“Democratic government is strengthened, not weakened, when it faces a vigorous civil society.” Tocqueville

The local government elections have been fought and won by the UPFA in 21 out of 23 Local Government bodies, an impressive result for an incumbent government in place since 2005.  Contrary to normal response the incumbency factor worked for the government and not against it.  One of the reasons given for the victory is the security factor – people’s abiding gratitude to a government that has given security by bringing to a close the thirty year war and successfully ending terrorism and their terror tactics under which all members of the Lankan polity were enslaved; no more deaths for young men and women soldiers; no more suicide bombers and ‘parcels’ exploding taking many lives and maiming many more. These have been high lighted before but each time people vote for the government it is clear that they recall them all and their vote becomes an expression of gratitude.

Perhaps yet another reason for the continuing support to the government is based on the public perception that the Sri Lankan government is being unfairly targeted by the international community with unauthenticated accusations of war crimes.  Unaware perhaps of the intricacies of international politics and the concerns over human rights, many among the voters consider it unfair that Sri Lanka should be so ‘penalised’  despite the fact that Sri Lanka is the only country that has successfully defeated terrorism.

On the flip side of the coin there remains amongst some at least of the people the query that mass backing while it is a genuine reaction is but the response from a partisan and politically naïve majority.   Questions are raised not only from the intelligentsia but from many amongst those who read the papers in Sinhala or Tamil and listen to TV news over the non government channels.  The numbers are from the lower end of the spectrum drawn from the taxi and auto drivers, bus drivers and van drivers, clerical servants, peons, and the urban working class, men and women who are familiar with the insightful thinking nurtured through left wing politics.

No doubt another reason for the extension of support to the government is the coverage given to the vibrancy of the economy.  That the economy grew by 4.5% to 5% during the war years and the post war statistics of an 8% growth rate gives encouragement and hope to the people.  Also the visible accelerated development in roads, bridges, highways, ports, harbours, airports, sports stadiums etc is yet another factor in the government’s favour.  In fact anyone who comes into the city cannot but see the changing face of the metropolis.

Air of Déjà vu continues

Despite these positive factors why then is there still a sense of uncertainty amongst the people?  A feeling that there remains unfinished business that needs to be taken care of.  An air of déjà vu continues; that the government is not ready to identify and act in the societal interests and needs.  That the ‘poorly performing’ judicial system is working less for the people and more in the interests of the ruling elite.  That the state officials have taken a position of independence from the people instead of being subordinate and accountable to them

During the recent past there have been many instances of the media functioning under severe strain, coming under attack mentally and physically while their offices have been ransacked and destroyed.  Many cases of disappearances, kidnappings and killings have gone undetected. The white van menace and more recently the ‘grease Yakka’ syndrome have been terrifying experiences.  All of it happened when it happened with great impunity, accountable to none; justice eluded for a variety of reasons but for the most part because follow up action was not taken to bring about a conclusion.  Like the whirlwind these happenings blow in and blow out – with impunity.

On many matters there is no movement forward; no urgency to deal with matters that are urgently required to be resolved.  All that appears to be important is the longevity of the government and to this end the political will is limited to making statements repetitively to underlie the popularity of the government with the masses.  While remaining in this existential plane simple issues that can make a big difference to the people have been overlooked with what would in hindsight seem a humongous error in judgement.

Free and Fair Elections

The serious issue of the conduct of free and fair elections is one such matter.  Elections have been conducted with regularity but then there has been since the 80’s questions about electoral fairness.  The proportional representation system of elections introduced to give a fairer representation of people’s interests as well as to unify the people as the entire country transforms into one constituency to elect the Executive.   These expectations have been proved to be mistaken expectations.  The intra party rivalry and violence the system unleashes is destabilising and a danger to people’s security.  The expenditure for the elections is so colossal that it is incredulous as to why the income tax department has hitherto failed to swoop down on the candidates to question the source of their income.  The imperative for the successful individual to retain his/ her position is such that it creates its own spin, the vicious circle to start a collection for the next election and for the next generation to live in luxury.  The type of candidates sponsored to represent the sovereignty of the people in the supreme legislative body is fast becoming a number one issue for debate.  Are they to be educated people with an ethical and moral base, with a deep commitment to serve the public or are they to be men and women that have the potential to make money somehow, anyhow, with the backing of a mafia?  What response should we have?

Ineffectiveness of the Elections Commissioner and the Office of the Elections Commission

Because of the ineffectiveness of the Elections Commissioner many have been the instances of violation of election laws.   The Office of the Elections Commission has not taken action against anyone for violating the law regarding posters, canvassing by the ministers and their officials with a retinue of government vehicles visible to all but remained invisible to the Office of the Elections Commission.  The primary duty of the person of the Elections Commissioner is to prevent election offences.  Had he or the police been able to object to canvassing with firearms the tragedy that occurred on the 10^th of October, 2011 could have been avoided and lives saved.  The inability of the Commissioner’s Office to assert his authority and neutrality gave leeway, for the supporters of the candidates from the same party to carry firearms, with intent to harm and then, in fact proceed to fearlessly attack and kill.  Perhaps they were under the hallucination that protection from the law is a prerogative of the office they hold.  That police were not around or were unable to act which is symptomatic of police immobilisation, a condition of being ‘out of practice’.

Police powers to be reviewed and strengthened

Internal upheavals arise due to a certain amount of lawlessness and unrest consequent, to the establishment bending the rule of law, with impunity.   Since the army is already out of their barracks during civil strife restoring law becomes their call, while the police without protest are seen to be relinquishing their legitimate role of the maintenance of law and order, however ineffectively they performed it, to the services.  The public perception of the police force as the custodian of law and order no longer exist which distances the police from the community.  Inertia that creeps in, in such situations has in fact overwhelmed the police force.  Having no particular image to maintain they have let themselves be imperceptibly drawn into abusive behaviour as reported recently – of a person in remand found dead or as in the case of a remand prisoner who reportedly drowned while being transported by boat.  Both these incidents are when the deceased were in police custody; these are deaths that should not have happened.  Under these circumstances it behoves of any one to object to the spontaneous mob attacks on the police or even on the services when provocations could no longer be overlooked.  What option is the country left with after the removal of the 17^th Amendment which has tightened the political linkages to the institutions of the rule of law.

Resolution of the issues raised by the minorities – a much discussed five decade old problems

The war in the North and the East is over but trust and confidence building measures have been slow in coming.   The co- terminus between ending the war and popularity of the government must be transformed to actual pursuit of peace to secure long term sustainability of progress in the country.  The proposed Parliamentary Select committee to resolve the problems related to minority issues have got diluted in the manner in which the agenda for the Select Committee has been set up.  The contention that there is a slowness to tackle matters of urgency gains justification with the undue delay in tabling the proposal for the Parliamentary Select Committee.  The resolution of this much vexed issue will to a large extent remove the international pressure over the war crimes as it will carry some conviction of the intent of the government’s fairness approach towards the minorities.   The government is morally compelled to show a sense of justice and fair play to the minority demand for a share in governance, having already given the impression to the international community of the intention to resolve outstanding differences between the communities following the end of the war.  No possible reason can be given for procrastination.   It is not as if the subject has to be studied anew; it has been examined from all angles for over five decades, with no aspect of the majority/minority concerns left unexplored.  It therefore defies imagination as to what aspects, the many sessions with the TNA and the government are engaged in and yet be unable to reach common ground to this vexed problem.  However, the minority to the conflict must look within themselves and within the boundaries of the country to seek remedial solutions rather than attempt to involve any other country over an entirely internal matter. Working within the national boundary will also be a confidence building measure.  Resolutions will have sustainability only when the end result is an indigenous effort, no opposition to agreements thus crafted can be carelessly provoked.

It is the hope that the proposed Select Committee will not end up raking up communal hatred but will function where the entirety of the members will have only one agenda –to close this matter for all times to the satisfaction of all.  Hitherto the experience has been of a total lack of accountability by the legislators from both the majority/ minority divide, whose inconsistency on these matters has become legendary.  Today, the ray of hope is from the civil society that has taken the lead to engage in the communities in confidence building activities through active engagement and participation with the North and the East.   Presenting to the Select Committee pre agreed consensus arrangements should hasten the process without acrimony in the shortest possible time.  Members of the Legislature should be able to support any reasonable agreement for unifying the people and the country; it is the prayer that yet another war will not be necessary to make the people and policy makers wiser.

Politics and politicians must move to ‘another’ level

It is time the legislators spend their energy on seeking a larger vision for the people and not confine themselves to their personal self- interest.  The only role for the legislator is to serve the people and look for constructive ways and means by which such service can be made profitable and meaningful.  In the absence of such an approach people’s enchantment with the politicians will turn to apathy not only towards politics and the politician but towards democracy as well.

An effective civic culture must be developed to counter the imbalance in political influence and to put to use the ‘ social capital’ available in society.  This means that the social relationships of trust and the need to work with the family, the community and institutions will strengthen the inter-linkages within the community.   Such communion among the people will help to make studied responses to public policy for their own welfare and security.    Trust and empathy to one another is what must be encouraged when the crisis of majority/minority relationships is reviewed.  The different communities have lived together for many centuries in amity and even in times of discord have been able to suggest compromises to smoothen out differences. Let not the odd rabble rouser create chaos and confuse the people as has happened many times in recent Sri Lankan history.

Strict application of constitutionalism and the rule of law will help the country to become vibrant again.  Social constraints have to work to prevent any individual or individuals from usurping the sovereign power of the people.   This will be the only way that authoritarianism, political manoeuvres and the proliferation of corruption can be prevented.

To encourage the sustainability of such a system will require highly sensitive community of people, moral and ethical in its build up and an enlightened media that would safeguard the rights and dignity of the people and the system.  To make people think with creativity access to education and economic power is imperative.

The resurrection of the JVP in its violent incarnation

The country has not yet settled into a peace mode as can be seen in the events of the last few weeks, not to mention earlier incidents of similar inflection.  The news item that referred to the ‘ghost’ of the JVP being resuscitated by the revolutionary wing of the party in its previous violent format is disconcerting;  that too, by a couple of ‘kallathonis’ who have caterpulted themselves into the party, from across the Pacific, from the land of the Kangaroos.   The country cannot undergo another metamorphosis of violence no sooner than we have removed the menace of one such violent movement.   None would want a replay of 1987-89, when violence was used to take over the mantle of state power which set the stage for the government of the time to act with equal ferocity.  The entirety of the Lankan society was mired in violence or in fear of violence.

The tragedy though is that many of the causes of the ’71 insurrection, the father of the JVP movement, have not yet been successfully tackled.   True, an attempt is being made to introduce English in schools that should help to remove the allegation that the English language acts as the ‘kaduwa’ repressing the progress of rural youth.   One of the handicaps confronted in the implementation of this policy is the shortage of trained English teachers to spread across the entire country.  More seriously, there is a serious lack of understanding of the modern techniques in teaching a second language.  The first problem is receiving limited attention while the second is being short circuited by the claim that it is not necessary to learn English as spoken and written traditionally by the British, and that a Ceylonized version will suffice for our needs.  Even learning English the ‘proper ‘ way, the end product to many in the best of times has not been perfect.  The question begs to be asked as to what kind of English will this generation and the future be writing and speaking if the Sri Lankan version of English is taught?  Obviously, the majority conversant in ‘Singlish’ will have to be content to be understood only within the boundaries of the country while the elite will certainly teach their children in the language as it should be, continuing the rift instead of bridging the brief.  The ‘Kaduwa’ remains activated.

The other main contention of the JVP was that the majority of the graduates passing out of the University were (and are) unemployable.  The problems of ’71  still remain, leaving ground for revival of the revolutionary spirit, transcribe violence, posing challenges to the state.

Weapon Free Society

The President is on record stating that the country is free of terrorism and that it is possible to administer under the normal laws of the country.  Why then is there a need for so much security for ministers and Officials who do not even fall into the group that dealt with the war effort.  On a recent occasion when edged into the drain by the wave of white gloves a count of seven vehicles was made with the army and black cats in attendance to protect one individual.  Such wasteful use of the tax payers’ money and human resources is mind boggling.  The VIPs no longer need the kind of protection their egos seem to demand.  The President and few others who have had an active role in the elimination of terrorism will require armed protection. The rest of the by – standers should be relieved of armed security.  There should be no need for security with police uniforms or otherwise.  The statement must be convincingly made that the country is stable and at peace.   A failure to send this message will contribute to dissident elements intent on gaining wealth and prominence from a host of nefarious sources to become active.

A weapons free society will give the flexibility for the people to function without fear of armed groups and their internecine struggles in which ordinary men and women become the victims;  it will give the people the opportunity to have free discussion and dialogue; interact with promising new leaders, and work the wheels of democracy by asserting rights and liberties, demanding free and fair elections with multiple political parties that would confirm the principle of equity through a system of distributive justice.  It will also help civil society “for opening access and transcending a predatory state by breaking down the vertical bonds of clientelism and dependency, fostering horizontal form of political participation and trust, generating new bonds of interest that cut across ethnic and social identities, and organizing citizens to demand “more effective public service”.

It may then be possible to exorcise the ‘ghosts’ that haunt us.

• Suggestion to the Select Committee on Electoral Reform
• Dealing with law and order as an issue of the Presidential elections
• THE CONTINUING VIOLATION OF THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT: YET MORE UNCONVINCING EXCUSES
• Women and politics in Sri Lanka: The challenges to meaningful participation
• Abolition or reform of Executive Presidency in Sri Lanka?

Sri Lankan hospital staff carry an injured person following a shootout on the outskirts of Colombo on Saturday – AP, via Deccan Chronicle

An advisor to the President is dead and a Member of Parliament is critically injured.  Also amongst the dead and injured are supporters of the Presidential advisor and the parliamentarian.

This incident, where the politicians and their henchmen openly resorted to a shoot-out in broad day light, only proves a common known fact; that Sri Lanka’s politics has, for the past several decades been taken over by thugs, criminals and drug dealers.

What is interesting though, is that in this incident the two opponents belong to the governing alliance.  Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra a long time UPFA member and former Member of Parliament was the Presidential Advisor for Trade Unions while relative newcomer to the UPFA, Duminda Silva, is the monitoring MP for the Defense Ministry.

It also is evidence that some of the closest advisors to the President and those holding high office are after all men such as these.  For far too long have many politicians and leading businessman acted as godfathers to underworld criminals and treated the electorate as their personal fiefdoms.   Are members of the government security forces so incompetent that these individuals deem it essential to surround themselves with gangsters and drug dealers for protection?

The number of civilian killings, assaults and abductions has been quite high under this regime.

Yet, there has been no genuine endevour by the regime to arrest this trend.  Each incident has resulted in the launch of sham investigations by the police and the appointment of presidential commissions with no tangible results.  We are still awaiting the outcome of investigations into the Lasantha Wickramatunga murder and the assault on Poddala Jayantha to name just two.   Mervyn Silva who has been captured on camera on numerous occasions, intimidating journalists and even tying up a Samurdhi employee, continues to roam free and carry out his thuggery.    Alleged suspects held in police custody have died and there is also the death of Roshen Chanaka who was protesting the government’s pension plan, as well as the mysterious serial killing of beggars as reported by Asian Human Rights Watch. All these incidents continue to be met with indifference or lack luster investigations which have resulted in a frustrated people.

It would appear that in these incidents of violence perpetrated against the perceived opponents of the government the Police did not seek to prosecute the perpetrators.

This latest clash was between two men who have used their powers to eliminate each other and gain the upper hand in the same electorate.  It seems that Premachandra was close to President Rajapaksa while de Silva also known as “kudu Duminda” has the ear of Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa.  Both factions would no doubt seek answers and justice.

In the past several weeks there have been many incidents where an erosion of confidence in law enforcement has resulted in the people taking matters into their hands to seek justice.  Non-mainstream media has reported that even as the two factions fought and fell victim to the shooting, members of the police force simply looked on.  As has been in previous cases where the law enforcement authorities have been slow to act, this time too, public property came under attack by an angry crowd.

While media quoted police spokesperson Maxi Proctor as saying initially that they were unaware of the background for the incident, he now claims that 37 statements have been recorded.   A search operation has resulted in the arrest of one individual, and the discovery of 12 pistols, 2 revolvers and 2 T-56 weapons.  Will the government tell us how, in country where until August this year Emergency Rule prevailed and the Prevention of Terrorism Act is still in force, such weapons are in circulation amongst civilians?

Non mainstream media also reports that the old guard of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party is disgruntled with the Rajapaksa’s obvious favoritism of relative newcomers or UNP deserters.

So how would the Rajapaksa’s extricate themselves this time?  They thump their noses at any one who calls for accountability on human rights abuses, and whip up the “conspiracy against sovereignty” bogey amongst the public each time their repressive actions are questioned.

The Rajapaksa’s have watched askance while innocent civilians have been murdered and those who raise a voice against injustice have been assaulted and termed traitors.  They have taken no action to allay the fears of villagers over the “grease yaka’s”.  Rather, the country has been witness to the steady decay of law and order, an impotent police force and an equally ineffective judiciary.

But this time around they will not be able to hide behind a presidential commission, the report of which may never see the light of day, as those before, to inquire into the matter.  The police cannot remain inactive.  After all, the leader of one faction as well as several of those involved in the bloody incident are hospitalized.  They would not be going anywhere for a long while.  The police would not be able to tout their usual excuse that the investigations are continuing or that they cannot locate the culprits.  Witness statements would not be all that difficult to obtain in this instance.

