the aim of the Rajapaksa acolytes, who want to form their own government (And hopefully, reverse some of the reforms). But, either of the president’s options, if taken now, would not serve democratic reforms, which would have to be halted half way, sans the passing of electoral reforms. However, that would serve interests of the ex-president Rajapaksa, by denting the enthusiasm of some segments of the people in the new president, the new government and their democratic agenda. By his insidious manoeuvring, Rajapaksa is trying to drive home the impression that only his autocratic ways can deliver political stability. That is a well tested strategy. Under desperate situations, people opt to take desperate decisions. The ex-president, through his behind the curtain manoeuvring, is pushing the people towards that direction.
This reminds me something one of the African colleagues told me about Charles Taylor, the former Liberian president and a war criminal.After Taylor, then a rebel leader won the country’s war, having unleashed an orgy of violence, amputations and cannibalism, he held an election and many people who feared further violence if he were to lose, voted for him. One of the campaign slogans was ‘he killed my mom, he killed my dad, but, I will vote for him’.
I do not wish to draw a comparison between Rajapaksa and anAfrican psychopath, however, people, in general behave in similar ways out of desperation.
That modus strategy is not rocket science: If the new President appointed an elephantine Cabinet of 125 members, like his predecessor did, and extended financial patronage to the others, which, his predecessor did also, he would be by now in full control of his party.
Mr Rajapaksa would be languishing in political wilderness. That was exactly what the ex-president did to retain political loyalty and he will do the same, if he ever makes a comeback.
That the new President decided to be different and shun the infamous strategy of his predecessor has now come to haunt him. In a political system, in which nepotism is ingrained, such a collective reaction, even from the elected representatives of the people is not surprising.
However, that Mr. Sirisena dared to be different offers a glimmer of hope for the future of the Sri Lankan political culture. There are however limits for idealism. That the president has decided to appoint four deputy Ministers from SLFPand two party seniors as his advisors may also suggest that he is also trying to add a degree of realism into idealism. Such trade off are also important if the overall project is to remain intact.
The no confidence motion against the Prime Minister contains eight reasons.An average Sri Lankan would find those grounds simply ludicrous at best, and sinister and manipulative at worst.
The current government is a minority one, but it was part of an election mandate that the President received by 6.2 million voters.
It is a minority one, partly because Rajapaksa bought off hordes of MPs to support his infamous and now defunct 18thAmendment.
The suspension of certain development projects is not, of course, the most economically rational way to address the problem of allegations of graft and inflated costs in those projects.
However, those desperate and even somewhat counter- productive measures were taken to address an economic mess created by the absence of transparency in those mega projects during the previous regime.
Politicisation is something that could have warranted the impeachment of the Rajapaksa Presidency. He politicised all the organs of the government, Foreign Service, Judiciary and Independent Institutions, turning the country into his personal fiefdom. It is brazenly hypocritical of his acolytes to cry foul over politicisation.
Grousing over the certified prices and cost of living could well have been added as an afterthought to shroud the self interested initiative with a veneer of populism. The former regime spent 2.6 billion dollars to buy dollars during the last two years, in order to artificially stabilise the rupee.
That benefitted wheeler-dealer importers, who bankrolled his regime at the expense of local exporters, including small and medium, tea, rubber and other agricultural producers.
Exports to GDP ratio has declined to 15 per cent from 34 per cent ten years ago. Facts on the ground do not suggest that the former regime helped genuine local exporters. Had it been the case, we would not have been stuck in agricultural produces and garments as our primary exports.
And John Exter, the first governor of the Central Bank was an American economist. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, when he was appointed the Defence Secretary was anAmerican citizen. Later he obtained dual citizenship.
It was the paranoia of the ex-president that drove us into isolation from our traditional partners in the free world.The new government has mended ties; with India, our most important foreign relationship and the USAand the EU, our largest export markets. Within a matter of months, Sri Lanka transformed itself from an international outcast to an emerging democratic success. That remarkable feat is lost in the eyes of the acolytes of the ex-president.
All the above reasons explain one thing: This no-confidence motion is concocted out of desperation, by a frustrated lot, who have reasons to fear for their political survival and would not hesitate to drive the country to the gutter to achieve their self interested ends.
However, in an optimistic note, what we are now witnessing could well be the death throes of a spent political force.