Referendum, an ideal way to formulate national policies

Provision for referenda is a major democratic step in the 1978 Constitution. It can be used very effectively to find out the opinion of the people on vital national issues. The irony is that ever since its introduction it has not been used for the intended purpose. Instead the very man who introduced it, President J R Jayewardene used the referendum in 1982 to extend the life of the Parliament without holding a general election.

By Gamini Abeywardane 

The idea of using the constitutional option of holding a referendum on a nationally important matter came from none other than President Gotabaya Rajapaksa this week. It was when he said he was ready to hold even a national referendum to change the higher education policy to make it suitable for the country’s modern needs.

The occasion was when he met Vice Chancellors of the national universities along with members of the University Grants Commission to discuss the issues relating to reforms in higher education. One of the major current issues is the non employability of particularly arts graduates passing out of the universities due to lack of vital skills needed in the job market.

The issue is a long standing one probably coming down from late sixties, but none of the ruling politicians ever made a genuine effort to sort out the problem. They all have been talking about the abstract idea of higher education reforms and appointing committees to make recommendations while practically doing nothing to sort it out.

With change of medium of instruction and expansion of university education following political and social changes that began in 1956 a new problem arose when the country started producing arts graduates beyond its requirements.

Most of them were qualified in subjects that had practically no relevance for available jobs while they lacked the minimum skills in vital subjects like the English language and information technology. The net result was although the private sector had opportunities they were not ready to employ these graduates.

We cannot afford to go on producing large numbers of non-employable graduates at public expenses. Obviously the system needs major reforms if we are to progress as a country. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa fortunately seems to have correctly understood the issue and also identified the possible solutions without much loss of time.

He had suggested teaching these undergraduates information technology and a foreign language to make them suitable for the employment market. Probably a subject like management also can be included in addition to a main art subject that a student can select.

This is probably the most simple and practical way of resolving the issue although there is likely to be opposition from the traditional academic types.We as a country will not be able to progress unless we introduce some revolutionary changes in our system of education.

As suggested by the President referenda can be used as a way of finding out the opinion of the people on such issues so that whatever the policy changes introduced can be permanent and long lasting, unaffected by political changes.

Provision for referenda is a major democratic step in the 1978 Constitution. It can be used very effectively to find out the opinion of the people on vital national issues. The irony is that ever since its introduction it has not been used for the intended purpose. Instead the very man who introduced it, President J R Jayewardene used the referendum in 1982 to extend the life of the Parliament without holding a general election.

Nearly four decades later it is a salutary development that a leader has thought of using it for nationally important issues. It’s a useful method developed in the Scandinavian countries in order to find the people’s opinion on important matters.

Going one step further, it can be much beneficial if the mode of conducting a referendum can be made easier and less costly with modern technology. Since a referendum is a non-binding one it could be conducted even through the internet. That way the concept of referenda can be used effectively to develop permanent policies on all our national issues.

Often the ideas promoted by political groups are not necessarily the opinion of the people, but eventually they are implemented by fooling the politically active sections of the people causing damage to the country in the long run while the majority of the people observe in silence. So-called revolutionary changes in our university system in the sixties are a classic example and that is where the root of the today’s problem is.

Read More

19th amendment needs modification

By Gamini Abeywardane

Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa when he met a well-known Buddhist monk recently made it clear that the 19^th amendment to the Constitution needs modification. He indicated that it fetters the executive presidency and the newly elected President is able to function because he is in the Premier’s seat.

It is obvious from the experience of the previous government that split of powers of government between the President and the Prime Minister under the current status is so irrational that the country cannot be governed smoothly if there is any disagreement between the Prime Minister and the President.

This is the very malady which technically made the Ranil Wickremesinghe administration wholly ineffective to the extent people felt as if there was no government in the country. Most of the lapses which threatened the national security causing great damage to the economy and finally bringing down the very administration could be attributed to the imbroglio created by the 19^th amendment.

Then what is the solution? It is not certainly going back to the 18^th amendment to the Constitution which gave excessive powers to the President. Some of the good things like the independent commissions created under the 19^th amendment should be retained while removing some of the obstacles created for the executive president directly elected by the people to carry out his normal functions.

For example the nineteenth amendment prohibits the President from holding ministries; nevertheless the appointment of ministry secretaries is entirely within the President’s powers. Cabinet ministers are appointed by the President in consultation with the Prime Minister while the President remains as the head of the cabinet and therefore should preside over the cabinet meetings.

By virtue of the Constitution President is the Head of the state and also of the Government. He is also the commander on chief of all armed forces and he alone has the power to declare peace or war. Such powers are generally inherent in a head of state, but here the point is our head of state is directly elected by the people and the system of government we still have is executive presidency.

In such a situation it can be argued that the executive president who is also the head of the state and head of government should technically have the power to hold the defence ministry although the position under the nineteenth amendment is not quite clear.

These are anomalies that need to be rectified and they cannot be done without the two thirds majority in the Parliament. The next general election that is supposed to be held in the mid-year is quite crucial in that sense and it may not be impossible if the President continues to go on the correct track which we believe he is already on.

In case he is unable to muster that kind of majority on his own he should be supported by the other political parties in the Parliament to correct this anomaly in order to ensure smooth functioning of the Constitution and the system of government it has bestowed on the country.

Read More

Of executive presidency and abolition dreams

The emergency cabinet meeting aimed at abolishing the executive presidency failed to produce any results.  However it speaks volumes about the sudden desire to abolish the executive presidency developing in all quarters of the political spectrum. There is lack of clarity on who called for the cabinet meeting, but it is clear that such a sudden meeting wouldn’t have been possible unless there was some agreement between both President and the Prime Minister.