Two members of the regime were involved. One is dead, the other injured.  The dead man’s supporters are baying for blood and the government will not be able to hide behind lame excuses, unless of course it would prefer that the two factions continue with the killing spree and hasten the country into anarchy.

• Mervyn Silva publicly admits to killing Lasantha Wickrematunge and grievously attacking another journalist
• People are not a flock of sheep: The murder of a 21 year old by the Police
• Celebrating sexist, lewd live television in Sri Lanka
• Disappearances of Persons in Sri Lanka
• Tiran Alles and the Media War

Is this a functioning democracy or what? The governing coalition’s sweep of the local authorities election, the UNP’s successful resistance in a tough campaign in Colombo, as well as the TNA’s impressive performance at repeated elections in the North, make nonsense of the dark pronouncements and forebodings of dictatorship. Homogenization leads to conformism, which crystallises into a monolith, which translates itself into a dictatorship of discourse and opinion, which straitjackets society and creates a de-facto dictatorship. The results of the local authorities election proves that Sri Lankan society will not allow itself to be straitjacketed into conformity. We are, in short, a democracy.

The extrapolation by some commentators that the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration is somewhere along the trajectory of the recently overthrown Arab regimes is way of the mark because none of them permitted pluralist media (an important feedback loop), subjected their popularity to the test of authentically competitive multiparty elections. As Emeritus Professor of International Law at Princeton, Richard Falk observed to in a recent piece, “…as potent a unifying target as was the grim personage of Hosni Mubarak, cruel autocrat for more than three decades…” Thus, Mubarak can resemble Mahinda Rajapaksa and vice versa, only in the jaundiced eyes of demented Diaspora demagogues.

The election result contains a downside though. That downside is not dictatorship; it is something else, or consists of other things. One is the prevalence of lethal political violence, reflecting a long decline of the country’s political culture into quasi-gangsterism. The other is the clear and almost complete correspondence between the electoral and the ethnic. Sri Lanka’s is an unevenly divided democracy.

The UPFA’s wave which carried the traditional UNP strongholds of Kandy, Negombo, Moratuwa and Colombo’s suburbs reinforce the reality revealed by the statistical survey by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA): 74% of the Sinhalese identify most, with the SLFP. This is an unprecedented degree of identification, significantly surpassing the older congruencies between the SLFP and the rural, Sinhala-Buddhist vote. The UNP which once held most of that vote and later was a powerful contender for it, has now lost most of the Sinhala vote, rural and urban, Buddhist and Christian.

Given that almost 74 % of the country’s citizenry are Sinhalese, this places almost insurmountable obstacles to the UNP unless it switches its leadership, which is unlikely in the aftermath of its victory in Colombo. The SLFP’s electoral advantage in a national election is likely to be durable, though not at such high levels, given three factors: the unalterable demographic preponderance of the Sinhalese, a spike in nationalism due to escalating external pressures, the entrenchment of the UNP’s existing leadership and the party’s chronic inability to change its profile (a Wikileaks cable reveals Mr Wickremesingha’s solid defence of the merger and shrill opposition to its dissolution in conversations with the US Ambassador).

However, the unassailability of the SLFP’s hegemony assumes a steady-state or normal situation, which may not be a safe assumption, given the global economic crisis, which could contract the Sri Lankan economy in a few years unless we have got onto far more solid, modern and ethnically integrated footing as a society.

It is widely known that almost 60% of Colombo consists of ethno-linguistic minorities, and while this does not mean that the winning candidate must be from one of the minorities, it does mean that in order to win, a candidate from a majority community must have a multi-ethnic base and appeal, or his/her party must have such a profile. Dr NM Perera and B. Sirisena Cooray both Sinhalese, won because they did have this factor.

My friend Milinda Moragoda probably failed because the governing coalition has been unable to cultivate a multiethnic image. If Milinda’s campaign assumed that there would be a subterranean pan-Sinhala swing which, together with a split in the UNP’s Muslim vote effected by Mahroof, it was wrong. The visible tendency, or drive, towards cultural homogenisation and conformity, if not domination, was bound to be rejected by a multicultural, cosmopolitan Colombo citizenry.

As Richard Falk concludes, “In the end, we all must hope and engage. The beginnings of hope are rooted in the correctness of analysis…” The results of the recently concluded election have lessons and implications for Sri Lankan politics and politicians, as well as for those in capitals elsewhere who observe the Sri Lankan scene. While congratulating themselves on winding up with more political real estate than they had before the elections, the rulers must understand the contrasting lessons of Colombo and Kalmunai. The latter result shows the viability of an ethnic party which maintains its identity – and is permitted to – while remaining in the coalition. For its part, the Opposition UNP, while doing very well to retain Colombo, must comprehend that this result, if it locks in its present leadership, locks the party out of the Sinhala vote and therefore political power at a national level. Colombo is a-typical, as is the Northern Province. However severe a future economic crisis and however serious a future wave of street unrest, the factor of patriotism, nationalism or the collective perception of the Sinhalese of facing an existential threat, cannot be wished away, and as such, this UNP –as currently led, configured and profiled– will always be hamstrung at a parliamentary election while being batted out of the ballpark in a Presidential one.

The country’s rulers and foreign critics have similar lessons to learn from the election results. The foreign critics must know that Colombo and Jaffna are not the country at large, and the country at large has gone overwhelmingly one way. The rulers must know that the world outside, from Seattle to Singapore, is more like Colombo and Jaffna, only far more so, than it is like any other part of Sri Lanka.

• The Right NOT to Vote
• Where is the democracy in the UNP?
• Outcome of presidential elections in Sri Lanka: Is there anything to analyse?
• Elections in the East
• Surveys with conflicting outcomes

Photo courtesy Prevention Web

October 8^th 2011

Dear Mr. Milinda Moragoda and Mr. AJM Muzammil,

I wrote this open letter before the elections, to be read after, to avoid political misapprehensions that would have caused, if published earlier. Since you two may remember me, I wish I receive your attention on a few guiding principles to achieve best results when fulfilling your promises to serve the USSs, repeatedly orchestrated during election campaigns. It was heartening because you both had a singular interest on developing ‘Under served settlements’ (USSs) in the Colombo Municipal Council (CMC) area, though through different approaches, and this ‘letter’ is to motivate a singular groove.

Recently I was perusing some reports and found two written by two consultancy teams, which I led, titled “Policy Framework for the Clean Settlements to Develop Urban Underserved Settlements” written in April 1997 for the World Bank and Ministry of Housing Construction and Public Utilities; and, “Environmental Profile under the Sustainable Cities Programme” written in December 1997 for the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements and Urban Development Authority (UDA). These organizations are your USSs development funding sources even today.

I propose that as the new Mayor one of you direct CMC officials to peruse these reports. The relevance of the reports is that other than UDA sponsored recent beautifying and environmental upgrading successfully achieved in the CMC area irrespective of adverse criticisms, there is hardly any positive difference visible regarding the layout and conditions of urban environment, when compared with these report contents.

Mr. Muzammil, your campaign mostly focussed on involuntary settler displacements, for example, numbering 6,000 plus families and planned eviction of about 40,000 more- cumulative above the existing; and, Mr. Moragoda, yours mostly focussed on over-projected resettlement solutions, for example, 35,000 new housing units in three years valued at Rs. 2.5 million per unit. Both seem to me as gross exaggerations.

But, I am not surprised of these due to our findings in 1997, applicable even today. In 1997 there were 3,732.41 ha extent in the USSs within the CMC, with 54,134 private buildings, 4,253 public buildings, 34,196 slums and shanties, with 1,404.54 ha under residential buildings, with only 210.67 ha covering slums and shanties- i.e. .006 ha per living unit.  Though figures may differ now, the latter figures self-explain why both of you promised upgraded housing, health and sanitation upon victory.   Now, elections over, it is time for both of you to prove the genuineness of your promises.

Therefore, I wish that you would seriously focus attention on principles on housing and property restitution for displaced persons. This is essential, as you two promised to convert USSs to Heavens, from Hell. Such revolutionary outcome requires enhanced conceptualization. Rather than making gung ho type promises or tearing the opponent’s manifesto, it is time the new Mayor addresses the problem on acceptable bases to methodically serve the USSs.

The need to address this issue becomes relevant as some will be displaced also in the future when you develop the USSs in the promised revolutionary manner. ‘No displacement at all due to development’ is wishful thinking. A lie, if said. Nevertheless, please remember that so displaced have a right to voluntary return to a habitat.

At the outset I may mention that these are not my personal thoughts. I suggest you and CMC officials study the Handbook on Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons (Pinheiro Principles), accepted also by the United Nations. It is designed to assist all relevant actors- in the Government, Opposition, Ministries, UDA, CMC, Councillors etc- in addressing the rights, legal and technical issues surrounding housing, land and property restitution in situations where displacement has deprived persons of their former homes, lands, properties or places of habitual residence. These Principles were post-1997 initiatives and not reflected in the above consultancies.

Focussing attention to these Principles may sensibly condition you to be more rational to escape pitfalls and avoid rhetoric, for and against the Government or the Opposition, as visibly unfolded during the campaigns. These Principles will also prevail on the Opposition, whoever it is, due to the international and rational acceptability for displaced persons resettlement. Therefore, I submit an appropriate and abridged summary version of the Pinheiro Principles, to consider its initial acceptance by you as the base to counter USSs issues.

It will be pathetic if these Principles are totally rejected due to operational disabilities or differing visions. Nevertheless, at the inception it may be feasible to begin, review, readjust and even improve on them.

Summarily the Principles in the Handbook are as follows:

1. The Right to Housing and Property Restitution- All displaced persons have the right of restoration to them any deprived housing, land and/or property, or to be compensated for any housing, land and/or property that is factually impossible to restore, as determined by an independent impartial tribunal.
2. The Right to non-discrimination on any basis, e.g. race, colour, sex, language, religion, political etc.
3. The Right to equality between men and women, boys and girls, to the enjoyment of housing, land and property restitution and consequential equal rights. This includes voluntary return in safety and dignity; tenure security; property ownership; equal access to inheritance; joint ownership etc.
4. The Right to be protected from displacement inclusive of forced eviction, demolition of houses and destruction and the arbitrary confiscation or expropriation of land as a punitive measure.
5. The Right to privacy and respect for the home.
6. The Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
7. The Right to adequate housing.
8. The Right to freedom of movement including the right to choose his/ her residence and not forced to remain under geographical limitations.
9. The Right to voluntary return based on a free, informed, individual choice, for which displaced persons should be provided with complete, objective, up to date, and accurate information, including physical, material and legal safety issues.
10. Compatibility with International Human Rights, Refugee and Humanitarian law and Related Standards in housing, land and property restitution procedures, institutions, mechanisms and legal frameworks.
11. National Procedures, Institutions and Mechanisms should be established and supported with equitable,    timely, independent, transparent and non-discriminatory procedures, institutions and mechanisms to assess and enforce housing, land and property restitution claims.
12. Providing accessibility to Restitution Claims Procedures to everyone affected and providing for submission of a claim for restitution and/or compensation to an independent and impartial body.
13. Provision of adequate consultation and participation in decision-making to the affected during restitution.
14. Establish or re-establish national multi-purpose cadastre or other appropriate systems for the registration of housing, land and property rights, as an integral component of any restitution programs, respecting the rights of displaced persons.
15. The Rights of tenants and other non-owners should be ensured.
16. Ensure that secondary occupants are protected against arbitrary or unlawful forced eviction. Any necessitated evictions should be carried out in a manner which is compatible with international human rights law and standards, such that secondary occupants are afforded safeguards of due process, including, inter alia, an opportunity for genuine consultation, adequate and reasonable notice, and the provision of legal remedies, including opportunities for legal redress. Authorities’ should undertake to identify and provide alternative housing and/or land for such occupants, including on a temporary basis, as a means to facilitate the timely restitution of displaced persons’ housing, land and property.
17. In cases where housing, land and property have been sold by secondary occupants to third parties, consider establishing mechanisms to provide compensation to injured third parties.
18. Ensure the right of displaced persons’ right to housing, land and property restitution is recognized as an essential component of the Rule of Law through all necessary legislative means, including through the adoption, amendment, reform, or repeal of relevant laws, regulations and/or practices.
19. It is necessary not to adopt or apply laws which prejudice the restitution process, in particular through arbitrary, discriminatory, or otherwise unjust abandonment laws or statutes of limitations.
20. Administrations should designate specific public agencies entrusted with enforcing housing, land and property restitution decisions and judgments.
21. Your mayoral administration should ensure, through law and other appropriate means that local and national authorities are legally obligated to respect implement and enforce decisions and judgments made by relevant bodies regarding housing, land and property restitution.
22. All displaced persons have the right to full and effective compensation (monetary or in kind) as an integral component of the restitution process. Complying with the Principle of Restorative Justice, ensure that the remedy of compensation is only used when restitution is not factually possible or when the injured party knowingly and voluntarily accepts compensation in lieu of restitution, or when the terms of a negotiated settlement provide for a combination of restitution and compensation.
23. The international community’s responsibilities are embedded in these Principles. They will assist CMC to mobilize foreign assistance, when these Principles are positively adhered.

These also highlight democratic and good governance principles. Some Principles are already implemented (e.g. item 16 above part) by the government, such as construction of alternate houses. Some require central and provincial concurrence, e.g. items 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21, and 23 above. Items 9-13, 15, 16 etc have not been much cared by authorities. Hence integrated cooperation is essential for implementation of these Principles.

Since both of you have in common promised USSs development, whoever loses should join hands with the Mayor to implement the promises made for the USSs’ benefit, rather than to be vociferously critical of the winner for political expediency. It is essential that whoever becomes the Mayor, he should coordinate with the Opposition for active contribution to implement USSs development plans. Everyone should understand that displacement is inevitable in city development and when it happens the requirement is to shower the best to the affected and not to provoke hatred in them instead.  This is the singular groove I proposed.

There are a mass of informative publications and geographical information systems data with the UDA; similarly with the private sector, like the Panchikawatte Triangle planners and with financiers (domestic/ foreign) who should involve in development processes. Additionally, it is imperative to involve civil society groups who possess excellent thoughts emanating from grassroots experiences. Thought that politicians, Mayors, bureaucrats, consultants, donors and planners are the only individuals who could deliver is inaccurate, while admitting that each of them has a role to play. Hence, the winner coordinating them efficiently will be essential to deliver.

Therefore, having the interest of the USSs, I request the winner to perform with coordinated action plans for the greater good of the USSs and the City, maximally based on recognized conceptual reasoning as summarily explained above, as a process for consequential socio-economic development and enhancement of the already successfully operative beautification of the City. “The winner has all” mentality should not prevail if best results are anticipated. The loser also should play an honest and equal positive role for success and should have access to decision making. I believe that your hearts are unspoilt to accept these propositions.

With best wishes to see a great city under your leadership, I remain,

Sincerely,

Austin Fernando

• Homeless in one’s homeland
• The divide between Muslims and Tamils: Perspective of an IDP
• LLRC submission: The Citizens’ Commission on the Expulsion of Muslims from the North by the LTTE in October 1990
• Human displacement
• The voice of an IDP single mother in Puttlam

Photo courtesy Sunday Leader

“The starting point of [progressive] politics and the state is its categorical rejection of this view of the state as the trustee, instrument, or agent of this society as a whole…In class societies, the concept of the society as a whole and of the ‘national’ interest’ is clearly a mystification” - Ralph Miliband

Another humiliating defeat for the United National Party (UNP) and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) in the forthcoming elections would certainly improve the country’s future prospects for democracy with equality and justice.  A UPFA victory could be celebrated with a sense cautious optimism: perhaps it will enable the evolution of a democratic space where we can imagine alternatives to the status quo.   But the UNP and JVP (along with TULF, LSSP, CP and JHU) represent the very forces that they name as evils, and are ideologically and programmatically bankrupt. The contemporary political scene only gives the illusion of democracy, but it co-opts dissent and twists it to serve the interests of the regime. “Slogans of protest,” and “demands for piecemeal reforms” from the UNP and JVP do not address the underlying causes. But the “politics of protest” makes it extremely dangerous for the public to trust either party.

In fact, what we have today is a de facto national government — in the making since Sri Lanka became a nation state.  This fact is clear if we think about the government in terms of governance:  that is, the configuration and exercise of power relations, as opposed to the machinations of political parties and individual politicians. These power relations are embodied in the conduct of individuals and institutions as they manage day-to-day affairs, set norms and values, and maintain expectations about the nature of the nation, the course of progress and the practice of justice. That is to say the majority populace of the nation (oppressors and the oppressed alike) consciously or unconsciously govern themselves according to the wishes of the government (this art of governance is known as govern mentality). In Sri Lanka, “national government” is primarily a framework for managing a development project that has incrementally shifted from social-welfarism to capitalism. After the elections a “politics of nationalism,” development, reconciliation etc., (all blessed by the some in the religious community) may make it easier to solidify this “national government” in the code of law.

