KAMALIKA PIERIS
Pub 3.11.18 Revised 7.11.18, 16.11.18
This essay looks at certain matters which emerged in the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister in October 2018. There is far too much emphasis at the moment on the legal issues relating to this matter and none at all on the politics which are at the bottom of it all. The Parliament of Sri Lanka is primarily a political institution, and there are certain political imperatives that rank way above the procedures for appointing the Prime Minister. Let us look at some of these imperatives.
The primary requirement in a democracy (sic) is to give effect to the ‘will of the people’. (For those who know political theory, this is not Rousseau, this is me) This ‘general will’ or ‘will of the people’ as regards the government it wants is demonstrated in three ways in Sri Lanka. Firstly in elections, which Sri Lankans love, secondly, in public assemblies and utterances. Thirdly, by strategic hoots and jeers indicating political disgust.
There is also a new development in the general will, worldwide. Voters at national elections now want an opportunity to change things if they got it wrong the first time. They say they were mislead by wrong information and want to undo the damage. We see this in the request for a second Brexist vote in UK. We also see it in Sri Lanka in the reaction to the defeat of Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2015.
When the Presidential election results were announced, there was disbelief. When they saw the voting pattern, voters realized that they had been taken for a ride. ‘Meka keruve api ne’ they said and decided to try and reverse the decision. The Sri Lanka electorate is politically very mature, very savvy and alert. It is also highly literate. It was used to having its own way at elections.
The very next day, the public ran, in droves, to Rajapaksa at his home in Medamulana. They discovered that they loved him. Throughout the past four years, they kept up the momentum. Crowds pursued him everywhere he went. The crowds at his functions were greater than those for Sirisena or Ranil Wickremasinghe .
Rajapaksa’s May Day rallies were bursting, the Pada Yathra and Janabalaya Kolambata had much support. The decisive event was the public voting in huge numbers for Rajapaksa‘s new, untested Pohottuwa party at the local government election of February 2018. By all this, the public had made it abundantly clear that they wanted Mahinda Rajapaksa back and they wanted Ranil Wickremasinghe out.
The public in the hinterland of the country were well aware of the doings of the Yahapalana government. Are people in the villages actually aware of the Central Bank bond scam and other such deals,’ asked the Colombo elite. After recent visits to the Uva, Central and Eastern provinces, the answer to that query is in the positive, said an analyst. Smart phones are in use not only in urban areas but also in the rural areas. Users of these mobile phones know what is going on the centers of power. Claims that complex issues, like the bond scam did not reach the countryside were incorrect.
To their delight, and initial disbelief, Mahinda Rajapaksa was suddenly made Prime Minister. This was no accident. Discussions had started after the Pohottu win of February 2018, reported Chandraprema. The 16 dissident SLFPers had maintained constant contact with President Sirisena and continued their efforts to bring the two estranged factions of the SLFP together again. The high point in this was Basil Rajapaksa’s secret meeting with President Sirisena. The mere fact that there was a meeting between the two was the first indication that something very serious was afoot, said Chandraprema. Also the repeated announcement on televisions, ‘we want Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister ‘
The precipitating factor , according to President Sirisena was the threat of assassination. No one was surprised to hear this. It was perfectly obvious to us all, that if the USA wanted to achieve its objectives through Yahapalana, then USA would have to kill. In his address to the nation, President Sirisena said, ‘I would now like to explain the reason that made me appoint former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister and remove Ranil Wickremesinghe from the post of Prime Minister. Recently, a person called Namal Kumara came before the media and disclosed about a plot to assassinate me and Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. There is also an involvement of a Cabinet Minister in this plot to assassinate me.’
Nalaka Kumara went public. He held a press briefing at his home in Ampara on 28.10.18. Daily News reported.‘ In a special media conference Nalaka Kumara alleged that former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and former Minister Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka are behind giving instructions to the assassination plot against President Sirisena and former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. According to Kumara, DIG Nalaka Silva received instructions from Wickremesinghe and Fonseka to use Makandure Madush in the assassination plot. He does not have evidence”, [on the matter] said Kumara, he is simply revealing what he knows.( Daily News 29.10.18). I saw this on Derana evening news as well.