The abolition of the executive presidency has been in the political debate since the death of President Ranasinghe  Premadasa. Chandrika Kumaratunga, Mahinda Rajapaksa and Maithripala Sirisena, all had the abolition of the executive presidency as a main item in their election manifestos. Some argue that the executive presidency is good for the country, but if that is so its abolition would not have been an attractive theme for election manifestos.

All Presidents have promised good things for the country at the time of elections, but done what is good for them after getting elected. And that has been the fate of this abolition idea so far. Now it has been at least half abolished through the nineteenth amendment. In practice what we have now is more like a quasi-executive presidency as most of its powers have been transferred to the Parliament.  As a result its abolition has become easier than before.

The original nineteenth amendment draft envisaged creating almost a non-executive presidency. However due to the Supreme Court determination and resistance from the then Joint Opposition in the Parliament it was a much different version which was finally passed and it has created a number of new issues. Accordingly even a future government will find it difficult to rule the country because of the possible friction between the Parliament and the President.

By now it is well accepted that the nineteenth amendment to the Constitution in its present form is troublesome and needs modifications. However any modification will involve either transferring powers from the President to the Parliament or vice versa and will not be practically easy even if the next President and the Prime Minister are from the same political party.

Whatever prompted the recent emergency cabinet meeting meant for initiating abolition of the executive presidency was once again not in the interest of the country, but to safeguard the self-interests of those who initiated it. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is now pushed to the wall in the face of mounting pressure from a sizable faction of his party to nominate Sajith Premadasa as the presidential candidate. Incumbent President is not in a position to contest for another term. The move is likely to have even the blessings of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa because he is constitutionally prevented from running for presidency again.

The JVP’s recent move to abolish the executive presidency through the proposed twentieth amendment would have been an excellent opportunity to resolve the issue. The move did not find the support of the Prime Minister Wickremesinghe probably because of two reasons. Firstly because he had the ambition of getting into the high post himself and secondly because he thought such a move would facilitate Mahinda Rajapaksa to capture the governmental power through the Parliament.

However now it seems too late to introduce any constitutional amendment before the presidential election. It is unlikely that whoever is elected as the next Executive President will soon work towards abolishing his own position. The only option will be to modify the nineteenth amendment to remove unwanted friction between a future President and the Prime Minister which is again will not be an easy task.

  

Read More

Loss making SOEs need urgent reforms

But no govt. touches the issue because of political sensitivities

By Gamini Abeywardane

In the developed world the elections are often fought based on economic and social policies relevant to the time. For example the solutions to main problems facing the country should be in the manifestos of the contenders at elections and they should be part of the political debate.

Unfortunately in our country the situation seems to be quite different with various unexpected and emotive issues coming into the political debate around the election times. This has been the pattern ever since we gained independence.

Politics of the sixties and seventies was dominated by petty cultural, linguistic and racial issues to the exclusion of vital economic and national priorities. Who will give more free rice and impractical ideas like nationalization or providing government jobs took the centre stage of political debate sidelining the important issues.

Then with emergence of separatist ideas and onset of terrorism in the north the need for countering those tendencies came to the forefront becoming a dominant factor in all subsequent elections. These tendencies resulted in some of the critical issues not finding their due place in the ongoing national debate.

One such area that has escaped due attention is the loss making state enterprises whose burden on the treasury has been escalating at a rapid speed. According to the Ministry of Finance, during the first quarter of 2019 alone, fifty-five state-owned enterprises made Rs 59 billion in losses.

It has been reported that of the state-owned enterprises that make losses the Ceylon Electricity Board continues to lead the pack with a Rs 23 billion loss while the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation  has made losses of Rs. 21 billion and Lanka Sathosa Ltd made losses of Rs. 788 million during the first quarter of 2019.

This trend, if not arrested in time, can have catastrophic effects on the country’s economy and it’s time that political parties open this subject for public discussion without keeping mum over such issues for petty electoral advantage.

Many politicians in our country have opposed the idea of privatization or even part privatization for mere political expediency and have instead advocated reforming loss making entities while they are in state control. The idea is fine, but our experience is such ideas have not worked despite much talk about converting such entities into profitable institutions.

On the contrary, we could see how SriLankan which was a profitable airline under Emirates management became a monumental loss under state control.  At the other end is Sri Lanka Telecom which had poor performance as a state entity which now has not only become a top performer, but has also revolutionized the entire telecom sector in the country after its partial privatization.

Many years ago one had to be a Member of Parliament or a top government official, if one were to obtain a home phone line. Others had to be in a waiting list for several years.  But now it is a matter of one or two hours and just a phone call away – there are enough and more telecom players competing with one another to come home and fix it.

Then take the case of garbage disposal and cleaning of the city of Colombo. Anyone would remember how untidy the city was with dumps of garbage strewn here and there, stray dogs often feeding on them while the municipality had a large number of excess employees among those dedicated to keep the city clean. It’s no secret that most of them were supporters of various politicians and many of them were drawing their salaries even without being physically present at work while attendance were marked through proxies.

Now as a result of outsourcing such work to well organized private sector companies we see a clean city with garbage being removed on daily basis at the correct time. These companies are no doubt making a good profit. It’s because they manage their workers well and do the work with the minimum number of people ensuring maximum utilization of the resources.

A state entity in our country can never achieve that kind of efficiency because of some inherent issues such as political interference, mismanagement, corruption, wastage, inefficiency, indiscipline and lack of incentives. With whatever plans and restructuring efforts we have failed to produce any positive results in these state enterprises and all know they have the potential of becoming profit making institutions under right management.