Under a national government, the ruling regime will have monopoly control over our political sovereignty, and be able to fully subjugate the economy and social sphere according to the dictates of the transnational capital.  In the eyes of the public, the UPFA is the party that “gets things done.” And this is true…if we limit the scope of the nationalism project to defeating the LTTE and Tamil sub-nationalism, delaying demands for devolution, state control over the political and economic affairs of the northeast (as Milinda Moragoda says “the national issues are over” DM 4/09), and if we limit “development” to visibly improving roads, infrastructure and cleaning cities; and the freedom of the state to make our human, cultural and physical resources available to investors. In this regard, the UNP and JVP are ideologically bankrupt, lack leadership, and cannot compete with the UPFA’s “achievements.” To this point they have been incapable of providing a critical analysis of the costs and benefits of development and of nationalism, and thus have not provided any credible alternatives. The UNP and JVP lack the programmatic aptitude, and willpower to create a democratic space large enough to encompass the paradigm shift our political culture requires. They are far too entrenched in the status quo.

Arguments that the current UNP is different from what it was in 1977 are unconvincing.  It was the UNP that forcefully introduced the current neoliberal economic paradigm and supported authoritarian political institutions in order to serve the interests of the transnational capitalist alliance.  It was the UNP that promoted the “rata, jathiya, Pansala” equation; performed symbolic gestures of wearing Ambude (traditional working dress of the farmers) during ancient Vap-magula agriculture rituals; tolerated tolerance of violence against the minorities; promised to introduce Asokan model of governance; sought to update the Chronicles (Mahavamsa Nuthana Ugaya); hijacked the rhetoric of socialism, morality (dharmista smajajaya), and democracy in order to domesticate/indigenize neoliberal economic policies and the colonization of the country by transnational capital.  It was the UNP (along with the TULF) that used both ideological indoctrination and coercion to marginalize the “politics of redistribution” and paved the way for the “parochial politics of identity” in order to secure a dominant place in the competition for state power. (The latter made a particular contribution to the rise of ideologically oriented militancy in the LTTE and the JVP.)

But the rapid erosion of democracy and blurring of civilian-military boundaries in the political economy of Sri Lanka are not only creations of Rajapakshe regime: they are inevitable responses to the dual crises of capitalism. These crises are generally understood as accumulation (difficulties faced in expanding capitalism) and legitimization (difficulties of socially legitimizing capitalist economic reforms) and the UNP and the JVP help manage them on behalf of the state-capitalist alliance.   Capitalism is expansionist and the current Rajapakshe regime only accelerates its pace, forcing Sri Lanka’s social-economic fabric and our natural environment to adjust to capitalism’s demands.

President Rajapaksa’s victory in 2002 was not only an expression of public frustrations over his predecessors’ handling of war against terrorism. It was also a prime example of the capitalist state changing its form to maintain its capitalist nature (known as the “form-nature dialectic”) in response to pressures from the transnational capitalist class to expand space for capitalist accumulation.   The historically unprecedented surveillance and securitization (what some refer to as militarization) of governance accompanying UPFA expansions of capitalism stem primarily on need of the state to efficiently manage dissent resulting from social inequalities, disruptions, and environmental catastrophes. The continued privatization of social sectors, education, pension funds, health, security, etc. will erode the government’s ability to maintain the post-independence social contract – the contract depends on welfare and redistribution. Privatization means allowing investors to maximize commercial returns and minimize social returns by investing their own capital, borrowed money, and recycling previous investments to create new consumer markets.   In the long run, efficiency does not increase and is not sustainable: commercial returns to investments are predicated on inequality, and the Sri Lankan model of capitalism (kinship-national security) lowers efficiency even more.   Privatization-induced fiscal bankruptcy, the state’s dependence on transnational capital, and the “unholy trinity” will not permit the introduction of social welfare and redistributive policies.   In the face of this, there are few options available, and these would only increase consolidation of patronage politics, increase securitization, and exploit identity politics to appease majority interests. Appeasing identity politics would simultaneously increase minority vulnerability and further preventing political mobilization between the haves and have-note (dominant and the subordinate).

The high visibility of the immediate and extended members of the Rajapaksha family and the dominance of patron-cliental relations in political and economic affairs of the country, can be described as systemic feudalization (Milinda Morogoda says “our politics in this country is tribal” DM 4/09!). It needs to be understood as a product of the specific practices of class formation in Sri Lanka, and in relation to the historical development of capitalism, widespread public tolerance of a feudal way of organizing day-today economic and social transactions, and, most importantly, the remarkable capacity of capitalism to incorporate, rather than transform, non-capitalist social systems to further its own expansion.  The transnational capitalist class does not care whether a nation (Western or Non-Western) is democratic or authoritarian as long as that class’s interests are furthered.   The UNP cannot ideologically challenge the capitalist basis of UPF administration, but seeks to exploit public discontent (the social and economic costs of capitalist policies) to overthrow the regime. The capitalist class that patronizes UNP’s power base wants to capture state power. UNPs pretense of speaking for the public interest simply masks clashes between capitalist classes. UNP misleads the public by claiming that changing of the government will fundamentally change the economic and political bases on which the population is oppressed.

The UNP and JVP critiques of a Rajapaksha “dictatorship” and the militarization of Sri Lanka are simply masks the fact that the government’s main commitment and agreement with the international community are to remove the barriers (like civil rights) that prevent them from adjusting society, culture, economy, religion, morality and environment to the dictates of capital.  Cultural nationalism and overt religiosity are means of domesticating, indigenizing, and moralizing the capitalist transformation.   The JVP and the JHU are alike in the sense that they both provide ideological legitimacy for the capitalist project. The only difference is that the JVP does it by using Marxist rhetoric.  UPFA uses JVP and JHU to create ideological legitimacy for the capitalist project. UPFA distance itself from or attacks those parties when their actions appear to undermine the project.    Past election results have demonstrated that it’s unwise for the public or the bourgeois classes to trust JHU and JVP leadership.   And the UNP has lost the game because capitalist and ethnonationalist projects are either halted by, or more “efficiently” executed by the UPFA.

Since its founding, the Marxist credentials of the JVP have been questionable.  Marxism is a “brand” for the party’s members and the popular media, and JVP has never been able to inspire a class-based political movement. It failed to resolve and reconcile the tensions between nationalism and patriotism, or to address class in a true Marxist fashion.  In the 1970s, JVP excluded Indian plantation workers from the category of the proletariat — a position not only un-Marxist, but also blatantly racist.    In the 1980s, JVP’s popular slogan “Panthiya (class)’ first!” was replaced with “Maubima (nation) first!” and, hence, miserably failed to generate in popular consciousness a more nuanced understanding of the relation between capitalist policies, the historical development of capitalism in Sri Lanka, and the ethnic conflict.  Instead JVP practiced an opportunistic populism by exploiting nationalism to rally the masses even it meant forging alliances with its enemies.

JVP slogans (arguably nothing to do with Marx or Che) condemning Western imperialism fail to recognize that imperialism is fundamentally an economic phenomenon. The shift of imperialist power centers from the US to China and, more lately, to India, is a natural trend due to the expansion of capitalist development. This is neither a Western nor Eastern phenomenon, but simply a form of economic organization.   Moralizing about Chinese and Indian capitalists, and making claims that non-Western intrusions into Sri Lanka are more peaceful and humane, are not only evidence of JVPs betrayal of Marxism, but of their ignorant insistence that the extraction of natural resources in African is somehow “different” because it is led by non-Western countries.  The truth is that the exploitation of Africa is more extensive now than during the colonial period, and that there is no distinction between the non-Western and Western tendency to patronize authoritarian regimes when they serve global capitalist interests.  The Chinese extract natural resources for the global market and Chinese and Western capitalists invest right along with them.  The invocation of nationalism, or the tendency to view international capitalism in terms of the nation state, completely obscures the function of the transnational capitalist class, which has no allegiance to national interests.

JVP’s failure to develop a Marxist perspective of the economic crisis allowed the UPFA to lead the charge in preparing national space for capitalist development.  Worse, JVP’s false consciousness encouraged the subordination of popular culture to the service of the capitalist class, which then used it to shape nationalist conscious to benefit the capitalist class.   The JVP never grasped that the logic of the national economy was bent to the demands of global capitalist logic, rather than being internally driven.  They never examined the relationship between the form of the nation-state and capitalist development: The emergence and territorialization of world politics in terms of the nation-state is a matter of spatial differentiation and uneven development of capital. It has everything to do with the internal characteristics of capitalism, rather than simply resulting from Western impositions on non-Western states. Ironically, JVP itself was an agent of propagating false consciousness among the masses and undermined its own allegedly revolutionary objectives. The JVPs anti-Western rhetoric provided a strategy by which the state could divert dissent against its economic and political affairs away from direct engagement with the capitalist class, and in particular with its political manifestation in Sri Lanka — the kinship-patronage model.   Despite its attempt to use anti-Western rhetoric, after the war the JVP became isolated and subjected to the surveillance of the state.

Historically the UNP’s claims to support or oppose a negotiated political settlement to the ethnic conflict have been opportunistic and driven by its desire to capture, oppose or legitimize state power.  This has been the case since the J.R. Jayewardene’s opposition to the Federal solution, the active role UNP members played in 1983 Riots, and UNP’s lack of concrete engagement in post-war attempts to find a political settlement.  The UNP still does nothing to prepare the masses for a political settlement. It has a history of reinforcing counter-productive beliefs, undermining any government attempts to pursue a settlement. UNP’s approach has been to exploit both government success and the failure in its war against LTTE’s terrorism and government responses to the call for international investigations into War crimes.   This way the UNP can say that it was supportive of government efforts if they succeed, or claim to the masses that they opposed government policies if government efforts fail. Neither of these responses constructively engaged with the ethnic conflict; they merely exploited it to capture state power.  A quarter-century-long ethnic conflict should be understood in terms of (though not reducible to) the evolution of capitalist class formation in Sri Lanka. It is crucial to understand that ethno-religious nationalism became an instrument of the classes in competition for economic and political power. UNP and the JVP are instruments of those classes, and their role has been to replace “the politics of distribution” with a parochial politics of identity — a position that has hampered the development of social movements against capitalism.

Opportunistic politics yielded no significant gains to JVP or UNP, and their alliance was short-lived.  Since the war ended, internal party crises intensified and splits now seem imminent.   Mr. Rail Wickramasinghe has set a world record, retaining party leadership even after losing nearly 20 elections.  This type of dictatorship really makes the Rajapakshe regimes appears as reasonably democratic.  After Wikileaks revealed that the JVP told the American Ambassador that Somawamsa Amerasinghe supported the “truth and reconciliation commission as opposed to war crimes,” the party’s sincerity is in question. This semantic nit-picking is simple dishonesty: both interventions are intended to investigate and determine the truth of the matter.

Both UNP and JVP demand “good governance.” By this they mean that they want accountability and transparency from the government.   This is highly seductive language, but the goals of good governance are limited to those that further the interests of capital.  “Good governance” is about ensuring that state action will not lead to market failures or a reduction of efficiency.  Proponents of “good government” are disinterested in or silent in instances where good governance requires justice and equality. It is the antithesis of government in which people’s needs are placed above their ability to pay.  UNP and JVP good governance is all about disciplining the state to function according to the logic of capital, thus it deploys the charge of corruption selectively, as if one could find a moment in history in which capitalism is devoid of corruption.

For the voodoo economists (those who still believe in the neoclassical economists whose ideologies underpin the UNP and UPFA economic policies) efficient economic management means letting the “invisible hands of the markets” run the economy, and good governance is the political form that allows it.  But the fact that visible hands always control invisible hands is never mentioned. The good governance agenda of voodoo economists economists simply repackages economic problems as political problems. It separates political and economics into two different domains of action, hoping “right politics”  (meaning market-enabling politics) will bring prosperity through markets.  Historically the equality that is promised in the domain of politics has always been undermined by inequality in the domain of economics.  In a neoliberal context, the demand for good governance means maintaining and enforcing separation between economics and politics, while subjecting the latter to the dictates of the former.  The UNP parliamentarian Eran Wickramathana’s justification for claiming that local government election victories are a means creating a political culture of democracy and pluralism are meaningless and deceptive: the economic policies of the UNP specifically undermine this kind of political culture.

Any political party seeking a way out of the current predicament must build a mass social movement from grass-roots.  Such movement must simultaneously deal with many different, yet overlapping cultures of politics.  Among them are the “politics of gratitude” (the population’s  deep sense of gratitude towards the government for ending the war and ensuring relative freedom of movement);  the “politics of distraction” (escaping accountability and transparency by branding criticisms as Western conspiracies);   the “politics of silence” (from the population in the north-east in the aftermath of war): the “politics of necessity” (when action undermines security in daily life); the “politics of apathy” (a product of “ala, bathala, Kos, and del” [ABCD] economy, in which majority rural peoples concerns about subsistence are pitted against issues of corruption, good governance, prosperity that concern the urban middle class); the “politics of kinship-patronage” (providing vast opportunities for wealth and power to those who serve the interests of the ruling regime); the “politics of intelligentsia” (those who have compromised their souls and succumbed to offers of wealth and power, and the excesses of post-colonial studies); the “politics of the past” (also called “historical consciousness —inventing history to serve the interests of the present); the “politics of religion” (the symbiotic relationship between wealth, politics and power); the “politics of the NGOs” (who play an important role in preparing economic and political conditions for capitalist development); the “politics of the middle-classes (who are deeply satisfied with the improvements in infrastructure maintenance of law and order in urban settings); the “politics of counter-terrorism” (extending the war against terrorism to other areas of political and economic affairs); and, the “politics of progress” (dominant and subordinate groups that the idea of ‘progress’ in capitalist modernity).   So on and so forth.

While these political cultures are diverse and do not have the same origins and evolutionary trajectories, they are all both implicated in and integrated with the development of capitalism: none of these cultures can escape from the colonizing logic of capital.  More than at any other time in the history of capitalism, there exists widespread social capital for developing social movements centered on anti-capitalist protest.  This is not claim to “vulgar Marxism,” or “materialist determinism’ which Marx condemned.  It does not mean that everything can be explained in terms of or reduced to a struggle between capitalists and anti-capitalists.  Or were capitalism replaced with another system, all other evils would not disappear. Instead, it is crucial to point out that only critical engagement with capitalism will allow us to ask the important questions: will capitalism create conditions for a political culture of justice and equality? Engagement with capitalism, and the work of imagining our way out of it, will create essential (but not sufficient) conditions to finding our way out of the current predicament.  Neither the JVP nor the UNP are capable of giving us the kind of visionary leadership that will lead to such an engagement, and, in fact, they constrain the intellectual and political landscape in which such politics can arise.   To set capitalism in the center, as the object of analysis for the UNP, is suicide.  But for the JVP to do the same would mean actually becoming a Marxist Party!

• A Common Programme for a United Left Front in Sri Lanka
• Sri Lankan Presidential Elections and Global Politics
• UNP victory in Colombo Municipal Council: A Political Economy of the Numerics
• In conversation with Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
• Tamil Question and the Global Crisis of Capitalism

The Hansard of 20th September 2011 records a question posed by Dr. Harsha de Silva in Parliament over the campaign finances and the asset declaration of Mayoral candidate Milinda Moragoda. See high resolution image here. Download the Hansard from 20th September as a PDF here.

Dr. de Silva flags questions repeatedly via Facebook and Twitter Groundviews posed to the Moragoda campaign on these issues, all to no avail. Milinda Moragoda: The gap between promise and reality catalogues the disconnect between what Moragoda says and actually does in more detail. In Why is Right to Information in the Moragoda Mayoral Manifesto? Prof. Rohan Samarajiva, the Head of the Policy Planning Group, Milinda for Mayor Campaign, flags Moragoda’s commitment to the Right to Information (RTI) and ends with a plea to support him on this score. Dr. de Silva, who at the time of writing is the head of the Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte Municipal Council (SJKMC) campaign committee for the UNP notes in Local government elections: Military puppeteers, elected puppets, right to information and people’s liberties his deep scepticism over the Moragoda campaign’s RTI promises.

A rough translation to English of Dr. de Silva’s comments in Parliament follows. Only the relevant sentences are translated from Sinhala.

“There is the Groundviews website. It is done by the Sri Lankan Sanjana Hattotuwa. The site notes it is “Journalism for Citizens”. Milinda Moragoda is using Facebook and Twitter for his campaign. Groundviews has asked (Moragoda) to “declare his assets and liabilities” on Facebook. They have asked this on Twitter. Moragoda doesn’t do politics like us. He is very sophisticated. Very hifi. He does politics on Facebook. He does politics on Twitter. On Facebook it is asked of him “Did you declare your assets”? This has been asked for four or five days. He does not open his mouth. There is a saying “Preach to others only when one is principled”. Isn’t that so?… Gotabaya Rajapaksa is not standing for elections. It is Milinda Moragoda who is standing for elections… Please tell Mr. Moragoda that before he gives out other information he can start with declaring his assets and liabilities.”

Other bloggers have asked the same question. No answer.

tweeted:

Others on Twitter, like Nalaka, Anupama, Roel and Thilina have asked the same question. Repeatedly. Yet, no answer.

Indi Samarajiva, Moragoda’s web media manager has been asked the same question on his personal blog. No answer.

Prof. Rohan Samarajiva, the head of Moragoda’s Policy Planning Group has been repeatedly asked the question over many web fora. The answer? Bizarrely calling existing election law hypothetical and that Moragoda will reveal his assets and liabilities (one is really asked to believe) if and when elected. Inter alia, given the present antics of the campaign to illegally use CMC hoardings (State property) for electioneering, this is particularly rich.

