8 January 2022 02:00 am Views - 1268
The President referring to the Cabinet ministers Wimal Weerawansa, Udaya Gammanpila and Vasudeva Nanayakkara who are openly criticizing the government’s move to sell 40% of stakes in the Yugadanavi power plant in Kerawalapitiya to US-based company, had told the heads of media that they should have resigned before they go public with their protest against the transaction. And then he sacked Premajayantha.
The protest against the Yugadanavi agreement by the three ministers and the Premajayantha saga, have opened a debate over the freedom of speech, party discipline and the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, a responsibility derived from the Constitution
Susil Premajayantha was stripped of his portfolio after he criticized the government’s agriculture policy, especially the decision to switch to organic farming in one cultivating season. Referring to the skyrocketing prices of essential goods including vegetable he told media at the Delkanda market on January 3 that the situation is the outcome of incompetent people holding high positions, an insinuation that one could apply even to the President, in the light of the appalling economic situation in the country. While lamenting over being sidelined he provoked the ruling party by saying that only some other group can resolve the current crisis.
The former President Maithripala Sirisena who is also a ruling party MP representing the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) questioned following the expulsion of Premajayantha as to why other Cabinet and State Ministers who had more severely criticized the government than Premajayantha did, were not taken to task. He too then made a scathing attack on the government even suggesting a regime change in order to save the country from the current economic abyss. He stated that farmers did not endure a horrific situation like the one they are enduring now, even during the colonial period.
The protest against the Yugadanavi agreement by the three ministers and the Premajayantha saga, have opened a debate over the freedom of speech, party discipline and the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, a responsibility derived from the Constitution. However, almost all politicians look at those issues from where they stand and not from an objective perspective - all those who are loyal to the President assert discipline and responsibility while those ruling party members who are not satisfied with their portfolios and some of the actions of the government as well as the members of the Opposition highlight the freedom of speech.
The vociferous Industries Minister Wimal Weerawansa when speaking to media on Wednesday seemed to be not in favour of the expulsion of Premajayantha. Yet, one can imagine how he might have disparaged the latter if he didn’t have a similar issue with the government over the Yugadanavi agreement. In fact, their protest against the Yugadanavi agreement has to be considered as an extension of a personal issue with Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa, given their stand on the Western terminal of the Colombo harbour. Interestingly, even Premajayantha would have acted in the same way in the case of another minister or a state minister, had he been given a Cabinet portfolio instead of a junior Minister post.
A party member making public comments that would be detrimental to the party is clearly a violation of party discipline and had to be dealt with. Any party would take such public utterances to be serious and take disciplinary action, except for certain circumstances. Those circumstances may be compulsions, fear or tactical. The former President Sirisena argued that the government was hesitant to take action against State Minister Nimal Lanza who also lashed out the government in recent public statements for the fear of him revealing some secrets about the leaders of the government.
No government or party can survive, if its high ranking members always go public with comments that go against the common stand of it. Any human entity, whether it is a political party or a government or an organization must have a common and collective policy or stand on any relevant issue that is agreed upon by all members of the entity in a democratic manner or otherwise. If it appears before the people as a democratic entity such as a political party or a government, such agreements must be made through democratic debates at its decision making body such as the Cabinet and Central Committee.
Although such debates must be free and inclusive of views of all, most of the times decisions are taken with the consensus of the majority members of the decision making body. However, no human entity is totally democratic as the leadership sometimes might and has to thrust its decision upon members of such body at some point and that would be the common stand of that entity thereafter. That pinch of dictatorship is sometimes needed to protect the unity of the entity. Absolute internal democracy might disintegrate it, as debates might go on and on eternally and overflow into the society, ridiculing the party or the government.
Hence, it is an accepted norm that members, including those who did not agree with the majority decision should not go against that decision in public. Not adhering to this would invite disciplinary actions. A party or a government is always of the view that its members must defend it in public when it is criticized justifiably or otherwise, and the members approve that stand, until they are faced with a situation similar to that of Susil Premajayantha’s. If they do not accept this rule on public statements, they must leave the party or the government.
Hence, from a disciplinary point of view removing Premajayantha from his post has to be expected. However, from the same point of view, and for an argument, it was a high-handed act on the part of the President to expel him, without a disciplinary inquiry and just based on media reports.
It has to be recalled that the Colombo High Court had released former Governor of Western Province Azath Salley on December 2 from a case filed based on media reports. Earlier Colombo Chief Magistrate Buddika C.Ragala had pointed out that there was a strong discrepancy between the views expressed by Azath Salley at the media briefing over which he was indicted and the edited version of his speech published by the media.
Nevertheless, it is not clear whether the agitation by the above three ministers, Weerawansa, Gammanpila and Nanayakkara against the Yugadanavi agreement comes under the parameters of party discipline or collective responsibility of the Cabinet, as they argue that cabinet never gave its approval for the agreement. Therefore there cannot be a collective responsibility over a decision never taken collectively, they contend. It is the court that has to decide this matter but their fate is already in the balance given the statement made by the President during his meeting with the heads of media institutions.
Ousted former State Minister Susil Premajayantha did not deny media reports on his comments as Salley did. He argued that he did not have a forum within the party or the government to air his views. However, he along with those government benchers such as John Senevirathna, Wijedasa Rajapakshe, Anura Priyadarshana Yapa and Vidura Wikramanayake who now criticize the government after being sidelined knew the set-up when they voted for the 18th Amendment to the Constitution in 2010 and should have expected it when they again voted for the 20th Amendment in 2020. This very contradiction between their words and deeds throws light on the real reason for their frustration. Yet, the majority of people agree with them on issues over which they criticize the government.