What we have witnessed in our country is that governments at popular demand keep stuffing all institutions under them with their supporters irrespective of whether there are vacancies or not, especially when elections are around. Politicians generally do not work like businessmen. They have no idea about efficiency or return on investment. They only think of how to remain in power. Therefore the general tendency is to do whatever is within their powers to remain in power and that is how most of the state controlled enterprises became white elephants.

Always there is a vast gap between what is economically right and what is politically feasible. Politicians themselves often do not have the necessary discipline to make these institutions work as they themselves are corrupt. As far as we see making state enterprises profitable under government control is a near impossible task with our political culture.

Divestiture of assets belonging to the state to private sector is a method adopted in many countries as a means of converting lossmaking enterprises into viable entities. Any structural changes in these entities are generally resisted by the workers and their trade unions as they feel insecure with reforms while they are happy to continue with the existing state of affairs. However, these institutions are a burden on the economy and the people in the long run as ultimately they are sustained with taxes from the people.

The situation is made worse when politicians, especially when out of power start backing the wrong side for political gain and try to undermine any efforts at reforming these institutions. Even any form of restructuring is viewed by the workers as a first step towards privatization and therefore generally opposed.

In countries where there is no such political culture like China, Singapore and UAE state enterprises have often produced good results under proper management. Even in neighbouring India there are well-run state enterprises. Some popular examples of such entities are Emirates Airline, Singapore Airline, Indian Oil Corporation and Sinopec in China. It’s worth finding out why such achievements are not possible in Sri Lanka. Merely opposing privatization is not going to solve this problem and if privatization is not acceptable then we should go for Public Private Partnerships.

As suggested by the current government a few years ago this can be achieved by setting up a government owned holding company on the model of Temasek Holdings in Singapore or Investment Corporation of Dubai (ICD) with a mandate to consolidate and manage all government portfolios in state enterprises brought under them. It could provide strategic oversight by developing and implementing strategy and corporate governance policies for the long term benefit of the country. However, for whatever reason no visible progress has been made in this regard.

It is vital to get the private sector into these entities, if we are to reform them in any meaningful manner. Without introducing good corporate governance and discipline they can never be reformed. How much of the shareholding should be divested can be decided depending on the strategic importance of each enterprise. It is understood that the state should have a greater say in certain vital areas, nevertheless it is futile to have that say if these enterprises are only adding burden to the economy.

It is important to have a dialog on this issue and explain to the public the gravity of the situation and the urgent need for reforming these entities, so that all political parties can contribute by suggesting ways and means of depoliticizing the management of these entities and improving profitability without merely opposing reforms for petty political gain.

Read More

Why aren’t good people in the Parliament?

Can educational qualifications be prescribed for parliamentarians?

Every nation is supposed to have the government it deserves. Does it mean the type of Parliament we currently have is what we Sri Lankans deserve? Technically it cannot be so with a highly literate population and a history of a high level of education even from the colonial times.  Then what went wrong?

By Gamini Abeywardane

The diminishing standards of our parliamentarians have been a matter of grave concern to many in the recent times. The apathy of many MPs towards vital economic and national issues, the poor contribution they make through their parliamentary speeches and worst of all rowdy and unruly behaviour of some of them have triggered the question whether it is possible to lay down some minimum educational qualifications for parliamentarians.

Many ask, if you need a paper qualification even for the lowest rank job in the public sector how can one become a member of the highest law making body without any such qualification. Their question sounds logical and reasonable.

However the issue is, in a democracy where universal franchise and equality are highly regarded it is not possible to deprive any person of the opportunity to become a representative of his or her people purely on the ground of educational qualifications. Probably that is why most democracies in the world do not have such limitations.

This position has been recognized by Section 90 of our Constitution which states that every person who is qualified to be an elector shall be qualified to be elected as a Member of Parliament unless he is disqualified under the provisions of Article 91. That literally means if you have the right to vote you also have the right to stand for election as a Member of the Parliament.

Therefore under our law it is not possible to stipulate educational qualifications for parliamentarians. In our neighbouring India the situation is quite different although they do not legally stipulate such qualifications. About 75 per cent of MPs in the current Lok Sabha have at least a graduate degree, while 10 per cent are only matriculates, according to a report by PRS Legislative Research (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/PRS)

The Union Cabinet always consists of highly educated academics and professionals mostly with multiple qualifications. The current Cabinet of Narendra Modi who himself holds a Master’s Degree has 25 members out of which two have doctorates, six have postgraduate qualifications,  12 are graduates while only five have not received university level education.

Every nation is supposed to have the government it deserves. Does it mean the type of Parliament we currently have is what we Sri Lankans deserve? Technically it cannot be so with a highly literate population and a history of a high level of education even from the colonial times.  Then what went wrong?

Terrorism factor

There are several possible reasons and prime among them is the terrorism factor, specifically that of the LTTE which posed a threat to the ruling class. In short they eliminated the best of our potential leaders --  men like Lalith Athulathmudali, Gamini Dissanayake, C V Gooneratne, Denzil Kobbekaduwa, Janaka Perera, Lukshman Kadirgamar who could have changed the destinies of our country.

When a country has educated leaders at the top level they in turn tend to attract like-minded people for the important positions and the chain reaction goes on encouraging more and more educated and decent professionals into the system. The best way to weaken a country or its government is to destroy its best leaders both the current and the potential.

The LTTE tried to achieve it by eliminating the clever, educated and pragmatic potential leaders from the south and with that threat no good men entered politics for several decades. So the vacuum was filled with those closely connected to existing politicians and their cohorts often promoted from the local and provincial government levels.

On the other hand the LTTE was very careful about whom they wanted to eliminate. They targeted the broadminded and liberal politicians with a vision for sorting out the main issues confronting the country while leaving out the mediocre ones. They never touched the peripheral, communal and chauvinistic ones whom they thought would ultimately help their plans in the north.