In fact, I along with many others have been kicked out of the Moragoda Facebook page for flagging these and other hard questions. As Roel notes on Twitter,

tweeted:

Awful and familiar. That about captures the Moragoda campaign to date. But surely, doesn’t Colombo deserve the unfamiliarity of a candidate who eschews hypocrisy and expedient politics to really practice what he preaches?

###

Also read Fundamental questions for AJM Muzammil and the UNP

• Fundamental questions for AJM Muzammil and the UNP
• Groundviews on Twitter and Facebook
• Hacking mayoral campaign promises
• Groundviews on Twitter
• Milinda Moragoda: The gap between promise and reality

Last Friday, I was slated to interview the UNP’s Mayoral candidate AJM Muzammil on public television. After his media manager expressed a keen interest and confirmed his participation, Muzammil backed out the morning of the interview giving no reason at all and asked it to be rescheduled for the following week. This mirrored the behaviour of the UPFA’s candidate Milinda Moragoda, who also promised an interview and at the last minute, cancelled without giving any reason. It’s almost as if they both were advised that hard questions, for which they would have no easy answer, would be asked.

Though no coherent answers are, to date, forthcoming, questions directed at Milinda Moragoda are public. Critical questioning of Muzammil’s policy statement has been comparatively less visible and sustained, but also because Muzammil’s presence on the web is far less adroit than Moragoda’s. His Twitter account for example incredibly has just a single tweet to date. This is, politely put, is deeply embarrassing. His Facebook page is just a stream of bad consciousness with absolutely no engagement whatsoever with those who are on it.

Though it never really occurred, once the interview with Muzammil was initially confirmed with his campaign, readers/fans of Groundviews on Facebook and Twitter were asked to send in their questions over the candidate’s policies. Save for what was emailed in, the rest of the questions are in the public domain. Prof. Rohan Samarajiva’s responses to Muzammil’s policy statement were taken off his Twitter account.

I’m not at all interested in going behind a candidate who seems to believe that inconvenient questions can be evaded through non-engagement. In line with my short essay Hacking mayoral campaign promises, please use the following questions to critically evaluate Muzammil’s campaign. Pose them to him in person and through every means available online and via other media. The UNP may criticise Moragoda’s campaign, but are they really any better and do they set an example?

All the questions are edited for language, length and clarity.

Via email: 

1. The CMC is infamously known for being one of the most corrupt government departments in the country. Its rampant corruption and complete inefficiency was used by the current central government to shift authority from the CMC to an Authority headed by the defence secretary. What steps will the candidate take to ensure the complete eradication of corrupt practices and to enhance transparency? Will he begin by declaring his assets and make it mandatory for others within the Council to follow suit?
2. About his proposed cycle lanes. Has he not seen colombo? Where the devil are we going to have cycle lanes? We should have separate bus lanes!
3. What does the paragraph about social and cultural values really mean?
4. He’s spoken about garbage collection but not garbage disposal … nice that they will increase frequency of garbage collection but where are they going to put it and whats going to happen to what is already there?
5. Interesting that there is no mention of under-employment. And the plan for vocational training for unemployed and self employed – how are they going to identify? How are they going to go about it – funding/ selection/ deciding on what type of training to give (this is where consultation would come in) / they need to identify demand in market and offer vocational training for those accordingly. I’ll like to know more about the details of these plans I guess.
6. Considering he’s a politician of the old times, interesting to know what his take on social media as a tool to engage with voters and inform them? He doesn’t interact with people at all on FB except to say thank you.

Via Twitter (posed by NalakaG):

1. Have you declared your assets as required by election law, and are you willing to disclose it to voters? (A question I’ve already asked of Muzammil and his campaign over Facebook and Twitter, to which to date they have given no answer.)
2. How do you plan to co-exist with the UPFA government that controls urban development, without being bulldozed by them?
3. As a candidate who has tweeted just once so far, do u think social media matter in engaging Colombo’s voters?
4. Have you had any criminal or corruption charges made against you by a law enforcement or state body? If so, what?

Via Twitter (posed by @samarajiva,the Head of the Policy Planning Group, Milinda for Mayor Campaign)

1. Finally, Muzammil manifesto out. No citizen charter, surprisingly. Lots of freebies. How is it all funded? Still, focus on city services is good.
2. Compare language on making CMC efficient & citizen centric in @MilindaMoragoda & @ajmmuzammil policies. Can unreformed CMC deliver services?

• Milinda Moragoda’s ‘Right to Information’: A sordid record of its real nature and limits
• Groundviews on Twitter and Facebook
• Hacking mayoral campaign promises
• Groundviews now on Yahoo! Meme
• Groundviews on Twitter

Photo from Asian Mirror

In Open-source policy formulation for Sri Lanka’s capital, an article published on the Lanka Business Online website recently, the Head of the Policy Planning Group, Milinda for Mayor Campaign and renowned policy analyst Prof. Rohan Samarajiva looks at how mainstream politics can be made more participatory. The promise is of a direct democracy model with the aid of web, mobile and Internet technologies. Prof. Samarajiva captures well the shortcomings of a traditional approach to manifestos and public policy,

“The traditional approach is to rely on expertise. Experts formulate policy. Other experts debug it. Not very different from what goes on at the Redmond Campus of Microsoft.”

It is a beguiling vision. Co-creating public policy transparently is infinitely better than codifying in closed groups. This is the Wikipedia model, adapted to fit a political campaign. Experts, like Prof. Samarajiva, assume a curatorial role in the campaign – sifting through citizen-generated ideas, refining and combining them to create a representative and responsive policy framework. Seeing a coherent vision and a participatory model, citizens feel empowered and join the debates. In fact, Prof. Samarajiva notes many from Colombo and elsewhere already have. Even at face value, this is not something we’ve seen in elections held previously. Bitter invective and partisan rhetoric often inform campaign propaganda. Prof. Samarajiva promises something very different, both during the campaign and also in the model of governance were his candidate to win.

This is the ideal. What is the reality? A general critique of citizen or user-generated content is that most of it is rather poor in expression and execution. Experts, as Andrew Keen in ‘The Cult of the Amateur’ argues, aren’t obsolete. In fact, they are wanted more than before to stem a tsunami of cute cat videos on YouTube, relationship woes on Facebook, celebrity chatter on Twitter and badly focussed holiday photos on Flickr. Opening up policy making doesn’t necessarily mean better policy-making. The majority of comments on the Facebook pages of candidates consists of a single adulatory line. Some ask for jobs. Others ask for help in setting up a business. Hardly ideas generation for better public policy.

The promise of ostensibly ‘opening up policy making’ can also mask entrapment of a different kind. Think Apple, the computer company. Apple offers beauty in simplicity. Its iconic software and hardware has a cult following because it’s visually compelling, encouraging prolonged use and exploration so long as Apple’s rules are followed. And there’s the rub. Examples of the company’s intolerance with developers and users who attempt to question it and go beyond its rules are legion. In sum, what Apple offers is something beautiful to own and look at in return for little or no space for transparency or critical questioning. Few of course realise this, because few see a need to move beyond what it offers, and promises to make available in the future.

Apply this to Colombo’s future. An open city is an attractive prospect – in the sense of open physical spaces as well as transparency in governance. The former is already a reality. The latter remains elusive. Walls are coming down. Trees are being planted. Yet we don’t know why walls are coming down, what will be built in their place or why trees are being cut only to grow others in their place. We are taken in by what we see and are promised, but the reality is that we are all hostage to rules hardwired into a system beyond reproach or easy public scrutiny. A far cry then from a meritocracy or democracy. For all the online public participation touted by Prof. Samarajiva, the real scope of engagement is woefully constrained. Worse, attempts to enlarge it are actively censored. Questions on ethics, principles and in particular, adherence to election laws go unanswered. Politely put and repeatedly asked via email, Twitter, Facebook and the plain old telephone service, candidates with a web presence and saying they are for transparency simply do not engage.

If the promise of ‘open-source policy making’ is to hold true, it’s not just hyped-up cosmetic engagement that matters. The model promised need to be the model employed. Current mayoral web campaigns fall far short in this respect. I’ve repeatedly asked the candidates, including Prof. Samarajiva’s preferred choice, to open up campaign financing and declare personal assets. Others on Twitter, Facebook and blogs have asked the same question. Revealingly, the campaigns have no response. Bizarrely, some even go to the extent of claiming that existing law, requiring all candidates to declare assets, is ‘hypothetical’.

Rather than a partisan response, here’s my suggestion. Hack all the Mayoral web campaigns. The suggestion isn’t to technically disrupt but systematically decry the lies by proactively and repeatedly engaging. If actively debarred from asking hard questions in official online fora of candidates, voters should redouble efforts to hold candidates accountable though their own online media. Many in Colombo have a Facebook and Twitter accounts. Use these to decode web propaganda. Use them to create new threads of conversations, spin-offs in online and mainstream media platforms that hold candidates and campaign staff accountable to the law, and what they promise. Engage in Tamil and Sinhala to ascertain the real limits of trilingual promises by a candidate’s campaign staff. Be active on official campaign websites. Post content and ask for responses. If censored or restricted, tweeted:

There is emphatically no need to be rude or even sarcastic. The questions are their own power. For the average citizen, these online conversations and unanswered questions are a vital public record. For the candidates, these are equally vital repositories of discontent and support, scepticism as well as hope. Hacking the campaigns now will help us elect a more accountable Mayor, and nail him to his promises. Engaging robustly now benefits us all by pointing the debates to not just what we want to see, but how we want to get there.

It asks us all to be the change we want to see.

###

Authors note: A version of this article first appeared in the Sunday Leader on 25 September 2011. Also read Milinda Moragoda: The gap between promise and reality.

• Milinda Moragoda’s ‘Right to Information’: A sordid record of its real nature and limits
• Fundamental questions for AJM Muzammil and the UNP
• Groundviews on Twitter and Facebook
• Groundviews on Twitter
• Groundviews now formatted for iPad

Milinda Moragoda’s on-going mayoral campaign is interesting on many counts. Particularly appealing to me is that it is extremely web media savvy. The campaign’s central website, http://www.ourcmb.com, is leagues ahead of what any candidate, at any election in Sri Lanka has produced. Aimed to elicit public feedback on a 12 point, 100 day plan for Colombo, the website is a model for how politicians can use the web to co-create policy in what is promised is an open, transparent manner. Milinda’s Facebook group, growing apace in the number of fans, is something other candidates have done in the past, but not to this degree of curatorial prowess. He also has a presence on YouTube and Twitter. All this would prima facie suggest a politician unafraid of public scrutiny, genuine engagement on critical issues and uses these tools to be the change he proclaims he wants to see.

Sadly, not so. In an article titled ‘Open-source policy formulation for Sri Lanka’s capital’ the Head, Policy Planning Group, Milinda for Mayor Campaign Prof. Rohan Samarajiva, though he doesn’t identify himself as such in the article, makes a great deal of the approach adopted by the Moragoda campaign. He may not even know it or immediately recall that his son, though far less coherently, first mooted the idea open source government over 8 years ago. Noting the flaws with the traditional approach to manifestos and public policy, Prof. Samarajiva notes,

“The traditional approach is to rely on expertise. Experts formulate policy. Other experts debug it. Not very different from what goes on at the Redmond Campus of Microsoft.”

A more apt description would have been to Apple and Steve Jobs. The message however, for the non-geeks, was clear. Co-creating policy transparently is infinitely better than codifying in closed groups. This is the guiding mantra of the open source movement, a process of production and development that promote access to the end product’s source materials. Jobs recently stepped down as CEO of Apple, but his command and control of the company is the stuff of legend. He has been called a Genius Control Freak, unwilling to relinquish control even over the slightest aspect of design and development, wielding an incredible degree of personal oversight as fondly recalled by Vic Gundotra of Google.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa is to Milinda’s campaign what Jobs was, and perhaps to a degree still is to Apple (coincidentally, Gotabaya seems to be a fan of Apple products!). He, and he alone, determines policy. This is not just our speculation or submission. It is quite openly acknowledged by leading bloggers actually heading the media relations for the Milinda Moragoda campaign as well as mainstream media that it’s Gotabaya who runs Colombo. Not the Colombo Municipal Council. Not the post of Mayor. The Secretary of Defence post-war has branched out into urban renewal, and with the unlimited resources of the Ministry of Defence, is going about revamping the city and its environs as he sees fit. There is no public access to his plans. No one really knows how much of money is involved, to whom tenders are awarded, or on what grounds. We are told there is a plan, and to trust its implementation to the hands of the man who won the war. Few, if any, are willing to question that. Following from this, the central argument to support Moragoda’s campaign is, as the Sunday Leader, succinctly puts it, that ready access to Gotabaya guarantees Moragoda a much better chance than any other candidate of developing Colombo to the city we all want it to become. Amongst the candidates then, he is primus inter pares.

Gotabaya’s singular character traits are well known. Here is a man who conflated terrorists with Tamils and actually defended the overnight eviction of hundreds of hapless Tamils from Colombo a few years ago. We recall his shrill comments on and dismissal of Lasantha Wickremetunge’s murder. We now know through Wikileaks that within government, he was the most intolerant of dissent and the freedom of expression during war. Even today, reading through the cables, it’s mind-boggling the degree to which he was in control of or responsible for the suppression of independent media in Sri Lanka. We know that even before these details came to light courtesy Assange, RSF called him a predator of media freedom. A single word from Gotabaya was enough to send any detractor into panic and flight. Worse, he does so with complete and utter impunity. He was heinous in 2007. Four years on, he is no better, and though less shrill now pontificates on matters of governance to boot. As noted by Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu years ago,

“The relationship of the Defence Secretary to the President and the structure of power institutionalised by this regime, give his pronouncements and opinions greater weight than that of any other cabinet minister including the Prime Minister. Furthermore, his minister is none other than the President, his brother. Gotabhaya Rajapakse’s behaviour begs the question of the militarisation of government and governance in this country. Shocking though it may seem, there is the story doing the rounds that Sri Lanka has in fact a militarised if not military government without having a military coup.“

Emphasis mine.

It is important to not forget who Gotabaya is, what he is capable of and how unbridled his real power is. If and when Milinda Moragoda wins these elections, it’s Gotabaya who will run our city. It’s Gotabaya’s plans, vision and apparatchiks that will define our city, not, emphatically, Moragoda’s frameworks of public engagement and accountability. In many ways, this is going back to the Premedasa era of governance, where most are interested in getting stuff done, not on how it’s done and at what cost. Ergo, Moragoda may speak of Right to Information, but this is rendered nonsensical given the regime’s vice grip on everything, and everyone. To argue therefore that Moragoda’s candidacy is viable above all others because of access to this individual is in effect to suggest that constitutional rule, the rule of law and civil administration – all of which have been systematically and egregiously undermined by the Rajapaksa regime – are non-issues in these elections. In fact, the single most important factor in Moragoda’s campaign was flagged by Wikileaks,

Interestingly, the head of Milinda’s Policy Planning Group, Prof. Samarajiva, writing in 2010 noted,

“The events of the past few months (and indeed the past few years) in Sri Lanka have puzzled me. The President and his coterie are flagrantly violating the Constitution and laws. That is shocking, but what is more shocking is the casual acceptance of this behaviour by all concerned. What is surprising is not that the President violates the law and disregards explicit directions from lawful authority, but that the citizenry seem to accept it. Not that the President tries to impress university teachers by inviting them to dinner at Temple Trees, but that most of them go, and some even kiss the hands of their host. So it appears that the political elite’s dalliance with Constitutionalism has about run its course, 60 years after independence. We are reverting to our native Feudalism: not just the ruling family but large swaths of the populace, including opinion leaders and intellectuals.” From Sri Lanka under Rajapakse regime becoming feudal kingdom with constitutional veneer

Emphasis mine. If he looks in the mirror, one wonders if Prof. Samarajiva recognises that what he warned us against is what he has allowed himself to become?

The Ranil factor
On Twitter, and defending his decision to back the Moragoda campaign, Prof. Samarajiva observed,

A lot of the arguments around supporting Moragoda are anchored to, politely put, the ineffectiveness of the Leader of the Opposition, Ranil Wickremesinghe. Interestingly, the media relations / campaign manager for Milinda Moragoda and Prof. Samarajiva’s son was, on the Sri Lankan blogosphere, one of the first and most vocal champions of Ranil Wickremesinghe, only to lose interest by 2010 and ask him to leave his office. He’s not the only one disillusioned. Wikileaks mentions Moragoda around a 148 times. The cables range from January 2003 to December 2009. Moragoda’s character, role and relevance to various governments at various times is evident when reading through them in chronological order. Equally evident is his growing disenchantment with the UNP’s leadership. To quote the US Ambassador in Sri Lanka in 2007,

“There is no doubt that a substantial part of the UNP is unhappy with Wickremesinghe’s autocratic leadership style, and with some of Ranil’s strategic decisions. There are others who, nearing the end of their public lives, may in fact simply be yearning to end their careers as ministers. Basil Rajapaksa’s assurances notwithstanding, the President has aroused expectations of change by announcing publicly that he would undertake a major cabinet reshuffle and expected a number of UNP crossovers. Ranil will have his work cut out to head off a defection by the dissidents in his party and get the President to back off on his plan to recruit them for his cabinet.”

