Political power amidst deficit in political literacy

 It is only the strength of the public opinion that would prevent such undemocratic moves by governments

However, the deficit in what is called political literacy among people including those who are considered to be educated does not instil hopes of such public opinion being in place in the near future

The current Opposition would not be able to defeat the motion given its numerical strength in the House

Once during cross talks over the Central Bank bond scandal at the Western Provincial Council during the last government, Niroshan Padukka, a United National Party (UNP) member was repeatedly disturbed by the then United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) members. He took his seat after challengingly saying that he would give five minutes from the time allocated to him for any UPFA member to explain the bond scam over which they were shouting. An uneasy silence followed for a few minutes before the UNP member continued his speech, this time with less interruption.

Although ordinary people, especially those who are uneducated or less educated talk about things like the bond scam, Aflatoxin, Eastern Terminal (ECT) of the Colombo Harbour etc. they are not sure as to what really happened or happening, as it requires a certain degree of knowledge to understand them. 

However, only common-sense would suffice one to understand the government’s move to dismiss judicial proceedings into numerous high profile cases of human rights violations, corruption and nepotism involving the government leaders and their close friends, through a motion in Parliament based on the recommendations of the Presidential Commission on political victimisation. 

22 persons including former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, MPs and Ministers from the then government and opposition, as well as senior police officers and government officials, had been identified by the Commission as those who were instrumental for the said judicial proceedings. Apart from dismissing these judicial proceedings, their civic rights were too to be revoked under the recommendations of the commission for “violation of the Constitution and misuse of public property” by initiating these cases.

When the then Opposition contested the government’s move to court-martial former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka after he politically challenged former President Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2010, the government leaders argued that he must be brave enough to face the trial if he was innocent. However, here the government is taking a diametrically opposite stance when it comes to the judicial proceedings against their political allies, friends and relatives; they are going to dismiss the cases through a motion in Parliament which was presented by Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa on April 9.

One would find it difficult to understand as to why the government should resort to such a contemptuous move, given the recent outcomes of so many cases against the ministers and allies of the government such as former Chief Minister of the Eastern Province Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan alias Pillayan, former Reconstruction and Development Agency (RADA) Chairman Tiran Alles   and ministers Johnston Fernando and Rohitha Abeygunawardena. Although these cases finally left as crimes without criminals, one might argue they at least went through a judicial process.

It was reported that the government has dropped the recommendation for the revocation of civic rights of Opposition politicians and certain officials, fearing that it would become a precedent. Yet, they have not realised that the revocation of court cases using Parliamentary majority would also be a precedent. 

The current Opposition would not be able to defeat the motion given its numerical strength in the House. It is only the strength of the public opinion that would prevent such undemocratic moves by governments. However, the deficit in what is called political literacy among people including those who are considered to be educated does not instil hopes of such public opinion being in place in the near future. They fear or do not prefer to call a spade a spade in the face of powerful governments. Although there have been exceptions, public opinion is always submissive when the government is strong and the governments in turn tend to resort to ridiculous or contemptuous or high-handed acts.

The J.R. Jayewardene regime is the best case in point in that regard. President Jayewardene even attempted to bring in a Constitutional amendment to provide only for the MPs of the Opposition to cross over to the government, preventing the government MPs from doing the other way around. The ridiculousness of the move was very clear even for the least educated person in the country, unlike the issues such as the bond scam and ECT.

He also attempted to amend the Constitution just to retain one of his party MPs who had lost his Parliamentary seat as a result of an election petition. The UNP candidate Abeyratne Pilapitiya was elected to the then Kalawana electorate at the 1977 general election and was challenged by an election petition by the defeated Communist Party candidate Sarath Muttetuwegama. 

When he realised the petition was going against him, Pilapitiya had kept away from Parliament for three months apparently on the advice of President Jayewardene. He therefore forfeited his seat. According to JR’s new constitution there was no bye-election when a seat became vacant through forfeiture. The Secretary of the party to which the sitting member had belonged had to nominate a person in the nomination list, and Abeyratne Pilapitiya himself was nominated to fill the vacancy created by his absence.

When the ruling over the petition was given in favour of Muttetuwegama, Pilapitiya did not resign from his Parliamentary seat, arguing that he was not the elected Pilapitiya but the appointed Pilapitiya. However, at the by-election which was held according to the court ruling Muttetuwegama was also returned to the same seat. Yet, Jayewardene wanted to have his man in the Parliament, by hook or by crook.

This situation required a Constitutional Amendment – the ‘Third amendment’ – to allow the Kalawana seat to have two Members. At this point, the Supreme Court, headed by Neville Samarakoon put a damper on President Jayewardene’s plans. It ruled that the third amendment to the constitution required not just a two-thirds majority in Parliament, but also a Referendum, since it affected the franchise and the composition of the legislature. Finally Pilapitiya resigned from Parliament on January 15, 1981.

President Jayewardene also wanted to retain the five-sixths of Parliamentary power his party he secured at the 1977 election until he was in power as President. He was sure that no party would secure such a huge power under the PR system he had introduced as a part of the 1978 Constitution. Therefore, he, instead of a general election, conducted a referendum on the postponement of the general election in 1982 which was marred by unprecedented frauds and violence.  

Some members of the current Parliament including Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa were vocal opponents of these political antics of President Jayewardene. It is ironic to see a similar situation now under their administration. So long as the deficit in political literacy prevails in the country, it would be hard to see a change.