PR system of voting

The much maligned Proportional Representation system of voting is another major reason which has discouraged good and educated men from entering politics both at national and local level. In the earlier first- past-the-post system, a good man with some reputation could always aspire to enter the Parliament with a reasonable amount of campaigning within his electorate which is geographically not a vast area.

The campaigning or canvassing in such an area could be done without much cost and moreover if the candidate is from the same electorate it became quite easy because the person is already known in the area. With the introduction of the PR system the electorate has become larger and now it’s one whole administrative district.

Campaigning in such an area is not possible without a colossal amount of money and unlike in the early days soon after independence, now it’s the corrupt that have more money and inevitably the good and the educated are not able to compete with such people and win an election.

Then there is the National List which is expected to be a platform to accommodate some educated members who are able to make useful contribution to national life although the Constitution does not lay down any specific criterion for these appointments. Unfortunately this list is also is being misused as a means of appointing candidates rejected by the people at national elections as Members of Parliament.

In such a situation it is not fair to blame the people for electing wrong members to Parliament. The kind of Parliament we have now is not what the people deserve, it is an electoral outcome distorted by the LTTE’s terrorism through its systematic elimination and made worse by the PR system of voting. Now the LTTE menace is over and we should at least modify the existing PR system if we want to have a set of better parliamentarians and consequently a better government.

Read More

Nineteenth amendment: Gridlock or progressive step?

Westminster or prime ministerial system of government, with whatever its weaknesses, has worked well for centuries and well-developed traditions and conventions are available to meet with any situation. We are probably paying for our sins after haphazardly changing a system of governance which had worked quite well in our country for a long time.

By Gamini Abeywardane

The leaders of the United National party which introduced the 1978 constitution described it as the panacea for all political ills of the country since independence. The political opponents of the UNP saw it as the road to dictatorship and end of all freedoms.

All Presidents that came into power after J R Jayewardene and Ranasinghe Premadasa climbed on to the pinnacle of power on the promise of abolishing the ‘tyrannical’ executive presidency though none of them stuck to their promises beyond the election date. Instead, they enjoyed the powers and perquisites of the high office to the maximum and also examined the possibility of sticking to it beyond the two terms.

The only exception was Maithripala Sirisena who upon his election tried to deliver his promise quite honestly. Fresh from the victory backed by all forces who wanted to re-establish democracy and give the Parliament and the judiciary their due place, Maithripala had no qualms about giving up the massive powers attached to his post.

Probably the reason was, he never contested on his own accord or as a candidate of his own political party, but was handpicked and persuaded to be the common candidate by a combine of all those political parties and the civil society groups that rallied round Venerable Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera to topple the Rajapaksa regime.

Amidst massive opposition, pandemonium in the Parliament and constitutional snags, Maithripala could only go half way in terms of delivering his promise of abolishing the executive presidency. The balance part in terms of the Supreme Court determination was not possible without holding a national referendum.

The nineteenth amendment as such, was the maximum he could have gone, however honest he would have been in his attempt to deliver his promise. Ironically enough even he seems to be now regretting over going that far. He now tells the country that nineteenth amendment is the reason for the mess we are in today ---the scuffle between the Premier Wickremesinghe and him as well as other political woes.

At the same time he stated that the eighteenth amendment almost created an absolute monarchy and there was great need for a change. It is an admission that the nineteenth amendment, despite its faults, was a progressive step. However, at last he seems to find fault with both eighteenth and nineteenth amendments.

Indirectly, the suggestion is that it is better to change the nineteenth amendment before the next presidential election in order to prevent a recurrence of a similar situation in the future. That seems to have some point.

What if the next two elections also produce a President and a Prime Minister who will pull in two different directions? By nature of the nineteenth amendment the holders of the two posts will enjoy some sort of equal power and the worst is if the presidency and the premiership go to two different political parties.

Such a scenario is not impossible particularly in the current context of confusion and chaos with no party or individual in politics considered exceptionally popular. Then, the only option will be to go on for another four and half years as the President under the nineteenth amendment will have no authority to dissolve Parliament before such time.

Consensus

It is only the consensus among political parties that can resolve such an issue in a democracy. However, our experience is that consensus on such a major issue is never possible in our system where the greed for power and perks overtakes national interest.

That way the country has no other option than tolerating all the ills of the Constitution and the system until some party obtains two thirds majority in the Parliament which is again a near impossibility under the prevailing proportional representation system.

Thus the possibility is for the nineteenth amendment in the present form to remain a part of the Constitution whether one likes it or not. All this would have been avoided if the process to draft a new Constitution that began in the Parliament several years ago had seen its fruition.

A major part of the work in that regard has been already done, but it is not possible to go ahead with it in the prevailing political climate. It is also unlikely that a future government will be able to revive that process and continue with it from where it has been stopped.

However, with date for Presidential elections fast approaching there is no time for debate over any such things and inevitably the matter will be left to the next President and the Parliament to resolve.

So the likelihood is that there will not be any possibility for a totally new Constitution, but piecemeal changes may be introduced from time to time depending on the outcome of each election. We will have to live with each amendment for some time to see how workable they are.

Future politics will be complicated with unexpected issues coming up because of the friction between Parliament and the President. The reason is there are no conventions or precedents in our system because we are still experimenting with our presidential form of government.

Judicial interpretation

The only hope in this regard can be the judicial process which will be able to play a decisive role in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution as happened in the recent judgments of the superior courts in the unsuccessful attempt to dissolve the Parliament.

The matter can also get resolved to some extent if the next government gets a clear majority in the Parliament. Still there is a greater possibility that many of the matters of friction among the various agencies of the government will end up in courts and that can be one way of resolving some of these issues once and for all.   