In 2011, the very real prospect of an electoral loss in Colombo for the UNP is what the fall of Killinochchi was to the LTTE, the end of the road. An enervated Opposition today will become a ceremonial one, which then refocusses our attention on Prof. Samarajiva’s point – are voters only left with individuals who promise what they do because of who they know and have access to? I think not. A year ago, the Professor agreed. To quote again from his seminal essay,

“Constitutionalism is not words on paper, but broad acceptance across society that certain kinds of words on paper have binding authority and must be respected. It is what will give meaning to the word of a candidate… The larger question is the governing framework. Do university teachers rush to kiss the ring and vice chancellors prostrate themselves before presidents in modern societies? Can we have a modern economy, when the largest companies in the country obey patently illegal directions from regulators? Is it normal to name a government-owned, money-losing airline for the head of state and paint the tail of the leased aircraft with his campaign livery? These are symptoms of a transition from a Constitutional State to a feudal one.”

Sans any real democracy in Sri Lanka, http://www.ourcmb.com is actually not a framework for public engagement. Rather, it is essentially a platform (arguably a rather parasitical one) to get the best ideas from amongst us and make them hostage to the parochialism of a single ruling family that circumscribes in turn what Moragoda – if he should win – can and should do as Mayor. Ironically, in this position, he is akin to party leader he left behind – both largely symbolic figures sans any real authority, one a hostage to a blinding ego, the other never able or willing to question the excesses of a regime that in effect demarcates the boundaries of his power. If this is too dystopic, consider the following video. This was broadcast on public TV. It isn’t the creation of someone against the Rajapaksa regime or the Moragoda campaign. In fact, it features the President’s son speaking in public. At around one minute in, Namal Rajapaksa says something quite revealing in a tone and expression that doesn’t translate, but a Sinhala audience would understand full well,

“But, Mr. General Secretary, I told the President that if they don’t give us votes, go put them elsewhere [Applause] Why (should we) make houses and others get the votes? Isn’t it? But no one will be put outside this area. But remember what I told (you) earlier.”

I asked Moragoda about what his response to this thinly veiled threat was, especially in light of Point 6 of his manifesto which notes,

• The Government has to relocate people in certain circumstances to fulfill its commitment to give decent, liveable housing, but I will ensure that no citizen is relocated outside of metropolitan Colombo. (See here)
• Before any relocation plans are made, communities will be included in the process and consulted. (See here)

To date, the candidate has not given an answer, which in a sense, is its own answer.

The foibles of the campaign
Moragoda’s adoption of new media could suggest he’s actually a more engaged candidate with those online. Colombo’s surely got the highest per capita penetration of broadband in the country. Though nowhere close to what tweeted:

Groundviews immediately chastised for a hidden agenda, and asked if we were paid to ask hard questions. When we said tweeted:

The somewhat farcical public engagement extends to Facebook. When I attempted to engage on the Facebook platform, the response from Milinda Moragoda’s campaign manager was tragi-comic, almost as if the fan page was set up for adulatory messages instead of real, hard engagement on vital issues. In response to the questions we published on Facebook, the son of Prof. Samarajiva, Milinda’s media campaign manager, accused the Centre for Policy Alternatives, in fact no stranger to the candidate himself of ‘coordinated personal attacks’. Note the word personal. And what were these ‘attacks’? The following questions apparently, amongst others that are in full public view,

On the issue of religious tolerance

On the Right to Information

Sampath, Chief Editor of Vikalpa, makes the point here that the copy and paste tactic of the campaign demonstrates the paucity of original thought and genuine engagement.

On Namal Rajapaksa’s comments

Note there is no engagement at all here with Namal’s comments. And the ‘Milinda Moragoda’ isn’t really Milinda Moragoda. More on this anon.

On Moragoda’s non-compliance with election law in 2010 and again during the present campaign

On the inability of the campaign to deal with hard questions (in Sinhala)

On attempting to dodge hard question by facile logic

This question alone generated an exchange of over 25 comments between the media campaign manager, Prof. Samarajiva and I. It is evident the campaign cannot come up with an answer to the questions asked, most notably why Moragoda to date has not made public his declaration of assets, as per election law (and never did in 2010 either). What is also evident is a media campaign manager who cannot manage hard questions, and a Head of Policy Planning, infinitely more capable of dealing with vital issues yet unable to engage as robustly as he can on account of a day job. In sum, a rather dysfunctional campaign to deal with anything other than the sporadic citizen input, and that too if sycophantic or supportive in nature.

It gets worse.

The optics of engagement, or lack thereof
Twice during the day on Moragoda’s Facebook page, I noticed that ‘Milinda Moragoda’ said something that in minutes was magically attributed to Rohan Samarajiva. I flagged this to the campaign.

Yes despite assurances this has been fixed, one sees strange anomalies. For example, the following notes that even though the identity that appears is ‘Milinda Moragoda’ its a member of his ‘staff’ that is posted the response.

However, in the case of the example below, that which appears to come from Milinda Moragoda, one suspects actually comes from Prof. Samarajiva.

This may well be a temporary technical glitch. I’m not suggesting that Prof. Samarajiva deliberately misleads voters, but this is just not the way to build public confidence in authentic online engagement. Moragoda we are told only posts content himself in the morning and the evenings. We aren’t sure then whether this post on Milinda’s avowed celebration of diversity was actually posted by himself or not. There is no comment moderation policy. There is certainly comment moderation (not all comments that are submitted go up), but this isn’t made explicitly clear. What you see on Facebook may only be a subset of what is received by the campaign, with content published at their discretion not really giving a sense of what fans really send in, want to see and think. What one immediately notices is that up until today, there was not a single hard question or policy related discussion on the Facebook page. The only status a bit different to the rest was this hilarious yet revealing post,

Is any of this of consequence?
“I am persuaded that Constitutionalism, the rule of laws, not men, is most conducive to the happiness of our people. But I am open to persuasion that what is appropriate for the Sri Lankan climate is something else.” Prof. Rohan Samarajiva, Sri Lanka under Rajapakse regime becoming feudal kingdom with constitutional veneer

Prof. Samarajiva may have been persuaded to believe that supporting the proxy of a feudal kingdom is the best way forward. So too, many others? Now famously quoted, the Gallup Poll reveals that the President’s popularity is at 91%. A recent poll by Social Indicator, the social polling arm of the Centre for Policy Alternatives on perceptions of post-war democracy in Sri Lanka indicates that 58.8% of Sri Lankans think that the country has been the most democratic under President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s period. This view is shared by 69.9% of Sinhalese respondents. 62.2% of respondents in the 18 – 30 age category consider the country most democratic under President Mahinda Rajapaksa. The latest age breakdown for Colombo’s inhabitants I could access was from 2001. It’s clear though that the appeal of the Rajapaksa regime will possibly translate into votes for Moragoda in a city with a younger demographic. The concerns Groundviews noted below are quite possibly non-issues to the majority who vote.

Nalaka Gunewardene (a close friend of Prof. Samarajiva’s), along with Groundviews, attempts to hold Milinda Moragoda accountable to a higher standard than the rest of the candidates via frequent engagement on Twitter. As Nalaka avers,

Perhaps Nalaka and I are wrong in seeing him differently to any other politician, particularly during elections. But Moragoda says, repeatedly, that he is different. Wielding the tools of public engagement online, Moragoda suggests that he is capable of robust conversations on engendering real change in a participatory manner. He wants to deal with issues. Yet, he eludes the inconvenient ones. He wants to bring about a new expression. Yet his campaign wastes no time in precisely the kind of expression his opponents are vaunt to use. He says he is for the Right to Information. Yet he flouts election law by not revealing his assets. Despite all this, I have little doubt he will win Colombo. On Facebook, Prof. Samarajiva wanted me to “Nail us (meaning Moragoda and himself) to the wall if we do not deliver after getting the mandate. That seems to be the only practical course, if you do not want to get all candidates to adopt RTI.”

My response to him on Facebook is a good note to end,

“Thanks again, but I think the thrust of my point is at variance with your submission. My point is the trust deficit – not a hum in support of RTI after his defeat last year, on *principle*. One can not be in a position to implement, but stand up for something nevertheless? I get what you are saying too, but I think you place too much of power in my / voters hands. Once and if elected, he is the frontman for a regime that trucks no check or balance, no critical question. Moragoda himself closed Twitter and YouTube the day after he lost in 2010. What gives us hope he will continue to be held accountable through these fora once elected? Your involvement in the campaign and your early tweet “ tweeted:

” is that much more cruel in this context. You may be, but the context of electoral democracy in this country is just not set up to ‘nail’ you (or any politician) on performance. You and Moragoda ask for faith, in essence. I have little of it in Moragoda, and none at all in the regime that backs him.”

Many of course will disagree, and say that Moragoda is the best choice in an irrefutably illiberal context. I do wonder how we got here.

• Chaos in Colombo: Mêlée over jobs indicates a serious economic problem in Sri Lanka?
• Photographic evidence of war crimes in Sri Lanka, or not? (Updated)
• Ground report: Widespread public perception of military links to ‘grease devils’?
• Milinda Moragoda’s ‘Right to Information’: A sordid record of its real nature and limits
• Fundamental questions for AJM Muzammil and the UNP

President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga always wrote well and spoke eloquently when she resisted a propensity to be overly loquacious. While her recent peroration contains many intelligent and valid points, her credibility and their validity comes into serious question because she is not an independent observer or a reformist leader –in-waiting, but precisely a two term president who won by record majorities, and was indeed the immediate predecessor of the present incumbent.  Most ironic is the fact that many of the ills she identifies or attributes to present day Sri Lanka stem directly from her political sins of omission and commission. What is conspicuously lacking in her discourse, is any sign of reflexivity; of self-criticism.

My criticism pertains to four vital spheres (including those of her current concern), namely viable devolution, a less discriminatory society, the role of radical Sinhala nationalism/ultra-nationalism and of course defeating terrorism and reunifying the Sri Lankan state.

Having been elected by an unprecedented majority, CBK could have easily pushed through reforms making for moderate power-sharing if she had activated one of five options feasible at the time: the 13^th amendment, the Mangala Moonesinghe Select Committee Report (to which one of the signatories was her mother, Madam Sirimavo Bandaranaike), the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam Pact, promulgate an Interim Administration as per the 13^th amendment or improve modestly on the 13^th amendment through majorities in the provincial councils.  She did none of these. Instead she headed off on a wild goose chase of an overly ambitious ‘union of regions’ package. And having done so, what is her credibility and ethical standing in criticising the government of the day?

CBK is concerned about a more inclusive, non-discriminatory society. I believe this to be sincere. However why she did not move in this direction by implementing her own Equal Opportunities Bill? Why did she withdraw it? Having done so, what is the credibility of her contemporary social critique?

President Kumaratunga laments the role of the Sinhala hawks. Fair enough, but who empowered them? By picking Justice Sarath N Silva over Justice Mark Fernando, CBK surely helped tilt the balance.

During the dark days of appeasement under the CFA, I was invited by her as the main discussant at a meeting of the SLFP parliamentary group, held at the President’s Pavilion in Kandy and chaired by her.  I articulated the perspective that a united front of the centre-Left with the JVP was necessary but that the centrist SLFP must be firmly hegemonic and that the JVP really had nowhere else to go. I also recall Mahinda Rajapaksa as being most critical and pessimistic about a bloc with the JVP. In the event the SLFP under President Kumaratunga’s leadership conceded a massive slice of forty seats to the JVP! It is this parliamentary bloc that President Rajapaksa inherited and had to keep together while fighting the war. It is precisely the JVP that threatened to withdraw or actually withdrew from the APRC after its Experts Committee which had produced a constructive report on devolution. Apprehensive that his parliamentary majority may be in jeopardy, the President hit the brakes on the entire exercise.

Sinhala extremism was re-legitimised by her insistence that Vijaya Kumaratunga had been killed by Premadasa, rather than the JVP and the JVP alone. It fed off her erroneous choice of a peace mediator, at the wrong time too. She chose Norway, with its strong Tamil lobby, and did so in the late 1990s when the Sri Lankan military could have gone on the counter offensive , and persevered with the ‘ peace process’ after the assassination attempt on her  and the events of 9/11, which taken together would have provided her the external conditions to smash the Tigers.  She crippled her own military’s capacity to go for the kill by continuing with the Sudu Nelum movement, an anti-war movement which could and did conduct its campaign only in the Sinhala majority areas, thereby cutting into recruitment for the military in such a manner that it could not hold the territory it liberated and go onto liberate more.

Southern extremism and fundamentalism were fuelled by the Sudu Nelum phenomenon and the role of Norway, both CBK inputs.

The Sinhala ultras received a major, if unintended contribution from President Kumaratunga in the shape of her PTOMS proposals, which were challenged by the JVP and frozen by the Supreme Court—and quite rightly too, as its crucial middle tier gave the Sri Lankan state 3 slots and the LTTE 5!

As to the core issues of defeating terrorism and reuniting the territory of Sri Lanka, President Kumaratunga made some signal contributions but failed to capitalise on them and went onto partially reverse some of them.  She could have continued the offensive following the admirable liberation of Jaffna by her, and  her no less admirable defence of Jaffna in year 2000.  Yet, she did not. Furthermore, at the time of the strategically critical Karuna split, she permitted Prabhakaran’s forces to make a sea-borne landing in his rear area, passing through Sri Lankan navy lines.

Sartre once said that what matters is not what is done to us but what we do with what is done to us. Mahinda Rajapaksa inherited a divided territory and a military whose spirit was debilitated.  With these, he achieved that which no leader achieved for three decades. He defeated the Tigers, reunited the island’s territory and reopened the electoral political space for the revival of democratic Tamil politics including Tamil nationalist politics.

The TNA’s Northern success, running against the ruling coalition in an area with a heavy military ‘footprint’ means one thing above all else:  Sri Lanka remains a functioning, competitive, multiparty democracy. All thinking and policy within Sri Lanka and about Sri Lanka must stem from recognition of that basic fact. Yet, will the critics of the incumbent administration and of this country grant us that much? Knowing them as I do, I shan’t be holding my breath.

All those who wrote that democracy had died in Sri Lanka with the 18^th amendment, not to mention those who cannot write a paragraph about Mahinda Rajapaksa without an obligatory reference to Nazi Germany, should tender apologies to the reading public or at the least wriggle in shame in private, at the TNA’s performance in the Northern and portions of the Eastern province. But again, knowing them as I do, I shan’t be holding my breath.

An emerging ‘pivotal power’, Turkey, much admired for its secularism, moderate Islamic political party and independent foreign policy, has faced a long standing problem of secessionism from its Kurds. Today Turkey is in a better place, not only because of its admirable leadership, but because there is unprecedented space for the Kurds. Since Turkey hardly has a federal state or regional autonomy for the Kurds, what exactly is that space? It consists of several Kurdish language radio and TV channels, over 30 members of parliament, and many mayors in the Kurdish majority areas.

All this the Tamil people and the TNA have now. This should not be scoffed at, nor should Sri Lanka’s post-war achievement in opening that space and keeping it open.

The election results confirm that which I had told the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the presence of President Rajapaksa, in 2006 or early 2007, when he asked me how sure I was that what I had defined as a Just War, would result in a Just Outcome. I answered that with the North and East liberated by the military from the Tigers’ totalitarianism, electoral and political space would re-open and the Tamil people would be re-enfranchised, enabling them to democratically re-inscribe their grievances and aspirations in the political agenda, albeit within a united Sri Lanka.

Today the domestic geopolitics of the island are clear: the UPFA is the pre-eminent force among the vast majority inhabiting two thirds of the island while the TNA is the pre-eminent entity among of the Tamil people. The UPFA preponderates at the centre, the TNA at the Northern periphery.

This reality is the antechamber to another reality. The TNA cannot dream of another political negotiating partner other than the UPFA. An alliance with the UNP makes no sense because that party lags so far behind, it cannot deliver anything in the foreseeable future, and furthermore, any alliance with the TNA will hurt the UNP’s electoral chances, not enhance them, as candidate Fonseka found out to his cost. The UPFA is the only real game in town among the Sinhalese. Similarly, no dialogue with the Tamils is possible without the TNA or bypassing it. Any consequential political dialogue must have as its main axis, the UPFA and the TNA.

That second reality results from a third, or bottom line reality. Neither the Sinhalese nor the Tamils can prevail over one another. The Sinhalese could not be pushed beyond a point and they proved it with the victory in war. The Sinhalese will keep the country as a united territory and the single state, however long it takes, whatever the odds, and whoever the foe, internal or external or any combination thereof. Those located or having regrouped overseas who, having lost the war for Tamil Eelam are trying to regain what they lost by enlisting the support of erstwhile colonial patrons, will learn that what the Sri Lanka state has liberated and reunified, it shall hold, under whichever leader, flag or generation and “by whatever means necessary” (Malcolm X). The Tamils for their part will not relinquish their collective identity and search for dignity.

A sustainable peace is not possible exclusively on the terms of either one or the other community. There will neither be a Tamil state (separate or federal) nor a Sinhala peace over the Tamils. There will have to be a modus vivendi. And such a modus vivendi can only be found along the Buddha’s Middle Path or the Aristotelian Golden Mean between what Sinhala and Tamil nationalism wish.

With the election results we have a new balance of forces; a new conjuncture. It is not and cannot be an equivalence or perfect equilibrium, given abiding demographic realities and the decisive results of a thirty years war. However, it provides a chance for a fresh look and a new realism.

