SLPP- Show of Strength or Arrogance? Political Interference in Law Enforcement

A public rally called ‘Podujana Rally’ was held on February 9 in Anuradhapura, with the participation of the President and Prime Minister; while health authorities maintained stoic silence and Law and Order appeared to be in deep slumber. Filling public parks as a show of strength ended when the Galle Face overflowed by NPP/JVP in October 2019, could only muster a meager 3% a month later.   

When SJB launched ‘people to streets’ a couple of months ago, they, the powers that be, along with health authorities, slammed the organizers of mass gatherings. Police acting on their warnings, went to courts seeking orders to prohibit public assemblies at various towns. Bus loads of supporters were stopped at all main towns by ‘Law and Order’ men. On Wednesday tens of thousands flocked from throughout the District to Anuradhapura town, without any restrictions. Yahapalana Health Minister, who lambasted the police for the undemocratic act of interfering the with ‘freedom of assembly’ by disallowing his buses carrying supporters two months back, appeared in a popular channel on Wednesday evening and exposed his duplicity saying that the massive gathering at Anuradhapura was the result of government using buses to herd people from all parts.  

In a somewhat radical or un-characteristic move, the arrogant SLPP organizers chose to go it alone, perhaps an indirect warning to trouble-makers within the coalition?  
Whatever the intentions of the high-handed ‘pohottuwa’ led by Finance minister, the SLPP has created a new political culture, something totally unfamiliar to the traditional practice of forming and depending on alliances that began even before 1948 independence. Alliances, coalitions, pacts, deals and groupings have often helped the power hungry; though such temporary groupings have proved disastrous to those who had thus gained power.  

"Whatever the intentions of the high-handed ‘pohottuwa’ led by Finance minister, the SLPP  has created a new political culture, something totally unfamiliar to  the traditional practice of forming and depending on alliances that  began even before 1948 independence"

The smaller parties, contemptuously known as the “three-wheeler” category, who were unable to win even a Pradeshiya Sabha ward at a local government election on their own, have won a few seats in parliament, by entering into alliances with one of the two major parties. The JVP, that won just one single ward [Wekada North] in the Panadura UC, at the 2018 LG elections, was successful in pocketing 18% [41] of the total number of parliamentary seats, in alliance with the CBK-led SLFP [People’s Alliance], at the 2004
general elections.  

We have so far, enjoyed a vibrant democratic system, a major achievement! However, presently we are going through a period of tremendous disorder and instability, mainly due to mishandling by successive governments and partly due to the epidemic. At times, coalitions and alliances are necessary in the functioning of democracy. The first Indian government formed by Jawaharlal Nehru in 1946, may be described as a coalition in which the Congress, the Muslim League, the Republican Party, the Hindu Mahasabha and many other minor parties participated. This was very similar to DS Senanayake’s inauguration of the UNP in the same year, and his coalition government.   

Pre-election coalitions foster better understanding between the parties in general, and the party members in particular, which offers a common platform and draws the voters on the basis of a joint manifesto. In post-election alliances, unlike pre-election ones, the understanding between the leaders occurs only after the results are declared. Contrary to common belief, coalitions are mostly a result of political conflict. Quite often, senior members of the ruling party, not happy with power sharing, break away and form different factions. They create insecurity and crisis within themselves and confuse the voters, resulting in none of the parties mustering a working majority in parliament. Then a coalition becomes inevitable, not a
mere alternative.   

"In Sri Lanka, a large percentage of alliances and coalitions have failed. For instance, from the day UNP was formed, DS Senanayake, the leader and SWRD Bandaranaike, the deputy, were at loggerheads, which finally ended with the latter’s defection"

Only a country in a transitional stage, demands for coalitions where it is impossible for a single political party to cater to the multicolored and diverse needs of the people. Further, in such instances, major parties tend to ignore regional interests; the result being the birth of a multitude of parties, with each one representing a particular section of the public. Coalitions are formed on account of: [a] No single party securing a working majority in parliament under the multi-party PR system. [b] A bi-party system in which a stalemate may arise, leading to one party allying itself with a smaller group or groups, to obtain a majority. [c] A national crisis, where the parties may face political strife and join forces in protecting and supporting national interests.   
In Sri Lanka, a large percentage of alliances and coalitions have failed. For instance, from the day UNP was formed, DS Senanayake, the leader and SWRD Bandaranaike, the deputy, were at loggerheads, which finally ended with the latter’s defection.  

The coalition of Bandaranaike and Philip Gunawardene [MEP], in 1956, lasted only two years. In 1965, a seven party ‘grand coalition’ was formed by Dudley Senanayake. In this case, even two minor defections did not affect the stability of the government. The Sirimavo and Marxists coalition in 1970, ended after five years. The UNP had a clear majority in 1977. That helped them continue in office [mostly through undemocratic manoeuverings] until 1992, when own party seniors revolted against the leadership. CBK’s government suffered similar rebellion, followed by SLMC’s defection just one year from election victory, in 2001.  
The SLPP with a clear majority, minus 2/3rds, would be a better alternative. Those who are critical and pull in different directions while being within a coalition will only create chaos. Further, such entities could add vigour and vitality to the present weak opposition, making it a force to be reckoned with. 

Law-makers as Law Enforcers  

A former ultra-leftist senior politician and learned lawyer, along with another controversial female lawyer politician, have found fault with their cabinet colleague, the Minister of Law and Order, for not obliging requests by them for posting their favourite police officers as Officers-in-Charge of their constituencies. According to a senior ex-cop, political interference is the biggest issue the police force is facing; political connections play a huge role in punishment and internal inquiries. “If one gets a transfer on the advice of a politician, he will end up complying with him till the end of his term. This takes away the officer’s independence and capacity to make correct and unbiased decisions.”  

This unhealthy practice which commenced during the 1960s, reached its peak during Yahapalana, when a group of government and pro-government opposition members had regular ‘unofficial’ meetings with senior cops attached to the ‘illegally constituted FCID’ [as admitted by former PM Ranil Wickremesighe], at Temple Trees. The politicos decided on prosecutions, and issued instructions to the police and the AG’s department, on instituting legal action against selected individuals in the ‘Rajapaksa regime’s alleged corrupt politicos’. Displeased by the irregular behavior of law-makers, the prosecutors filed action against alleged wrong doers, ignoring the fact that the lack of or insufficient evidence, could lead to withdrawal or loss of cases in courts. There had been quite a few instances of the defendants being released by courts, [pressure exerted by the rulers?] Certainly, political interference in police and AG administration could shake people’s confidence in the legal system.  

[email protected]