A Constitution like any other system has to evolve and maybe we are going through this evolution. Further amendments or judicial interpretations will become necessary to overcome every obstacle that we may confront on the path of our constitutional development. The country’s courts will have a definite role to play in it.

Westminster or prime ministerial system of government, with whatever its weaknesses, has worked well for centuries and well-developed traditions and conventions are available to meet with any situation. We are probably paying for our sins after haphazardly changing a system of governance which had worked quite well in our country for a long time.

Read More

PR system and executive presidency

The bane of Sri Lankan politics

By Gamini Abeywardane

When JR Jayewardene introduced the executive presidency his main declared reason for it was the much needed stability for the country. His argument was that under the Westminster system the country had had too many elections and since independence no government ran for its full term until 1970. He believed that it was a great obstacle for country’s economic progress.

However,what was not stated in public was the fact that the UNP had the island wide total majority of votes in most elections including when the party was badly defeated. What it meant in other words was, if the country had an executive president elected by the people the UNP could perpetuate its rule

Let’s look at the past and see whether these declared and undeclared objectives were achieved as anticipated. Whether the first expectation --the stability for the country was achieved or not is abundantly clear when one looks at the messy status of the current government we have in power.  

The most stable period under the executive presidency was the eleven year period of J R Jayewardene. However, that stability did not come from the presidency itself, but mostly from the five-sixth majority in Parliament which JRJ obtained under the Westminster system in 1977. He kept the same majority for his second term as well, by extending the life of the Parliament through a referendum.

Then Chandrika Kumaratunga’s presidency was marked with confusion and uncertainty with a thin parliamentary majority obtained through the support of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress and later the UNP getting the majority through crossovers and so on. It was no better than the so called unstable periods under the previous Westminster system.

Dream of perpetual UNP power

The same way the second and undeclared objective of JRJ, that is to perpetuate the UNP in power did not happen. If you look at the period up to 2015 since introduction of presidential system, out of the 37 years the UNP ruled only for 17 years which means that JRJ erred in his assumption. However, from the country’s point of view which party was in power was immaterial as long as it was the decision of the people. The most important point is that the system never gave the country the kind of stability it was intended to give.

Some seem to believe that it was because of the might of the executive presidency that Sri Lanka managed to end the scourge of LTTE terrorism. However it is also relevant to note that the country successfully faced the 1962 coup attempt as well as the JVP insurrection of 1971 under the Westminster system of government.

There are so many examples in the democratic world where parliamentary system of government has provided sufficient stability and strength for the countries to face any type of grave situation. Neighbouring India is perhaps the most shining example in this regard.

In a parliamentary system it is difficult for an unpopular leader or government to remain in power unlike in a presidential system. Any difficult situation can be overcome through the Parliament itself by changing the old order and putting a new leadership in power without much hassle.

Quite the opposite is happening in our country under the executive presidential system. Instead of the expected stability for the country every person who gets into the hot seat becomes greedy and tries every trick in the book to stay in power and looks at the possibility of extending the tenure even by few months. Resignations are unheard of, and greed is such resigning is akin to death for an incumbent president.

PR system of votes

The proportional representation system of elections was introduced as it goes hand in hand with the executive presidency. The idea was to avoid unwanted landslides and ensure reasonable representation to every political party based on the number of votes received from each district. That way each minority party was expected to receive some representation in the Parliament.

That result would have been achieved and as a result every small party has a member in the Parliament. At the same time it has created a host of new problems pushing the minorities away from the main stream political parties. This has also given birth to a number of ethnicity based political parties further polarizing the society which was already divided.

On the other hand the PR system while preventing landslides has created a worse situation where no party can get a clear majority in the Parliament thereby negating political stability for the country. Today we are suffering the effects of this more than ever before – the country has no stable government and the main political parties are pandering to the wishes of small minority parties for their survival.

It is clear that the executive presidency is the root cause for many of the country’s problems. Creation of power hungry leaders, who cannot be removed during their tenure irrespective of whatever consequences to the country, has caused much damage to the political evolution of the country.

Critical stage

Now the country has reached a critical stage where the majority of the people have got fed up with the existing system and practically lost faith in all 225 Members of the Parliament. This is certainly a sad story for a country which has enjoyed an unbroken democratic tradition of close to nine decades.

Presidential system with its authoritarian tendencies has effectively prevented the emergence of potential new leaders. Instead it has helped the development of a new band of rustic third rated politicians most of whom are henchmen neither keen nor qualified to be future leaders.  This has discouraged good men from entering politics making it easy for the bad lot to survive.

As a result the country is facing a shortage of potential leaders while the people have no faith in the current set of politicians who are fighting for leadership stakes. In such a situation it is naïve to believe that the next presidential election will sort out the current political, economic and social crisis.

The only way out will be for all the political leaders, if not, at least the leaders of three major power blocs, that is the President, Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to discuss this issue and come up with a suitable constitutional solution without delay. Reverting back to a parliamentary system with a modified electoral system and holding parliamentary elections under an interim constitution could be one way of tackling the situation.

This can happen only if the country is blessed with honest and national minded politicians who can place the country above their own self-interest at least at a critical time. The misfortune of our country is the lack of such men and women and it is difficult to believe that there will be any change in the foreseeable future.

Read More

National Security needs a defined constitutional and legal status

Non-military aspects should also be included in its scope

 

The reality is with change of government people in defence administration also change and the only way to have some permanency and continuity in the system is by having a national security administration defined by law, so that it will be mandatory for all elected governments to honour it irrespective of personal preference of the leaders.

By Gamini Abeywardane

It is no secret that disunity at the highest levels and insufficient priority for the subject of national security had largely contributed to the failures on the part of the government to prevent or mitigate the effects of dastardly terrorist attack on Easter Sunday.