Have we been here before? In 1977 the electoral map was fairly similar, with the UNP enjoying more than a two thirds majority while the TULF dominated the North and pockets of the East. The difference is that the War of Secession has been fought over a prolonged period, and lost. Yet there are lessons to be learnt from the avoidable tragedy that resulted from delay on the one side and delusion on the other. Let us not make the same mistakes again.

Of course, today we are in another place. Any illusions of a separate state as inspired by the Vadukkodai resolution have been burnt or buried at Nandikadal. Any illusions of imposing silence on the Tamils and eliminating their cultural and political resolve have been dispelled by the electoral map that has unrolled with the parliamentary and local government elections. Both communities have thrown their best or worst at each other and both are still standing. What resilience and resolve! Both the Sinhalese and Tamils should not only be proud of themselves but of each other, because we are inhabitants of one island, and share the same DNA: we are brothers and sisters. What we could achieve together! I am glad we won the war, but sorry we ever had to fight one. Now, we have attained some kind of balance. If the TNA pushes too hard or overshoots the mark, opinion will harden in the bulk of the island, and vice versa. There can be no solution to Tamil grievances which are unacceptable to the majority of Sinhalese, just as there can be no deep-rooted, peace without Tamil consent. Now is the time to reach out to each other in mutual respect and realism, and establish a durable peace.

In the face of external threat and pressure, we must erect and maintain a rampart of granite and steel, but in domestic politics, including or most especially ethno-politics, we must make a paradigm shift from the politics of confrontation to the politics of peaceful coexistence.

• THE DEEPEST DIVISION IN SRI LANKA
• PRABAKARAN MUST BE LAUGHING
• Politics of Sinhala Nationalism: Underpinning of the UPFA Victory and Undermining of the Sri Lankan Nationhood
• In defense of the JVP campaign to support Sarath Fonseka
• Picking up the Tamil Tigers’ scent

Updated, 27 July 2011: Listen to exclusive interview with Suresh Premachandran here.

This statement on the results of the recently concluded local government elections (covered in detail by Groundviews here) was issued originally in Tamil by Tamil National Alliance MP Suresh Premachandran. Download PDF here. Only brief excerpts in English have been picked up by domestic and international media.

In order to stimulate wider debate over its content and points, we’ve translated Premachandran’s full statement in English. Though we’ve checked it for accuracy twice, a note from our translator is worth keeping in mind, “The meaning [of the statement] is captured though every subtle nuance and emphasis is not. The entire thing is written in free flowing passive voice Tamil which while lyrical, is difficult to translate.” We also encourage our readers to suggest better translations of key phrases and words through comments.

In a closed email exchange with colleagues, we wondered if a more conciliatory approach, eschewing triumphalism, could have made the reasons why this victory was significant for the TNA and Tamils more appealing to the Sinhalese, some of whom today openly profess – much like the President himself – that racial identity is no longer a factor in post-war Sri Lanka, suggesting instead that “working together” (as ‘patriots’) to acknowledge and address legitimate Tamil grievances is the way forward. Perception is reality. There is in media, polity and society a tendency to conflate the TNA with LTTE, which could easily lead to trenchant claims that their electoral performance on Saturday is proof that separatist tendencies and ideology are alive, albeit in new forms. This perception can in turn fuel the racism in sections of Central Government and its core vote base that no matter what ‘we’ do for ‘them’, the Tamils will always support secession. The result is continued suspicion and fear that justifies a high military presence in the North and East, plus increasing encroachment into civilian administration.

###

Statement by TNA MP Suresh Premachandran

This election was concluded at an important time where the United Nations and the international community are pressuring the government over claims that they committed war crimes and that a fair investigation is necessary.

In an effort to escape this difficulty, the Government worked hard to win these Local Government elections and demonstrate that the Tamil people are on its side. The entire state machinery was deployed and the Government approached the election as if it was a war. They threw piles of handouts at the people and promised people jobs. They attempted to buy over some [TNA] candidates at any price while threatening others into dropping out of the election. They caused a great deal of panic among the people and prevented them from voting. In addition, some voters were attacked with waste oil.

However, the people defied the sweet talk and threats by ensuring a great victory for the Tamil National Alliance and a bitter defeat for the government and those on its side.

The Tamil people’s demand is that they exercise full powers of self-rule within their homeland consisting of a merged North and East. Once again, the Tamil people have declared that they will not relinquish their political aspirations for any amount of giveaways or on account of any level of intimidation by ensuring the victory of the TNA.

The TNA requests the Government to adhere to the democratic verdict of the Tamil people and offer a political solution without any further delay.

The Tamil people have – by ensuring the victory of the TNA – accepted and supported the recommendations of the UN [Panel’s report], which state that the government’s war crimes and human rights abuses require an impartial international investigation.

The TNA asks that this verdict of the Tamil people be respected and that the government accept and allow an international investigation. The TNA requests that the international community continues to pressure the government to provide a political solution that allows the Tamil people to live in their homeland with dignity and freedom.

The TNA expresses its heartfelt gratitude to the Tamil people who in the midst of various threats and difficulties considered it their national duty to go to the polling booths in their numbers to cast their vote for the Tamil National Alliance.

• EXCLUSIVE: Interview with TNA MP Suresh Premachandran on the LG elections, Parliamentary Select Committee and Political Solution
• Don’t mix up war crimes investigations with political issues in Sri Lanka
• Law students write against 18th Amendment
• Crossing Red Lines: The New Tamil Consensus in Sri Lanka
• Not signing the Rome Statute is not enough! (A response to Ranil Wickremasinghe and Mangala Samaraweera)

Groundviews is curating news and updates from the ground, as well as domestic and international media coverage on the historic local government elections in Jaffna. Polling started at 7am today.

In addition to @groundviews, Follow #NLGE on Twitter for updates from Jaffna, in addition to the usual #lka and #srilanka. In addition to our own curation, we are following:

• @anuradhakherath (on the ground updates)
• @dinidu (on the ground updates)
• @perambara (on the ground updates)
• @apelankawe (on the ground updates)
• @nirananketell (expert opinion / analysis)
• @rkguruparan (expert opinion / analysis)
• @lankasol (for interesting updates with international focus)
• @DMbreakingnews (mainstream media updates)

Subscribe to #NLGE’s RSS feed here. There’s also a hashtag for other local government election news, #SLGE. Subscribe to its RSS feed here.

Groundviews also maintains two key curated Twitter lists. One for leading bloggers, the other for Twitter accounts related to media and journalism. Both will invariably feature updates on the elections.

Our curated Bundlr will gather Twitter updates and conversations, news reports and other information posted on the web related to the elections, with a key focus on Jaffna.

• Curated list of the best Twitter accounts on Sri Lanka
• Curated list of best Twitter accounts by Sri Lankan bloggers
• Photos and video from the UN headquarters in Colombo today
• Groundviews on Twitter and Facebook
• Going beyond mainstream media: The best Twitter feeds on and from Sri Lanka

Nelum Gamage, a Director of Transparency International Sri Lanka, was an erstwhile Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), established in 1994 to direct the institution of prosecutions for offences under the Bribery Act and the Declaration of Assets and Liabilities Law, No. 1 of 1975. She is also Director/Consultant at the Legal Aid Commission at the Ministry of Justice.

The conversation began by asking Nelum why even with so much of information on corruption in the public domain, people still didn’t really give a damn about combatting it. Nelum makes the points that even with this information, there is still a lot of ignorance about systemic corruption and that until it impacts one personally, people don’t really take any action against it. We talk about private industry in Sri Lanka and its participation in corrupt practices, in spite of public claims of accountability and good corporate governance. Nelum addresses the point on whether it is worth for large investors, domestic or foreign, to stand up against corruption, when at the end of the day, all they are interested in is a good return of investment, which arguably some centralised form of corruption can guarantee them.

When asked whether public servants and the architectonics of governance – including local government – had moved progressively to combat corruption, given Nelum’s vast experience of over 30 years in public service, she answered in the negative, pointing to the increasingly mercenary lifestyles and nature of civil servants as a key problem in this regard.

Nelum’s background and experience speak volumes in this video, and her insights into how tenders work, how systemic corruption in government is conducted, how even the COPE reports tabled in parliament are now forgotten are excellent points to discuss further. Given her position at Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) and the bad rap it is getting in sections of the media, we also discuss issues of transparency and accountability for civil society organisations.

• Right to Information and Good Governance: Linkages and Challenges
• Corruption in Sri Lanka: Interview with J.C. Weliamuna
• Let’s stop corruption in Sri Lanka!
• LLRC: Interim report to Government
• Interview with Arvind Kejriwal: No democracy without right to information

Women constitute 52% of Sri Lanka’s population, however women constitute only 2% of elected members of Local Authorities. A critical concern is the very low levels of nominations received by women (approximately 6%) from political parties (See table below). Much of the blame for this under representation must be borne by the major political parties which have consistently failed to give adequate nominations to women. They are the parties that win seats in any local election.

In South Asia, our immediate neighbours with whom we enjoy close historical and cultural ties, the under- representation of women at local elected political bodies have been addressed through legally enforceable quotas for women. In fact Sri Lanka remains the only country without any special measures to facilitate women’s representation in Local Authorities. In Bangladesh, at least 25% of seats are reserved for women in Union Councils (1996 legislation); in India not less than 33% of seats are reserved for women and other marginalized groups in all Panchayats or Local Bodies (1992 Constitutional amendment); in Nepal 20% of Village and Municipal Councils are reserved for women (1990 Constitution); and in Pakistan 33% of seats are reserved for women at the Union, Tehsil (Municipality) and District level (2000 Devolution Plan). Obviously, all these countries have recognized the necessity for women’s representation in local authorities as both a factor of development as well as a fundamental rights issue. We remind the two major political parties that such provision is necessary to fulfill promises made in Mahinda Chintanaya and Deya Dinawan Aya to the effect that nominations for women will be increased.

Serious under representation of women among elected members of local government bodies has distorted the agendas of these agencies in ways that divert attention away from vital issues such as malnutrition, water and sanitation, alcoholism and gender based violence.

The government has just dissolved Local Authorities around the country and called for elections to be held in March 2011. We urge all political parties to ensure that women get at least 25% of the nominations at these elections. Unless and until nominations by political parties are substantially increased, it will not be possible to increase women’s representation in Local Authorities, which in turn will continue to limit women’s participation in Provincial Councils and in national level politics.

There are challenges, and serious ones at that. As Chulani Kodikara avers in Women and politics in Sri Lanka: The challenges to meaningful participation,

“…women’s groups will continue to demand for increased representation for women in political institutions on the basis of equality, democracy, justice, etc even though this language appears to have lost all currency in Sri Lanka. No amount of appeal to these values has so far changed party attitudes towards nominations for women even at the local level. There is clearly too much at stake. As many political analysts point out political power in Sri Lanka is maintained through elaborate and well organized patron – client relationships that connect actors from the national to the local levels. These relationships play a central role in the socio-economic as well as political benefits, opportunities and positions available to people.  Nominations during election times are opportunities to bestow rewards on those party loyalists, but not indiscriminately. To be considered a ‘winnable’ candidate, money and muscle are important as is the active involvement in maintaining and supporting the chains of dependency between the party and the constituency. Most women lack both money and muscle and are passive ‘clients’ in the margins of these networks (except if you a wife, widow or daughter of a politician of course).”

Further, as noted in a previous article published on Groundviews,

“Ensuring gender justice in the aftermath of war does not happen in isolation. It is more often than not part of a wider process which addresses root causes of the conflict and which attempts to negotiate a new post war social order in which all people irrespective ethnic, gender, religious or other differences are ensured equality and social justice. Post war reconstruction and reconciliation in Sri Lanka is however almost exclusively government led without the benefit of such a process. This is what we desperately need an inclusive process in which all of us, men and women, can re-imagine and renegotiate the fundamental contours of this nation state in a way that the rights of all identity groups are recognized and respected.”

[Editors note: Also see in-depth video interview with Chulani Kodikara here. The interview deals with, inter alia, the challenge of women's representation in party politics in Sri Lanka.]

• Provincial Council Elections 2008/2009: Nominations for and representation of women
• Women and politics in Sri Lanka: The challenges to meaningful participation
• A Brief Commentary and Table on the Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Bill 2010
• A conversation with Kumudini Samuel
• A critique of the Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Bill

Introduction[1]

This briefing paper highlights some of the key aspects of this Bill and attempts to provide the reader with a basic introduction to the issues and implications of the Bill in its current form. We first examine the change in the electoral system and some of the implications it will have on the exercise of franchise (point 1) and then discuss the implications of the changes being made to the amount required as a deposit and the way it could affect the smaller parties and independent groups (point 2). In point 3 we briefly deal with the changes to the youth quota from a mandatory 40% youth quota in nomination lists to a 25% youth and women quota  and how it affects women and young people. Point 4 addresses the changes to the nomination period which has been shortened to 1.5 days from the previous 7 day stipulation while point 5 deals with the extraordinary powers vested in party secretaries and leaders of independent groups in the filling of vacancies. In point 6 we address the setting up of delimitation committees to draw up the boundaries of the wards. In point 7 we point out that although the Constitution stipulates that all Provincial Councils have to be consulted, the Northern Provincial Council has not been consulted about the formulation of this Bill.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

We asked that the Supreme Court declare that some clauses of the Bill were inconsistent with the Constitution, and also that they require a 2/3 majority in Parliament as well as the approval of the People at a Referendum to be made law.

1. Replacing the Proportional Representation system with a largely ‘first past the post’ system

Under the present Proportional Representation (PR) system the number of members elected from each Party or Group is determined by the proportion of votes received by that Party or Group in the entire electoral area. A party or Group should receive a certain percentage of the total number of votes to have any representative. Candidates are elected on the basis of the total number of preference votes received by them, within the number of seats allotted to the party or group. The proposed reforms introduce a mixed system of First Past the Post (FPP) and Proportional Representation but the number elected under the Proportional Representation system is not fixed. Only a maximum of 30% of the number of members elected under the First Past the Post system will be elected under the Proportional Representation system.[2]

It reintroduces the ward system, where each local authority is divided into electoral units called wards and each ward elects one member (unless there is a provision for more than one member to be elected from a ward – these are referred to as multi member wards). This will necessarily limit the participation of minority parties and independent groups because the First Past the Post system is based on the strength of numbers (as opposed to the proportion of votes garnered). As a result it also defeats the Constitutional objective of a “Representative” Democracy since the FPP system is not “representative” of all political opinions or interests but only of the party or group that garners the most amount of votes. It diminishes the Sovereignty of the People, especially the exercise of their fundamental rights and franchise, and the fundamental rights of thought and free expression (which includes the meaningful exercise of the franchise).

It is also important to understand that under the new ward-based voting system the 5% cut off point for disqualification applies to votes polled in a ward as opposed to a local authority area. This means that even if a candidate polls 7% of the votes in one ward and only 3% of the votes in the next ward, that 3% will not count towards the parties final tally of votes in that particular local authority area. This puts smaller parties, minority and independent groups at a distinct disadvantage because it makes it difficult for these groups to receive allocations from the seats allocated on a PR basis.

2. Mandatory deposits for all candidates

Every party has to make a mandatory deposit of money in respect of each candidate and additional person nominated. According to the Bill a recognised political party has to make a deposit of Rs.5000/- for each candidate it nominates whereas in the case of independent groups a deposit of Rs.20,000/- is expected to be paid for each person it nominates.

The distinction is arbitrary, and irrational and thus violates the fundamental right to Equality. It also violates the voters’ fundamental rights of thought and franchise. It further limits the participation of minority parties and independent groups as every party has to contest in every ward and therefore each of these smaller parties will have to pay the deposit on each candidate for every ward. Since every party that fails to get more than 5% of the vote loses their deposit, this provision effectively discourages the involvement of minority parties and independent groups in the electoral process at the local government level. This is made worse by the fact that there is no provision in the Bill for parties to contest in certain wards only and all parties have to contest every ward in a local authority area. These provisions will thus violate the Constitutional principle of Representative Democracy.

3. Nomination Quota for Women and Youth

The Bill seeks to remove the mandatory existing quota of 40% for youth in nominations lists for local government elections and replace it with a non-mandatory quota of 25% for women and youth. This violates the guarantee for substantive equality under the Fundamental Right to Equality. Article 12(4) of the Constitution recognizes the need for affirmative action relating to women. A mere recommendation cannot meet the obligation of the State to ensure substantive equality of women.

The right to substantive equality of Sri Lankan youth is also violated. The mandatory quota of 40% reserved for youth in nomination lists in local government elections was introduced mainly in response to the findings of the Youth Commission in 1990 that was appointed to look into the causes of the violent youth uprising that took place between 1987 and 1989, and in recognition of the inequalities faced by youth wishing to participate in elected bodies. No legitimate reasons have been established for the withdrawal of the special protection that has been afforded to youth, thus violating the fundamental right to Equality.

The clause is also uncertain and vague and could be interpreted to mean that no more than 25% of a nomination list can include women or youth. Such an arbitrary limit to political participation of identified groups violates the fundamental right to Equality and the right to political participation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Sri Lanka is a state party.

Placing both women and youth within the same percentage with regard to participation in local government elections is also self-defeating as there is no clarity as to how the percentage can be divided between the said groups. Further, there is no indication as to whether female youth would be placed under the category of ‘youth’ or ‘women’ which makes this clause even more ambiguous.