When Mahinda Rajapaksa became Prime Minister , there was jubilation. There were dan salas with kiribath. Trishaws carried pictures of Rajapaksa. There was also an ashirvada puja in a temple. Copies of the Gazette announcing Mahinda Rajapaksa ‘s appointment were distributed free. Crackers were lit in towns. Crackers had been lit when Premadasa was killed, when Kilinocchi fell, when Prabhakaran was killed and now when Ranil Wickremasinghe was removed..
At the same time, the public also showed their deep dislike of the Yahapalana government and its leader Ranil Wickremasinghe. The UNP ministers held a press conference at Temple Trees and when it was relayed live on Face book, all the comments made were hearty curses against the Yahapalana government and expressions of jubilation at their ouster, said Chandraprema.
When Mangala Samaraweera, Rajitha Senaratne and his son Chatura went to the Rupavahini Corporation to give a live broadcast to protest against their ouster, they were prevented from doing so by the staff of Rupavahini . TV news showed this at length because it was not the usual reaction. They were chased away amidst loudly uttered curses, jeers and obscenities, said Chandraprema. They hooted and jeered and chased after the departing cars for quite a length. This alone shows the extent of their dislike. I cannot recall such anger towards a government before.
Yahapalanites were shocked and furious over the removal of Ranil Wickremasinghe. They challenged it immediately on the basis of numbers. They said it was Ranil Wickremasinghe who had the majority in Parliament, not Mahinda Rajapaksa . They wanted Parliament to meet immediately, to decide if Ranil Wickremesinghe or Mahinda Rajapaksa commands a majority in the House. But there is nothing in the Constitution about majority.
Critics pointed out that when Ranil Wickremasinghe became Prime Minister in 2015, UNP only had 41 seats, SLFP had 161. At the time Ranil Wickremasinghe was appointed Prime Minister, there was a sitting Prime Minister, DMU Jayaratne. Yahapalanites were told if the appointment was not lawful, why did not Ranil Wickremasinghe go to Supreme Court and challenge the appointment. Some wanted Ranil Wickremasinghe expelled from the country.
An entertaining discussion about the validity of the new Prime Ministerial appointment started thereafter. Thanks to the 19th amendment to the Constitution, the only person who can remove the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister himself, either by dying, resigning or losing support. This amendment was brought in May 2015, after Ranil Wickremasinghe was made Prime Minister . It was done to make sure Ranil Wickremasinghe stayed in power. The President cannot remove him, said Yahapalana supporters triumphantly. ’Oh yes, he can’ replied the Rajapaksa team and rattled off the relevant clauses.
They pointed out, inter alia, that certainly, both the Sinhala and English versions say at 46/2 that The Prime Minister shall continue to hold office until he either resigns, or ceases to be an MP. That was Yahapalana‘s argument. But section 47/2 says something different. Notwithstanding the death, removal from office or resignation of the Prime Minister” said the English text. Agamethi miya giye vuvada, durayen evat karanu labu veda, asvuye vu vada said the Sinhala text. At 48/1 the Sinhala text repeats this statement in a different tense, ‘ Durayen ivat karanu labeemen’ and that, said the Mahinda Rajapaksa team clinches the issue.
The Mahinda Rajapaksa team stated that it is the Sinhala version which is legal. This cannot be contested. It has been long accepted that where texts differ, the Sinhala text takes precedence. G.L. Pieris added ‘I was a member of Parliament when the 19th Amendment was discussed and enacted by Parliament. It was the Sinhala version which was put to the House, clause by clause, during the Committee Stage. The English version did not receive the attention of Parliament at all.
Yahapalanites refused to stay silent.”If a Sinhala translation of the Constitution has a reference to “removal”, that word cannot be used to undermine the specific provisions on termination of the term of office of a PM, and argue for an open ended, discretionary, and different concept of Presidential “removal”, said one critic. It is hard to understand how a single word incorporated into the Sinhala copy of the Constitution (perhaps by a single legal draftsman struggling with translating a legal document using two languages) can give legitimacy to actions taken by the President Sirisena last week when they are contrary to specific provisions in the Constitution.
It is very clear that President Sirisena, in his appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister, replacing former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, has acted constitutionally and practically, said Dr. Jayatissa de Costa. The country is still governed by the 1978 Constitution and it is Presidential rule. The Constitution says, ‘the President shall appoint as Prime Minister, a member of Parliament who, in his opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of parliament. ‘Therefore, I think this decision taken by the President is in accordance with the Constitution.” A similar incident happened in Pakistan in the case Asma Jilani Vs the Govt. of the Punjab over the awarding of military degrees. The judges of the Supreme Court had to decide and they used the doctrine of necessity.