Blaming and shaming apart we need to now find some way of avoiding the repetition of such things in the future. One thing that is now clear is that the National Security Council (NSC), the highest body responsible for the country’s security failed to act upon the warnings given by the intelligence services.

There are also allegations that some of the vital members of the NSC were not invited to several meetings because of the personality clashes at the top level of the political leadership.

This is fundamentally because the current Constitution makes it possible to have the President and the Prime Minister from two different political parties leading to friction at the highest level.

A legal basis for national security

Preventing such a situation of dual governance is not possible without a major constitutional change which is unlikely to happen in the near future. Rather than waiting for the impossible it is prudent to resolve this within a reasonable time.  

However, deleterious effects of such political developments on national security can be prevented, if the NSC is given a more defined legal status with a wider membership, scope and mandatory provisions regarding how it should function.

For example, the United States National Security Council has been established by the National Security Act of 1947 and has a well-defined structure. Chaired by the President, the NSC has five statutory attendees, regular attendees and additional participants.

In addition to the President, the statutory attendees are Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy and Secretary of the Treasury. It is also supported by a system of committees which includes Principals Committee, Deputies Committee and several Policy Coordination Committees.

In addition to the defence and intelligence officials the system also ensures the participation of other relevant officials such as the Attorney General, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, Ambassador to the United Nations, Director of Office of Management and Budget whose expertise and views are important for the country’s national security and there is no room for shutting out anybody on personal grounds.

Status of the country’s security does not depend on who is in the presidency or which political party controls the Senate or the House of representatives because the system by law enables the sitting President to have total control over the national security establishment.

Though there is no such a regular mechanism prescribed by law in our country it is well known that national security and intelligence matters were quite adroitly handled by the then Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa during the previous government.

It was a rare combination of a committed group of military and non-military personnel which ensured the successful conduct of the war against the LTTE terrorism. And the type of security coordination prevailed at the time has been commended worldwide and even most recently by former US ambassador to Sri Lanka Robert Blake.

However, the reality is that with change of government people in defence administration also change and the only way to have some permanency and continuity in the system is by having a national security administration defined by law, so that it will be mandatory for all elected governments to honour it irrespective of personal preference of the leaders.

Need for revamping

Now with the current developments the need has also arisen to revamp the entire national security system and widen its scope taking into consideration both internal and external threats. New improved ways of intelligence gathering and processing have become necessary.

With external threats, there is also a strong need to include non-military aspects of national security.  Although originally conceived as protection against military attack, national security is now widely understood to include non-military dimensions, including the security from terrorism and crime, economic security, energy security, environmental security, food security, cyber security and so forth.

Such expansion in the scope of national security will also require the services of a wide range of experts and technocrats. This will entail a major overhaul in the national security system and the best way would be for all that to be detailed in a properly drafted national security law.

Another important aspect in such a system would be to provide the necessary facilities and the freedom of operation and even immunity where necessary for the intelligence agencies and their operatives to accomplish their tasks without political interference.

Our country has faced three types of terrorism, each time involving one of the three main communities. Two insurrections by the JVP, nearly three decades of LTTE terrorism and now Islamist terrorism which has international routes. Historically each time we crushed one type of terrorism we had become complaisant assuming that terrorism would not raise its head again.

With the latest developments it is clear that terrorism with its global dimensions is going to be a permanent threat to human life. Thus eternal vigilance should be a precondition in our country if we are to achieve any progress, be it economic, social or cultural.

All this will need a practical approach and simply fighting with each other and dwelling in theoretical imaginations about future economic progress based only on regional development will not carry us anywhere. The security of the nation has to be a paramount consideration in the whole equation and it should be kept above mundane party politics. (Writer can be contacted on gamini4@gmail.com)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read More

National security should be above politics

There is a strong need to be security conscious

 

The whole country now knows the defects were at the upper most level of the security establishment and the reason for it was the rift between the country’s President and the Prime Minister. As a result the upper echelon of the security establishment had lost its cohesiveness and was not operating at full steam.

 By Gamini Abeywardane

Ten years of peace in our country following the defeat of the LTTE has been disturbed by the dastardly Easter Sunday terror attacks that shook the world. Public domain is full of theories and opinion over security lapses on our part and who should be held responsible for them.
While it is important to analyze the relevant data to find out answers to these questions, it is also equally important to re-establish the impenetrable security network we once had and improve it further to meet the kind of international terrorist threats now we are exposed to.

With experience of nearly thirty years of war against the LTTE terrorists we had established one of the best intelligence networks in the world. Although some allege that these networks were weakened with efforts towards reconciliation and prosecution of some intelligence officials for wrong doings during the time of war, that position is not entirely true.

Any one looking at the content of warning letters sent by the two relevant DIGs which together contained most of the vital information regarding the planned suicide attacks will understand that both police and military intelligence units were doing their job well.

 Rift in the government

The whole country now knows the defects were at the upper most level of the security establishment and the reason for it was the rift between the country’s President and the Prime Minister. As a result the upper echelon of the security establishment had lost its cohesiveness and was not operating at full steam.

There has not been any agreed policy on the composition of the Security Council and if there was any such practice the Prime Minister and the Inspector General of Police would not have been kept out of the council meetings.

Whenever the President who is the Minister of Defence was out of the country the practice in the past had been to make an acting appointment. But under the new dispensation the practice seems to have been disregarded.

During President J R Jayewardene’s time this issue never arose because Lalith Athulathmudali functioned as the Minister for Internal Security.  Similarly during the presidencies of R. Premadasa and Chandrika Kumaratunga, Ranjan Wijeratne and Anuruddha Ratwatte respectively were deputy defence ministers and both of them had cabinet rankings and used to handle most of the defence matters on their own.