For the above reasons, the clause also has no rational nexus to the objectives of the Act. This too violates the fundamental right to Equality.

4. 1 ½ day nomination period (in lieu of a 7 day period)

Considering the importance of the electoral process, shortening the nomination period is arbitrary and irrational, and thus contrary to the fundamental right to Equality. This reduction may limit the participation of minority parties and independent groups and negate the Constitutional principle of Representative Democracy and thus diminish the exercise of the Sovereignty of the People and the direct exercise of fundamental rights and franchise.

5. Filling in of vacancies

The Bill provides for filling in vacancies based on nominations by the secretary of the political party / leader of the independent group, out of any person qualified to be a member. There is no provision for a by-election. Parties could substitute elected candidates with persons not desired by the electorate, making a mockery of the entire electoral process. Parties could even deliberately call upon their elected members to resign, to facilitate the substitution of other persons desired by the party, though not desired by the electorate. This clearly impacts on the exercise of political thought and franchise by the People and the principles of Representative Democracy.

6. Delimitation committee

The Bill establishes a Delimitation Committee and permits the Minister to appoint five persons to this committee. It vests absolute discretion on the appointments to this committee in the Minister, and permits arbitrary exercise of power, and thus violates the Fundamental Right to Equality.

There is provision for the Delimitation Committee to make recommendations to the Minister for the division of each local authority area into wards considering the factors specified.[3] There is no rational nexus between the said criteria in determining the boundaries of wards. This will permit irrational and arbitrary variations being made to electoral boundaries violating the fundamental right to Equality. This concern is made more significant by the fact that the data for delimitation will be based on the most recent census which at present is representative of data from the last census in 2001. Furthermore, this due to the unrest at the time this census did not include some districts in the North and East of the country.[4] In fact in the case of certain districts in the North and the East a census was last conducted in 1981. The sections are ambiguous as to whether the “recommendation’ is a ‘recommendation’ or a ‘binding determination’. This undermines the exercise of political thought and franchise by the People and negates the principles of Representative Democracy;

7. Failure to refer Bill to ALL Provincial Councils

Article 154G(3) of the Constitution provides that “no Bill in respect of any matter set out in the Provincial Council List shall become law unless such Bill has been referred by the President, after its publication in the Gazette and before it is placed on the Order Paper of Parliament, to every Provincial Council for the expression of its views…”

The present Bill legislates on subjects in the Provincial Council List. While the Bill has allegedly been referred to several Provincial Councils, the Bill has certainly not been referred to the Northern Provincial Council.

[2] This means that the number of representatives elected under the PR system will not be fixed but will be based on the number of representatives who are elected under the FPP system.  For example if 10 representatives are to be elected from a local authority of a particular area as per the provisions of the bill it will not be split up as 7 representatives under the FPP system and 3 representatives under the PR system. Rather 10 representatives will be elected and not more than 30% of that number (3) additional members will be allocated from the PR list – a total of 13 representatives for the local authority (rather than being 30% of the total, 30% is added on to the total. Furthermore this number will never exceed 30% and will always be adjusted down if it exceeds 30%). This means that the actual percentage of members appointed under the PR system will be between 21-23% in practice

[3] These factors are

(a) the ratio of the ethnic composition of the local authority concerned, and the need to ensure equal representation for each ethnic group in that local authority area ;

(b) the geographical area of the local authority and its physical features;

(c) the population of the local authority area and the density of such population

(d) the level of economic development of the local authority

[4] http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/PDF/p7%20population%20and%20Housing%20Text-11-12-06.pdf

• A Brief Commentary and Table on the Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Bill 2010
• Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Bill: Progress or Regress?
• Provincial Council Elections 2008/2009: Nominations for and representation of women
• A perennial struggle: Women’s political representation in Sri Lanka
• Women and politics in Sri Lanka: The challenges to meaningful participation

What defeated the Democrats in the mid-term elections was not a failure of Obama’s leadership, but the result of six unchanging realities of American society, some of which are prevalent in many societies around the world.

Here is the first reality: once elected, American politicians are turned into Beltway insiders, reshaped by the very forces that contributed to the ousting of their predecessors.  This ensures that virtually all of them will act in a fashion contrary to the interests of those who voted for them.

Second reality: the periodic switching of political actors does not indicate a shift in ideas, values or people’s expectations. People still have the same goals and dreams, and by changing their leadership they are simply attempting to come closer to realizing them.

Third reality: Many Americans still believe that either by empowering or constraining the government, society can realize its aspirations.  But the government in Washington is not an autonomous entity with powers of its own, and neither attempting to strip, nor to advocate the expansion of those powers will change the fact that government is a reflection of society, and not separate from society.

Fourth reality: Americans maintain a blind faith in capitalism because they believe it offers unlimited opportunity to bring prosperity and stability forever.  The vast majority of Americans have no idea how capitalism actually works, or about its inherent instability, and so there is no pressure to explore radical alternatives to capitalism.

Fifth reality: Economic crises are often confused and conflated with political crises. When that happens, state power is wrongly targeted as the party mainly responsible for the crisis. The urge to “fix” an economic crisis by voting out the party in power when the crisis occurred is understandable, but not effective as a solution.

Sixth reality: Majority of Americans continue to suffer from deep seated historical amnesia, seek short term solutions, and lack patience to advocate for change over the long term.  Of course there is plenty of room for freedom of expression.  But such freedom is not politically potent enough to counter the hegemonic views or the popular consensus manufactured by those controlling state power.

If we acknowledge these realities, we can see the flawed logic of the Tea Party’s industrious “fear government” campaign, and the failure of even self-avowed liberals to ponder the possibility of expanding basic human freedoms within the context of a social welfare state where the state frees people from struggling to meet their basic human needs and provides them with time to pursue productive and leisure activities.

The lost promise of Obama’s presidency lay in his potential to generate a broad social movement in favor of creating a new American reality. His promise never lay in the powers he enjoys as President or Commander-In-Chief, and was never going to be solved by embracing Washington business-as-usual.  Obama’s presidential campaign demonstrated that he could spark a wave of idealism and activism among American voters, but so far he has not passed the real test of courage, willpower and resolve to take risks, especially when such risks include sacrificing the possibility of re-election.

One must conclude that the majority who elected Obama in 2004 thought that he could help them realize the traditional American Dream, particularly its material benefits that had so diminished under the Bush administration.  Americans clearly did not intend to adopt a less consumerist lifestyle, use more public transportation, oppose the redistribution of wealth from the middle- to the upper-class, embrace environmentally friendly live styles, or relinquish military adventurism.  The ideology of progress and dominance remained intact, and a new President was simply another attempt to achieve the same ends. As the great educator Paulo Freire once noted, most oppressed people simply want to live like their oppressors, not to change the whole system so that no one is oppressed.   All classes of Americans are driven by the same ideology of progress, and the idea of American freedom is rooted in the highly individualistic and ever-expanding desire for material consumption.

People vote for candidates who promise to address their grievances, but the average voter’s engagement stops after the elected official heads to Washington.  People voted for Obama because he promised affordable, single-provider health care, a reform of the banking system, equal rights for gays and lesbians, a withdrawal from Iraq (not an escalation in Afghanistan), and so on.  But once he went to Washington, the voting public fell silent and Obama was surrounded by the loud and persuasive voices of corporate lobbyists and their political representatives, at the same time he gathered into his staff a bevy of Wall Street insiders.  As usual, corporate interests exerted pressure towards the right, and insisted their needs be the primary concern of government.  Alone, Obama cannot stand against these pressures because corporations are major players in the economy and have the power to effect GDP, employment and financial markets.  Obama is not above the system — in order to transform the health care system, he had to rely on the same economic forces that caused the crisis in healthcare.

Popular American belief that “big government in Washington DC” is somehow endowed with autonomous powers really limits the public’s ability to enact meaningful change. The truth is that the power of the government is diffused throughout society and is controlled by the same forces that influence society.  To change society we need to change the power structure.  Blaming “the government” won’t change anything, but — as the Republicans understand very well — it will distract Americans.  And, once again, the crises and inequalities that arise from unequal power relations within society are reconfigured exclusively as a political crisis, so that the public never turns its attention to the sphere of economic critique. The result is that the formal equalities granted in the sphere of politics (“one American, one vote”) are undermined by the inherent inequalities in the sphere of economics (as, for example, in the case where unequal crack vs. powder cocaine laws result in more blacks being disfranchised than whites, despite possessing the same effective amount of the substance).

The more that corporations can keep your eye focused on the political sphere, and away from the economic sphere, the more they are able to shield themselves from the consequences of their actions and to avail themselves of government subsidies and tax breaks.  It is, for example, in the best interest of energy corporations to call global warming a “hoax,” just as it was in the interest of tobacco companies to conceal or fabricate research on the safety of smoking.  And now corporations can dump unlimited money into political campaigns without revealing their identities — a situation that has resulted in ballot propositions that have names and publicity campaigns that frame them as exactly opposite to their intent. Using conservative-owned media outlets like Fox News, corporations now have the ability to control access to information and invent their own “facts.”

Corporations like to claim that limited government and deregulation are “good for America,” but it is clear to anyone who has done the research that access to affordable or subsidized education, health care, housing and unemployment benefits not only expands human freedoms, but also create conditions for improved economic performance.   Freedom from material want expands other types of freedoms. Most Americans do not realize that privatized consumption actually constrains their freedom by making them subject to the whims of the market when they’re trying to meet their basic needs.  When Americans cry out for “small government!” and when they fear administration that guarantee a higher degree of equality through income redistribution, they only hurt themselves.  They certainly don’t hurt the big corporations who happy accept government welfare and the shield that the government provides.

Americans voters have short memories.  They have completely forgotten their history, the BO (Before Obama) years.  They also want immediate gratification: their problems solved in two years.   But the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the recession predate Obama’s presidency, and without a broad social movement he is empowered to do little to challenge the forces that shaped them.  The monetary and fiscal policies of the Obama administration have failed to immediately produce the desired results because those policies are not implemented in a vacuum — they were first watered down by Republican obstructionism, and they were further hampered by a global economy very different than the one they enjoyed during American hegemony.  The intensity of global competition is such that monetary and fiscal policy incentives do not easily make the cost of production in America cheaper than the other emerging economies.  Technology displaces labor and has made geographical relocation feasible for corporations, which makes it tough to protect American jobs.  Though the US may accuse China currency devaluation, American companies that produce in China benefit from that devaluation and so do American consumers. Recently, Federal Reserve declared its interest rate in purchasing bonds in order to reduce the interest rates to boost the investments.   Such expansion of the government is a response to the crises generated by the Obama’s predecessors.

The Tea Partiers would have Americans blame Obama and “big government” for all economic crises, not corporate America.   They are less concerned about the increasing power of corporations over the government, or corporate control of Americans’ minds, lifestyles and freedoms.  Corporatist mechanisms are far greater than the state, and, ironically, corporations are also the main beneficiaries of the government’s stimulus packages.  The manufactured fear of big government diverts social dissent away from corporations at the same time it increases the share of governmental resources allocated to corporations.

At this point in time they need less fear and more critical self-reflection. Terrorism must not be tolerated, but in many countries the “War Against Terror” is too often used to foster the conditions that create terrorism.  Illegal immigrants are blamed for unemployment. China gets the blame for driving the world economy, while the American companies who collaborate with China go unremarked. These are not issues specific to American, but internal to the capitalist development.  Each state is competing with each other to serve the interests of the dominant class that often masquerade as the interests of the society or national interests.  At the root of the fear of big government is the reluctance for redistribution of wealth and exploitation of national interests for the service of dominant classes: legitimacy of the manufactured fear of big government is derived by appealing to the ‘national interests.’ Change of the Presidents does not indicate radical changes in the national interests.

America wants to lead the world, and I think it could if it were able to regain its credibility and resolve the inconsistencies and contradictions of its policies. In the name of “national interest” America refuses to ratify many treaties already accepted by the majority of world states, and it fails to honor the very rules of free trade that it adamantly imposes on other nations. Its policies are invoked by the heads of repressive regimes, who oppress their own populations in the name of Anti-Americanism; a situation that is counter-productive to American interests and results in security threats to American society and could easily destabilize the international order.

If Obama moves further to the right, and continue to court conservatives by watering down the policies he was elected to enact, it will cost him the second term of his presidency.  Only if he demonstrates the political will to force through the platform on which he was elected, and only if the economy bounces back with increased employment, will he garner a second term, as Reagan did in 1982, Truman in 1948, Eisenhower in 1956, and Bill Clinton in 1996.

But Americans must remember that Obama’s America and its place in the current world order are very different from the time of Truman or Reagan.  If Obama fails, then American will slides deeper into right-wing nationalism and attempts to increase its military might, which will likely deepen the economic crisis and isolate America from the international community.   In the end, Obama’s success or failure depends on the willingness of Americans to make radical changes in the American Dream. For that to happen Obama needs to generate a social force far more powerful that the one that brought him to power in 2009.

• Messiah
• Barack Obama: Hope for America, but not for the world?
• The end of the “Gimme…, Gimme…” era?
• No we can’t? – Obama’s victory and Sri Lanka
• Barack Obama: History’s High Note

Inherent in the FPP system is the ‘winner takes all’ principle, i. e. the votes cast for all the losing candidates (which could well total more than those cast for the winning candidate) do not count. Overall, one political party could secure a land slide victory with less than half the total number of votes cast. A small swing, say 10 percent of the votes cast, from the winning party to the party coming second, could have resulted in a land slide win for the latter. Clearly, the FPP system may not accurately reflect voter preference. It is particularly unfair to the smaller parties, some of which could secure significant shares of the votes cast and yet be marginalized in terms of seats won. Small parties with widely dispersed electoral support may be those worst affected by FPP.

The FPP system therefore promotes opportunist election coalitions unrelated to ideological considerations. As between the major parties, the one that is more successful in engineering such strategic partnerships may triumph. Another ill effect of the FPP system is that even within the party factors such as ethnicity, religion and caste may be decisive in making nominations in respect of each seat. Such a tendency was increasingly evident everywhere. In the colonial period and in the early post independence decades, many national leaders emerged and flourished in electorates in which they were marginal in terms of ethnic/religious/caste identity. In this respect we seem to be regressing.

The PR system on which elections have been held since 1989 also has its draw backs. Firstly there is an inevitable widening of the gap between the electors, and between the electors and the elected, in respect of geographical distance, as well as community of interest. The elector is represented not by a single elected person living within close and easy reach but by several spatially dispersed elected persons you with responsibility diffused over a large region. Particularly in relation to Local Government, this is a major obstacle to effective representation. It is for this reason that several countries, Sri Lanka included, have decided to opt for a mixed system.

The particular hybrid formula embodied in the Bill table in Parliament on 21 October 2010 contains several defects. The objective of Local Government is to empower the people at the local level. This Bill needlessly empowers the Minister in charge of Local Government and the party leaders rather than the voters. This begins the central role assigned to the Minister in respect of the National Delimitation Committee to define boundaries, as well as of other(nameless) Committees (the composition  of which is to be determined by the Minister) that may be appointed ad hoc at the disc recent of the Minister to alter ward boundaries. The Minister may also appoint District Delimitation Committees. The powers of the Minister extend to institutional arrangements for the conduct of the poll.

After the poll the selection of candidates under PR is left entirely to the party leaders. The voters only determines the distribution of PR seats as between the resprective political parties; Curiously, this is based on the numbers of the votes cast for losing candidates under FPP. The voters have no role thereafter. The party or group leader then takes over and selections for PR seats are made entirely at their discretion. Those ‘elected’ under PR owe their ‘election’ to the party/group leader and not the electors.

It is not just the elector who is disempowered in respect of the PR segment of the election; the smaller parties and the minorities (ethnic, religious, caste etc) are also handicapped because the PR ‘elections’ are based on votes cast for FPP candidates. Since the FPP system is biased against the smaller parties as well as the minorities within each party (as explained above) this adverse bias is carried through to the PR ‘elections’ under the Bill before Parliament. This bias is accentuated by the 5% cut off rule. The biggest gainers are the bosses of the major parties. Even the selection of the Mayor/Chairman is done post election by the party bosses; the elected members have no say in this process. Moreover, vacancies are also filled by the party bosses at their discretion with no regard to voter preference.

In computing the entitlement of PR seats, the votes cast for the winning candidates of political parties/independent groups are disregarded ( this makes sense as otherwise those votes wont be double counted ), as also the votes cast for those polling less than 5% of the total ( this makes no sense ). This 5% rule tilts the scales against the smaller parties with widely dispersed support. This rule may also depress the total PR entitlement, since it is the votes cast for the losing candidates who poll more than 5% that are counted in computing the total number of PR seats.

Moreover, since the absolute upper limit of the PR segment of the Council is 30% of the FPP segment, this upper limit of the ratio of the PR segment of the council works out to 30 divided by 100+30, i.e. about 23% of the entire Council. Further, if the winning candidates win by large margins, the prescribed formula of B divided by A+B would apply, bringing down the percentage to less than 23. It would make the process clear to everyone if the percentage is fixed and independent of algebraic formula that is likely to confuse many voters and candidates. Elections often generate much mental stress; there is no need to use a mathematical formula to add to that stress level.