Pointing to the recent Local Government elections, de Costa said, Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna had swept the boards across the country and they clearly won the election.Hence, the SLFP and the SLPP together would far exceed over 50% even at a General election. This combination is adequate,” he said, adding that it is clear that the President had exercised his powers in this instance in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and in a practical sense.
In addition, all the Governors of the nine provinces have also accepted the new government under Sirisena and Rajapaksa.. Hence, the above doctrines are applicable here,” Costa blamed the 19th Amendment to the Constitution for the current predicament. What was promulgated as the 19th Amendment is a recipe for disaster,” he said, however, the country must run.
Mahinda Rajapaksa was recognized as Prime Minister by no less a country than China. The ambassador for China met Ranil Wickremasinghe and Mahinda Rajapaksa and thereafter recognized Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister and conveyed to him the greetings of the President of China. He posed for a photo with Mahinda Rajapaksa . The nine Governors of Provinces also stated that they unanimously supported Mahinda Rajapaksa. K.C.Loganathan, Governor Western Province, the spokesman said that [with Yahapalana] they could not carry out any work in the Province due to interference from Colombo.
There are two opposite reactions to the return of Mahinda Rajapaksa. Ven. Keppetiyagoda Siriwimala Nayake Thera of Rajopawanaramaya Peradeniya and members of the Sri Lanka Ramanna Nikaya issued s statement where he hailed the action taken by President Sirisena at a time of political crisis in the country.
The Yahapalana administration led by former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was responsible for the political chaos in the country during the past three and a half years he said. former President Mahinda Rajapaksa in his capacity as the New Prime Minister would be competent to restore the country to normalcy after resolving the many issues created by his predecessor. The entire Sri Lankan nation had confidence that Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, with his far-sighted patriotism and courage, would efficiently resolve the many burning issues created by the Wickremasinghe regime during the past years.
The National Christian Council of Sri Lanka (NCCSL) said in its statement: It is with a sense of shock and dismay we received the announcement on the evening of Friday 26 October 2018 of the swearing-in of Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister of our country by President Sirisena, and the removal of the serving Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe from such office.
The NCCSL takes serious note of this political development and considers this unprecedented move which is questionable in terms of the accepted norms of democratic principles and the provisions in our Constitution. It is our belief that the matter should have been best resolved in Parliament in a transparent manner with adherence to stipulated and clear procedures. The turn of events shrouded in secrecy and surprise, we regret, has raised many questions in the minds of our people instilling fear and uncertainty as we witness two competing Prime Ministers together with their respective parties jostling for power, authority and legitimacy for state rule.
The NCCSL statement has been signed by Rev. Heshan de Silva, Chairperson of the National Christian Council of Sri Lanka, and President, Sri Lanka Baptist Sangamaya Rt. Rev. D.R. Canagasabey, Bishop of Colombo, Church of Ceylon, Diocese of Colombo, Rev. Saman Perera, President, Presbytery of Lanka, Rt. Rev. Dr. Daniel S. Thiagarajah, Bishop of Jaffna Diocese, Church of South India, Rev. Asiri P. Perera, President/Bishop, Methodist Church of Sri Lanka, Rt. Rev. Keerthisiri Fernando, Bishop of the Church of Ceylon, Diocese of Kurunegala, Rev. Shirley Faber, President, Christian Reformed Church, Colonel Yousaf Masiah, Territorial Commander, The Salvation Army, Rev. G. Nadarajah, President, Lanka Lutheran Church, Rev. Michael Dissanayake, General Superintendent and Chairman, Assemblies of God of Ceylon, Rev. Leslie Keegal, President, Church of the Four Square Gospel Church in Sri Lanka, Rev. T. Thevanesan, President, Church of the American Ceylon Mission and Rev. W.P. Ebenezer Joseph, General Secretary, National Christian Council of Sri Lanka. The NCCSL also represents Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA), Student Christian Movement (SCM), The Ceylon Bible Society Christian Literature Society, Theological College of Lanka. Back to the Bible Broadcast, Colombo Theological Seminary and Youth for Christ.
The world reaction to the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister is significant and should act as a wakeup call for the public .The UN acted correctly. Its representative met the President who responded.
The Delegation of the European Union said in a statement issued in agreement with the EU Heads of Mission resident in Colombo that the Ambassador of the European Union as well as the Ambassadors of France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania and UK are closely following the events as they are unfolding in Sri Lanka. UK parliament said that they recognize Ranil Wickremasinghe as Prime Minister.