The reasons that contributed to the security lapses such as non-appointment of a deputy defence minister with a cabinet ranking, the lackadaisical attitude towards the Security Council, non-appointment of a competent Defence Secretary and the inactiveness of the IGP show that security was not a top priority of the government and security matters have not been discussed at the cabinet level.

All this points to one fact, that is when the country’s President and the Prime Minister are from two different political parties the security of the country is likely be at stake. This is even further corroborated by certain developments that took place during the UNP government from 2000 to 2004 under Chandrika Kumaratunga’s presidency.

Despite Chandrika being the head of the cabinet differences emerged between her and the cabinet and she used to boycott most of the cabinet meetings. The rift became worse with her taking over of a few ministries citing national security as the reason and finally this led to the premature dismissal of the UNF government of Ranil Wickremesinghe.

However, the current crisis situation has to be overcome with unity among all political parties in the parliament while a long term strategy has to be formulated with necessary constitutional amendments to ensure that national security will not be compromised in the face of political issues.

National security above politics

Either the national security has to be kept above politics through some constitutional and legal mechanism or the current constitution has to be amended to prevent a situation where the President and the Prime Minister are elected from two different political parties. Unless one of these things happens a similar situation can arise again in the future as well.

Like in the US and many other developed countries permanent institutions need to be set up to handle intelligence gathering and processing at the national level while the composition and the operation of the Security Council has to be legally defined and kept outside general politics of the country.

A country which has faced numerous security threats -- two insurrections, a separatist war and finally an international terrorist threat --  can never afford to take national security lightly and it’s time to place national security above everything else in the country.

There are allegations that the current government has been too involved in national reconciliation efforts and that was one of the reasons for neglecting national security. The fact is those are two distinct areas that should not be mixed up.

Reconciliation among communities is necessary after an internal war, but it cannot be achieved if there is re-emergence of terrorism. In that sense, a foolproof system of national security is a prerequisite for national reconciliation. In other words reconciliation cannot be achieved at the expense of national security.

In this age and time where terrorist groups are powerful enough to shake even mighty nations, emergence or re-emergence of terrorism could be a matter of time. So, the mere fact that the war is over in our country should not be a reason to be complacent about national security.

With a history of insurgencies, terrorism and war running into well over three decades, Sri Lanka can ill-afford to ignore the need for strengthening its armed forces and intelligence services. This will become more relevant as the country grows economically and increases its asset base – industrial installations, power stations, ports and airports etc.

In the context of current internal and regional developments, it is likely that terrorism will continue to remain an eternal threat in the foreseeable future. No country can afford to be lax on matters of security and the latest happenings are a grim reminder for the necessity of being security conscious at all times.

(Writer can be contacted on: gamini4@gmail.com)

Read More

When will the power problem be resolved forever?

 

Restructuring of electricity sector will also require a huge amount of capital and it goes without saying that private capital has to be infused into the system in some way. Like in many state owned loss making institutions the very word ‘private capital’ is anathema to CEB workers who have vehemently opposed these restructuring plans.All major political parties are aware of the situation, but when in opposition they also try to make political capital out of these issues by opposing the restructuring moves.

By Gamini Abeywardane

The country just witnessed one of the worst blackouts in the recent times. Power cuts imposed twice a day, sometimes even without prior notice left most consumers furious and frustrated. The politicians and the top officials as usual were blamed for the calamity which caused much damage to the economy. In time for the New Year problem has been temporarily fixed hiring a barge mounted power plant amidst allegations of corruption.

The minister in charge proudly announced that there will not be any power cuts hereafter. But he owes the country a full explanation on how he is going to do that when we all know that it’s not possible. Critics say that continued power supply is possible only during the New Year season because of the decreased demand and power cuts at some point afterwards will be inevitable.

This is part of a cycle of events which we Sri Lankans have been witnessing from time to time over several decades. Politicians are engaged in leveling allegations against one another making political capital out of the unfortunate situation while some of them are alleged to be profiting from sudden power purchases. Country as a whole has to suffer huge economic losses while the people have to undergo many hardships.
Long unresolved crisis

At the root of all this is the long unresolved power shortage. For too long we depended on hydroelectricity and when consumption increased power shortages and power cuts became the order of the day. There was no consistent effort to identify the correct power mix and increase the output in keeping with the increasing demand. In short, for several decades there has not been any definite plan or consensus among the political leadership for systematic development of the power sector.

The Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) has been run as an inefficient, oversized and loss making outfit for politicians to provide employment for their supporters. Because of its monopolistic nature and the presence of strong engineering unions no politicians had the courage to reform or restructure the CEB though it has been a long felt need.

Major reforms in the power sector became impossible due to lack of funding and opposition from various quarters. Finally the problem became too acute compelling the government to urgently look for other sources of power and coal power plant at Norochcholai was one such solution in a hurry.

In the not so distant past the machines at Norochcholai stopped for umpteen times due to technical issues. There were allegations of corruption and use of substandard components in the commissioning of that plant and most of the blame in this regard has been heaped on the previous government. There have also been questions about poor environment management raising huge issues about future use of coal.

However, all governments that ran this country in the past several decades are equally blameworthy for the power sector mess although both major political parties have been preaching on this topic with a lot of wisdom whenever they are in the opposition.

At the same time, one should not forget that plans by many governments to build such power plants had to be shelved in the face of mounting opposition by environmental groups and other politically motivated activists in the past.Despite whatever its negatives, the addition of 300MWof power from Norochcholai averted major power cuts in the last few years.