Overall the Bill appears to have been badly designed and hastily drafted. For example the clause specifying that 25% of the total number of nominations may consist of women and youth (S 22(4)) is very confusing. Why is the word may used in preference to shall? Are women and youth one category or two? Is the 25% the maximum or the minimum? If the objective was to provide for specified quotas for women and for youth in respect of nominations, that could have been easily done. Was it the pressure for inclusion of quotas for women the reason foe eliminating the 40% youth quota that prevailed previously? Was this clumsy draft an attempt to show some progress in respect of quotas for women as a cover for regress in respect of quotas for youth?

What is now referred to as PR in elections is, in effect, quotas for political parities/ independent groups based on votes received. If other classifications, e. g. gender and /or youth, are to be brought in to the nominations process, that would pose no problems. But if quotas for women and/ or youth are to be applicable to the election out come, the formula to determine the election out come would unavoidably we extremely complicated. Special rules would have to be devised to remove ambiguities and to keep the process transparent, with no discretion allowed in interpreting the results. It may be to avoid such complication that no provision has been made for gender or youth quotas. Perhaps gender and youth quotas could be provided for in respect of nominations only in the first instance.

There are other errors too. For example the guiding principle prescribed under S 2(a) in delimiting wards is “to ensure equal representation for each ethnic group in that Local Authority area”. What is meant, surely, is to facilitate equitable or proportionate representation.

The biggest flaw in the Bill is the requirement that any party or group that contests any ward must also contest every other ward. It is of the essence of Local Government that voters in each ward should be represented by a person of their choice. The Bill contradicts that principle by requiring that such a person cannot stand for election in any ward except as a member nominated by a political party or group that contests every ward.

This flaw is accentuated by the escalation in the cost of nomination from Rs 250 per candidate to Rs 5,000 per candidate of a political party and Rs 20,000 per candidate of an independent group. A political party with 50 names on its list will have to deposit Rs 250,000, and an independent group with 50 names on its list will have to deposit Rs 1,000,000.These deposits will be forfeit in respect of candidates who failed to secure 5% of the vote. This is in addition to the cost of campaigning in all the wards. Thus this escalation of the deposit fee on top of the requirement to contest all wards would hinder the voters in a ward from electing a ‘favourite son/daughter’ who does not have the backing of a political party or independent group that is contesting every ward.

An innovation that appears to be appealing in some respects is the provision for the count to be conducted at the end of the poll at each polling station. This will take the counting physically closer to the voter and also considerably advance the announcement of results. But this practise would facilitate the disturbing of the count and the falsification of the result. Since each presiding officer will also be the counting officer for that polling station, if that officer is dishonest or incompetent, the out come could be incurably compromised. Particularly if the monitoring system fails to identify and remedy malpractices before the count is completed, the integrity of the entire election for that local body would be undermined.

The Bill needs to be rethought and redrafted.

• A Brief Commentary and Table on the Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Bill 2010
• A critique of the Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Bill
• Analysis of how Jaffna voted and why the EPDP feels defeated in Sri Lanka’s first post-war elections
• Provincial Council Elections 2008/2009: Nominations for and representation of women
• Parliamentary Elections, April 2010: An opportunity for voters in the North and East

Chulani Kodikara has written five articles for Groundviews, three on the topic of women in mainstream politics in Sri Lanka. Revealingly, they are comparatively three of the most under-read articles on this site. Women are not willing to go back to pre-war status quo, a compelling essay written for the special edition on the end of war, has at the time of writing only generated around 450 pageviews, abysmal in comparison to the tens of thousands who read and engaged with other articles in this special edition.

This marked lack of interest in and awareness of a vital issue provided the backdrop for a recent conversation with Chulani on the issue of women’s representation in Sri Lankan mainstream politics. Fundamentally, the issue is marginal to mainstream political parties and of peripheral interest at best to most voters – female and male. In an important essay, Chulani notes that “the main obstacle to equal political representation of women in political institutions in Sri Lanka is political parties” and goes on to say,

In reality however, beyond the symbolic inclusion of one or two women in nomination lists, both parties have not taken concrete action to seriously address the under-representation of women in political institutions. The enormous costs of contesting elections, the thuggery and violence, the competition within the party fostered by the proportional representation system and the general lack of support for women candidates from male colleagues mean that even the few women who are offered, are often reluctant to accept nominations. (From Women and politics in Sri Lanka: The challenges to meaningful participation)

In this interview, I ask Chulani about affirmative action, and also whether for example, the entry of telegenic females sans political acumen to parliament in any way helps advocacy on stronger female representation. Pegged to this, I also question her about substantive equality, that goes beyond, in her own words, the classical liberal notion of formal equality which assume that removing formal barriers, for example giving women the right to vote and be elected to political office, is sufficient to give women equal access to political institutions.

We talk about the role of women in post-war Sri Lanka, examples from South Asia as well as the rest of the world where women play a far more active role in politics, getting women to vote in women, the political culture in Sri Lanka and changing it for the better, experiences of other countries that post-war that have actively encouraged the participation of women in processes of reconciliation and the need, that Chulani herself has identified, to “revisit and reframe the discourse on increasing political representation of women in Sri Lanka”.

• A perennial struggle: Women’s political representation in Sri Lanka
• The legacy of Chanaka Amaratunga and the future of liberalism in Sri Lanka
• Women and politics in Sri Lanka: The challenges to meaningful participation
• Compilation of special edition on the end of war in Sri Lanka
• A conversation with Kumudini Samuel

The Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Bill 2010 (Bill) proposes a series of changes to the laws relating to the election of local authorities (LA) that include Municipal Councils, Urban Councils and Pradeshiya Sabhas.

A principal change proposed in the Bill is the introduction of a mixed system of First Past the Post (FPP) and Proportional Representation (PR). The Bill reintroduces the ward system, whereby a LA is divided into a number of electoral units. Each ward elects one member, unless in the case of a multi-member ward. The number elected under the PR system is not fixed. A maximum of 30% of the number of members elected under FPP of a LA will be appointed under PR.

The Bill has several salient features including strengthening the processes for counting and polling in order to ensure the integrity of an election. Although positive measures are noted, there are serious concerns with several provisions introduced in the Bill including the following:

• While laying out specific procedures in terms of vacancies of seats and of candidates, it provides significant powers to the secretaries of political parties and the leaders of independent groups to make the appointments to fill vacancies, instead of the voters making a choice through a by-election.
• The Bill delineates a delimitation process for the purpose of demarcating wards in local authorities with far-reaching powers granted to the Minister over the process.
• In the event of a vacancy created by the resignation of a Mayor and if the latter occurs on consecutive occasions, the LA will be dissolved and replaced by a Commissioner appointed by the Minister.

The Bill has significant repercussions for representative democracy, including the increase in challenges for minor parties and independent groups to secure seats, thereby reinforcing the two-party system. There are no specific guarantees for minority representation, either through the electoral process or through delimitation mechanisms. In addition, there are no guarantees for female and youth in the nomination process. Given that LAs are the unit of government closest to the people, there is a need to ensure that elected officials are representative and accountable to their constituencies. Although the Bill introduces new measures for LAs, it broadens the powers of the Central Government rather than empowering LAs and ultimately falls short of strengthening representative democracy.

###

Download this short report as a PDF here.

Download the Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) here and the Local Authorities (Special Provisions) Bill here. Both PDF’s originally downloaded from Government Printing Department website, from where it is almost impossible to download these documents.

###

• A critique of the Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Bill
• Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Bill: Progress or Regress?
• Elections in the East
• Constitutional Reforms in Sri Lanka: What was asked for, What was promised and What is going to be offered?
• Killer Representative

Past performance

On many an occasion, the Colombo Municipal Council’s performance has been criticised as inefficient, ineffective, uneconomic, politicised, corrupt, lethargic and inadequate. The lack of a reponse and inaction to the large piles of solid waste, the dengue epidemic, environmental degradation and illegal constructions were the areas mostly criticised. Hence, this revelation may be welcome news to rate payers and citizens interacting with the CMC. Additionally, there was publicity that the proposed Corporation will function under the Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, which, no doubt, would have brought happier smiles.

In the recent past there had been periods where the CMC received accolades and the mayoral terms of Sirisena Cooray [pre Provincial Councils (PCs)] and Karu Jayasuriya (post-PC) are examples. However, these exemplary performances were pegged to the political clout that the former possessed and the professional managerial capacity that was promoted and engrained during the latter’s tenure, respectively. It is the same organisation, laws, technocrats, managers and work force that performed for such positive kudos. Hence, whether corporatization is the only answer to respond to inefficiency, ineffectiveness and uneconomical status may boggle our minds. We hear of undisclosed political intentions for this proposal, but this exercise is to direct attention to power sharing for reengineering.

Pending legislations for centralisation

Firstly, we hear of powerful legislators speaking about “enhancing the powers of the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution” that is expected to be ratified in January 2011, but with the reduction of certain powers already devolved! In addition, media reportage indicates that the new law to convert CMC into a Corporation may be passed before the end of 2010, while the law to change the process of elections in Local Authorities (LAs) is scheduled for early passage.

Secondly, there are international and domestic demands to strengthen the 13^th Amendment to create minority community confidence. However, some parties in the government are unsupportive of “power sharing”. Yet, by withdrawing devolved powers (e.g. schools, hospitals), the non-implementation of land powers, blocking the decetralisation of police powers etc, every government since 1987 has proved their allergy to genuine power sharing. Even the current reengineering exercise proves that the incumbent government is reluctant to devolve power and has a distinct penchant to centralize already devolved power.

Thirdly, we have not yet seen the Draft Bill. If we go by the media, with the establishment of a Corporation (or Authority) the democratically elected body to administer the CMC will be erased.

13^th Amendment and Corporatisation

The existing law for Local Government is constitutionally based on the 13^th Amendment.

I quote Section 4 of the List I- Local Government.

“4.1 Local authorities for the purpose of local government and village administration, such as Municipal Councils…..” will be under the PCs.  Under 4.2 PCs are empowered for “supervision of the administration of local authorities established by law…”. Therefore, by creating a Corporation under central control, the devolved powers of the Western PC (WPC) will be erased and several items under List I that matter to the CMC will be withdrawn. In addition, a constitutional amendment may be required to withdraw the reference to Municipal Councils (MCs) under Section 4 of List I, because Parliament cannot make laws overriding the Constitution.

Section 4.3 under List I offers the most relevant powers for the PCs.

“4.3  LAs will have the powers vested in them under existing law; MCs and Urban Councils will have the powers vested under the MCs Ordinance and Urban Councils Ordinance. …….. It will be open to a Provincial Council to confer additional powers on local authorities but not take away their powers.”

If the government wishes to strengthen the CMC, it should be done, constitutionally, by the Western Provincial Council (WPC). The withdrawal of power is not permitted by the Constitution; however, the proposed organisation will take away provincial council powers, instead of conferring additional powers, thus contradicting the 13^th Amendment. Therefore, this constitutional hurdle must be overcome if the Authority is to gain life.

Media reports, though not specific impresses that this law will be introduced soon. Hence, one may explore the forum to legislate to corporatise the CMC. No provincial council for the last 23 years has passed the LA Statutes, except to remove Chairmen and Mayors!  A new corporatisation Statute may not be introduced for the next two months and therefore, the government may get a resolution passed in the WPC authorising the Parliament to act according to Article 154G (4). The latter permits the Parliament to pass legislation on the request from a provincial council. Still the question will be whether the WPC could ask for a reduction of its powers- going against Section 4.3 of List I.

When the 18^th Amendment was passed, senior ministers argued that the scrapping of the two election terms [Article 31 (2) of the Constitution] reflected the enlargement of franchise; being more democratic; giving more opportunities to the voters to elect a President. If the amendment does represent an enlargement of the franchise,  then why is the government withdrawing the opportunity of the people to elect their Municipal Councillors? Furthermore, is it permissible to have one democratic principle for LAs and another for Presidency? Our politicians are great innovators and justification will be done!

The MCs exist in many districts and the electors in these MCs engage in a democratic franchise to elect Municipal Administrations.  The creation of a Corporation under the Ministry of Defence as publicised, will forcibly withdraw them from the election process -‘an afforded possible opportunity to the People to participate’ at a legally accepted level of ‘national life and in government’. It will thus conflict with the fundamental right provided by Article 27 (4) of the Constitution, which expects the State to “strengthen and broaden the democratic structure of government and the democratic rights of the People by decentralizing the administration”. Therefore, the latter will result in the centralisation of administration and the withdrawal of a democratic right.

Though the constitutional provisions on exercising franchise does not [Article 4 (e) of the Constitution] speak of LA Elections, by corporatising the CMC and scrapping an elected LA, the ultimate consequence of this proposal will be the disenfranchisement of the electors in Colombo. This will be discriminatory to the electors within the CMC, when compared with electors in other MCs.

Corporations and success

It appears that the promoters of this proposal believe that corporatisation is the panacea for the deficiencies of municipal management. The cumulative and continuous weak performance of many corporations like the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB), Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) and Ceylon Transport Board (CTB) are examples of centralized organisational failures.

What is the guarantee that a corporatised CMC would perform better than now? The performances during Cooray’s and Jayasuriya’s mayoral terms were proof of the potential to be successful under the MC Ordinance. Any visible success disappeared after their resignation and the political clout, personality and professional skills of these two could not be replaced afterwards. This could happen with the proposed changes too. Where should we head if and when it happens? The Buddhist theory of impermance is right.

Caution

Therefore, if corporatisation is to happen as anticipated I caution that the 13^th Amendment provisions affecting this proposal have to be erased. Whether it would suit other political issues is a matter to be reviewed by politicians.

Secondly, the “super managers” with all cross connections may not be available throughout and hence there cannot be solutions to the problems that may emerge later.

Thirdly, I believe that if the proposed reengineering takes place there will be funds for very sophisticated improvements, such as municipal highways, electric underground trains, mono-rails, infrastructure development, high rise residential areas etc. because of the political and official clout of operatives. Will that continue after the “super managers” withdraw? It is necessary to think about sustainability too.

Lessons learnt from other experiences

I quote an example from India to summarily highlight how the Calcutta Municipal Corporation functions to serve in improving various civic amenities, providing numerous services, slum development programmes, sewage and waste management in a city having a 4.6 million population. The lessons from Calcutta could be learnt to avoid major pitfalls in the creation of a Municipal Corporation for Colombo.

1.   The Calcutta Municipal Corporation became effective on an appointed date by the State Government, because LAs are a State Government subject. As such, why not place the proposed Corporation under the WPC? The issue of engaging the Defence Ministry has to be reexamined, as the WPC does not have authority over a Ninth Schedule List II subject, i.e. Defence.

2.   Calcutta Municipal Corporation consists of elected Councillors and non-voting ‘State Government’ nominees that combined the democratic right for franchise and professional contributions respectively. The Defence representatives could be appointed to the Municipal Corporation by adding such a provision in the Statute. If the citizens are dissatisfied with the performance of the Corporation they can outvote them. However, if it is a centralized Corporation the rate payers will be burdened like our being burdened with the CEB or CPC or CTB inefficiencies.

3    The 149 elected Councillors in Calcutta elect a Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chairman and later constitute the Mayor-in–Council (MiC). It consists of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and less than ten other elected Councillors of the Corporation – an arrangement like a Cabinet. The appointees to MiC will be the choice of the Mayor and hence collective responsibility could be established.

4    The Municipal Accounts Committee, Borough Committees, Ward Committees and Municipal Consultative Committees are established and empowered by the Act to enhance participation and ownership. These institutional arrangements can be introduced even in Colombo.

5.   Municipal Corporation employees from the Municipal Commissioner downwards are appointed and vacancy filling, disciplinary control etc are stated in the Calcutta Act. This could go along with the provisions of our Provincial Councils Act.

6  The establishment of Municipal Service Commission and Municipal Vigilance Authority are provided in Calcutta, which are not in the MCs Ordinance but could be established by WPC’s Statute.

7   General, Obligatory and Discretionary powers and functions in the Calcutta Municipal Corporation are given in the Act. It includes all activities such as works and contracts, controls, Municipal Fund management, budgeting, loans, accounting and audit, taxation, civic services, sanitation related activities, and importantly the State Government’s actions etc. These are mostly the same functions under the MCs Ordinance in Sri Lanka.

These are some highlights.

Urban Development Authority (UDA) and CMC

Presently the UDA is under the Ministry of Defence, which may have been so placed to  influence the LAs advantageously. I believe that the UDA could be fruitfully engaged in guidance for efficient and effective municipal management through its available expertise in city planning, architecture, Geographic Information Systems, environmental development etc that is not adequately used.

Conclusion

Hence, a Corporation created under the WPC, with external expertise, having a stake in management, facilitated by the UDA ( in addition to the Ministry of Defence) could be a workable  and effective combination that could be considered, rather than to violate the existing power sharing provisions in the Constitution and to steamroll devolved governance.

We must not state that power sharing has failed, as the retort will be that even the centralized administration has failed. Does this mean that there is no solution for problems? It is a matter to develop Laws, Statutes, systems, expertise, professionalism, cooperation etc to optimally perform to achieve objectives. Sometimes centralisation may not be the sole answer for the deficienies of municipal activities.

• All Party Representative Committee (APRC) Final Report: Executive Summary
• A Brief Commentary and Table on the Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Bill 2010
• The 13th Amendment as a political solution
• A critique of the Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Bill
• THE EASTERN PROVINCIAL COUNCIL ELECTIONS: A BRIEF POST-MORTEM