So now we have a duped president
What strange times we live in. Only last week this column mentioned that funny things happen here and elsewhere. We drew a distinction between funny ha ha!, meaning laughable and funny curious meaning strange, broadly speaking.
Unlike in most other countries, our politicians like to engage in theatrics. They like to exaggerate or minimise the significance of events or their statements or those of others, depending on what is politically advantageous. Whether this is to attract more free publicity in this world of expanding means of communication and media or for reasons best known to them, one cannot say.
Some research has shown that, in terms of formal education, the current parliament, which has proved to be the most rumbustious in the seven decades since independence, has also the most backward lot of MPs who have ever represented the people.
There are instances where candidates rejected by the people have crept into the House through the backdoor, so to say, and think they are our manipulated democracy’s gift to mankind.
One could not rightly claim that Dayasiri Jayasekera, the current general secretary of the SLFP, is one of those 90- odd parliamentarians who failed to cross that educational obstacle called the GCE ‘O’ level or fell long before they even approached the hurdle.
So when I read his recent declarations at a media conference in which he claimed that Maithripala Sirisena, president of Sri Lanka and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, had been duped by his so-called political ally sharing yahapalana power, it took some time to recover from a mix of mental shock and paroxysms of laughter.
Jayasekera’s remarks were so funny they evoked both laughter and curiosity which did remind me of Marx -- not Karl but Groucho -- and the farcical character Manappuwa played by Eddie Jayamanne in early Sinhala cinema.
I learnt only the other day that Dayasiri Jayasekera is a singer among other accomplishments. The current lyrics he sings on behalf of Maithripala Sirisena
are unfortunately out of tune.
One problem is that those who cross and double cross from one political party to another often find it difficult to sound convincing to the public or the media.
Consider his recent remarks defending his president -- of the country as well as the party he currently represents as general secretary. One can understand his wanting to support Sirisena. As a lawyer he would have heard of the Sinhala saying “kuliyata kahinawa” a reference to some lawyers who are wont to tell any story for a fee.
Repeating Sirisena’s belated lament that he was ill-advised with regard to the 19th amendment passed by parliament a little over three months after he came to power in January 2015 and his recent call for the abolition of both the 18th and 19th amendments, Jayasekera plays the ventriloquist’s dummy.
He takes up the same cause as his president. But, in doing so, Jayasekera demeans Sirisena. He argues that President Sirisena had not been “really aware of the implications of the 19 Amendment”.
That is a hell of a thing to say if you will pardon the language. Basically Jayasekera is saying Sirisena is a simpleton who does not comprehend such matters as constitutional change and other weighty issues.
Thus he was misled into believing all the praise that was showered by his advisers of the day and others over the progressive steps taken by the 19A what it would bestow on the democratic process and the benefits that accrue to the citizenry.
This raises a vital question with regard to President Sirisena. Isn’t Jayasekera’s rather puerile defence of his party boss a confession that he has relied solely on his advisers and had not read the draft amendment as with some cabinet memoranda, because he has little understanding, if at all, of what it entails?
As usual, Sirisena and his hangers- on are falling back on that age- old game of shifting the blame on somebody else. Take the most recent and that tragic Easter Sunday occurrence.
What was Sirisena’s excuse when asked why the Government did not act on the Indian intelligence alerts? He said nobody warned him about an impending attack. As questioning of other officials have shown, Sirisena is regularly briefed by State Intelligence Director Nilantha Jayawardena. Instead he sacks his defence secretary (one of several Sirisena has had like Trump) and sends the Police chief on compulsory leave. But there is a deafening silence from Sirisena on Nilantha Jayawardena -- whether he informed the president or not.
How did advisers such as Jayampathy Wickremaratne, whom Jayasekera refers to as having misled the president on 19A, come to be appointed as advisers? Who appointed them?
Surely they did not advise him for a couple of hours or a day. Didn’t Sirisena think of asking somebody else for an opinion? Surely he has friends or qualified persons among the black- coated fraternity.
Only the other day he broke with tradition and appointed two lots of President’s Counsel -- once in January this year, as normal, and another in April or May which is rather unusual.
The 19A was passed somewhere in April 2015. Less than a month later, Sirisena was in London attending then Prime Minister David Cameron’s international anti- corruption conference at Lancaster House.
Gloating over how he brought back democracy and freedom to Sri Lanka, he presented himself proudly as a president who voluntarily surrendered some of his powers to the prime minister and parliament, how he voluntarily clipped his elected term by one year.
I listened to all this with a sense of pride because these meritorious acts were performed not under coercion but in the name of democratic governance.
Now when I hear Jayasekera’s claims on behalf of Sirisena that the president was misled, I seriously begin to wonder whether it was Sirisena who was duped or the people who voted for him.
Sirisena asks on a note of seeming conviction how a president who garnered 6.2 million votes could have his power circumscribed by an MP elected from one constituency.
If he thinks he can dupe the people forever he is deceiving himself. It is not that the people wanted Sirisena. It was that they did not want the Rajapaksa clan. They were not all Sirisena’s votes either. He got the UNP votes while many civil society organisations and the movement spearheaded by the Ven. Sobitha Thera carried out as campaign for the common candidate.
If Sirisena thinks he was so popular that 6.2 million voted for him, why he can throw his hat into the presidential election ring and see how much he gets.
Jayasekera also said there were inconsistencies and contradictions in the 19A. He points out that Article 43, which refers to the appointment and management of the Cabinet, says the Cabinet should be appointed in “consultation” another says “advice” and a third says in “concurrence” creating confusion. He asks whether the prime minister should be informed in doing so.
As Mark Anthony would have said to Brutus, I am no lawyer like Jayasekera, the singer and legal counsel. But to me all three words mean one thing. The prime minister has to be involved at some stage in the process of cabinet-making.
This raises a vital question with regard to President Sirisena. Isn’t Jayasekera’s rather puerile defence of his party boss a confession that he has relied solely on his advisers and had not read the draft amendment as with some cabinet memoranda, because he has little understanding, if at all, of what it entails?