However, energy experts have pointed out that due to the inability to complete the proposed 500MW coal power plant in Sampur on time, country is likely to face a power crisis in 2020, similar to the situation in 2000. There has also been a long delay in implementing the 300MW power plant at Kerawalapitiya due to some controversy over awarding the tender. Sampur project had been cancelled because of the opposition for use of coal on environmental reasons. Whatever the reasons the end result is a power shortage causing hardship to people and great loss to the economy and the responsibility for any failure should lie with the government of the day.

Power mafia

In the meantime several privately owned diesel power plants also entered the power sector making use of the severe shortage of power. These are all temporary solutions, but there have been allegations of the CEB purchasing power at high prices. Thus, there seem to be an electricity mafia involving politicians, CEB officials and the businessmen. At the centre of all this is the unresolved power crisis and the politics behind it which makes it even more difficult to resolve the issue.

Then there is the other side of the issue, the high cost of electricity in Sri Lanka. Our electricity costs are probably the highest in South Asia and it is no doubt a great disincentive for foreign investors while also adding to the people’s cost of living here. Because of that, electricity is subsidized to domestic and industrial consumers. Since the electricity tariff is not cost reflective, every year the CEB makes a loss close to Rs. 50 billion. 

The only way proposed by economists, power sector experts and multi-lateral aid agencies such as the World Bank and the ADB to resolve this issue is to restructure the CEB which is an inefficient entity with colossal debts amounting to billions of rupees which has already become a burden on the treasury. In order to increase efficiency of the CEB and to resolve its debt issue, it has been proposed that three of its main functions –generation, transmission and distribution, should be separated.

Restructuring will also require a huge amount of capital and it goes without saying that private capital has to be infused into the system in some way. Like in many state owned loss making institutions the very word ‘private capital’ is anathema to CEB workers who have vehemently opposed these restructuring plans. All major political parties are aware of the situation, but when in opposition they also try to make political capital out of these issues by opposing the restructuring moves.

If we are to avert any future catastrophes in the power sector only way out is to seriously look at these restructuring plans and implement whatever is suitable from the country’s point of view with infusion of private sector capital where necessary. Country is already seeing the positive results of such restructuring in the once maligned telecom sector and there is no reason why same norms cannot be applied to the power sector.

However the reality is that no government is bold enough to take on the strong trade unions in the CEB because of its monopolistic nature. Although they know that restructuring the power sector is a necessity, no politician had the courage to face its political and electoral consequences and such moves become even suicidal especially when the elections are round the corner.

Whenever a drought continues for long and the weather gods are not in our favour, food shortages are the first thing to hit us followed by the energy shortage. Where the power issue is concerned we have been talking too long about inadvisability of continuing to depend on hydro power and the need for going into other sources of energy.

Many researchers have, with scientific data and statistics pointed out clearly and well in time, the country’s future requirements of energy as the economy grows and how to meet that. All calculations on the right mix of various energy sources such as hydro, thermal, coal and renewable energy had been done several years ago, but the question remains whether proper attention has been given to these suggestions and proposals.

Renewable energy

Hydro electricity is weather-dependent while both thermal and coal power are expensive and also not environmental friendly. And in this situation, the virtues of renewable energy are many and especially in a country where sunshine and wind are abundant, it is one of the most viable forms of energy. However, why no concerted effort has been made to use renewable energy, more specifically solar power despite sunshine throughout the year, is a question that begs an answer.

Even in countries like the US there have been arguments to say that there is a national conspiracy to prevent renewable energy from becoming the primary source of energy. In the US the conspirators are said to be the fossil fuel industry which continues to rake in exorbitant profits on oil and gas while it refuses to make any significant investment in renewable energy.

In the US main stream news media too has been accused of being subservient to the corporate interests and abstaining from doing any serious coverage on the viability of renewable energy.  The members of the Congress have been accused of being addicted to the big buck they receive from big oil and other traditional oil sources to block any worthwhile renewable energy legislation.

According to the US Department of energy, the amount of solar energy that hits the surface of the earth every hour is greater than the total amount of energy that the entire human population requires in a year. While the facts remain so, if we know that it works why don’t we use renewable energy in place of heavily polluting oil, gas or coal?

The primary reason is that the cost of renewable energy is still relatively high compared to fossil fuels although the gap is closing as the cost of natural gas and oil continue to rise. The price to install photovoltaic panels on the average home is quite high and affordable only for those who are well off.

But the common experience is when some product is mass-produced its price per unit should plummet. The one million dollar question is why solar power and wind power products are not promoted in a serious manner with appropriate duty concessions and mass produced.

With diesel mafia and connected interest groups being powerful in the energy sector the situation in Sri Lanka cannot be much different from the US and it’s time for us to have a fresh look at this energy issue  and formulate a stronger national policy on renewable energy and promote specifically solar and wind power.

On the overall energy issue the government seems to have risen from a deep slumber and appointed a cabinet committee under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to look at the short and medium term solutions to the power sector issues. Even if they do their job properly it will only be a temporary solution.

There is a strong need to have an independent body or mechanism fully empowered to handle the power sector on a long term basis in terms of the laws governing the sector while also meeting the growing demand as the country goes into its next stage of development. Such an outfit should have the authority to raise the necessary capital from whatever the legitimate sources with adequate participation of the government without having to depend on inexperienced politicians to handle this vital issue. It should also have its own mechanism to minimize room for corruption.

Though originally created for that purpose the CEB in its current form is woefully incapable of handling such a job. That is why restructuring this institution has become a vital necessity and that has to be done while the politicians in power look for temporary and short term solutions to the issue. We have been talking about it for too long and now with memories of power cuts still being fresh it’s time to concentrate on this onerous but vital task.
(The writer can be contacted on: gamini4@gmail.com)

 

 

Read More