Canada issued a separate statement. “Canada is very concerned by the recent events in Sri Lanka and is closely monitoring the situation.” A number of countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, European Union and several other European countries, Australia and India have expressed concern over the sudden transition of power by President sacking Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and appointing former president Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister, concluded Canada.
USA which was so brash and confident in 2015, has turned cautious. The acting US Ambassador together with the Head of the Political Division in the embassy had met with Speaker. They said they were surprised at the developments and they were watching. In Washington, the spokesman for the Secretary of State was evasive when asked whether USA would take action on the coup. The spokesman replied that the United States believes the determination should be made in accordance with the Sri Lankan law and due process.
Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway advised, “Sri Lanka is facing an unprecedented constitutional crisis which must be urgently resolved by peaceful and legal means. The country cannot afford reckless political maneuvers advised. Lakhdar Brahimi, former Foreign Minister of Algeria, said:”In all its years of conflict and anguish, Sri Lanka has never experienced such a serious constitutional crisis. The country’s leaders must abide by its traditions of constitutional law and parliamentary democracy.
This transfer of power is a good opportunity for the watching public to see how the western media and western agencies distort local events and also how local events are stage managed for the purpose. The UNP show of strength is a good example. This smallish gathering included NGOs and civil society members as well. That explains why the crowd looked unconcerned and indifferent. Some were dancing the baila. A true UNP gathering would have been very different. They would have wanted to tell Ranil Wickremasinghe a few things.
BBC showed a shot of the crowd, referred to it as a massive meeting , said that Temple Tress was the true seat of power in Colombo and asked for comment from their reporter in Colombo. The reporter told the truth. She said that the public disliked Ranil Wickremasinghe , the gathering shown on video was mostly ‘civil society’ and that the Sinhala version of the Constitution supported the transfer of power. But Reporters without Borders (RSF) said ‘Tens of thousands of Wickremesinghe supporters blocked roads in Colombo on Tuesday’.
Reporters without Borders” (RSF) also said supporters of former president Mahinda Rajapaksa stormed state-owned media institutions shortly after he was controversially named Prime Minister on Friday. “The violence with which Mahinda Rajapaksa’s bully boys took over the state media is absolutely unacceptable,” RSF said
Minutes after Rajapaksa was sworn in, his Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) party activists invaded the newsrooms of various state media. RSF said the SLPP activists forced journalists at the Daily News and the Lake House group’s two leading weeklies, Silumina and Sunday Observer, to change the front pages of their next issues. They took control of the two public service TV channels, Rupavahini and ITN, the radio stations that are part of the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, and the Lake House press group.RSF said the constitutional crisis recalled the “darkest hours of the Rajapaksa presidency between 2005 and 2015,” when he lost an election to current president Maithripala Sirisena, said RSF.
From simple distortion we move on to more serious observations, containing veiled threats. .My example is from Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch issued a statement, where it said, inter alia, ”Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena’s decision on October 26, 2018, to appoint former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as prime minister has raised fears about a return to past abusive practices in the country The sudden announcement to sack Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe, was made without informing Parliament or the Cabinet.
“Rajapaksa’s return to high office without any justice for past crimes raises chilling concerns for human rights in Sri Lanka,” continued Human Rights Watch. The current government’s failure to bring justice to victims of war crimes under the Rajapaksa government reopens the door for past abusers to return to their terrible practices.”
Rajapaksa’s administration was implicated in violations during the final stages of Sri Lanka’s brutal civil war and in suppression of freedoms of the media, expression, and association. Military forces under Rajapaksa’s authority indiscriminately attacked civilians and summarily executed prisoners during the final months of fighting against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), continued Human Rights Watch.
People with suspected links to the LTTE were subject to arbitrary arrest, torture and sexual violence, extrajudicial killings, and enforced disappearances. Journalists and activists critical of the Rajapaksa government faced harassment, arrest, and even physical attack. The media outlets, rights organizations, and victims’ groups who had been vocal and free from government threats now fear a return to anxiety and fear, concluded Human Rights Watch.”
The Yahapalana reliance on foreign countries was made clear when Ranil Wickremasinghe invited the ambassadors of EU, USA, India, Japan, Australia and Canada for a discussion at Temple Trees after he was deposed as Prime Minister. He has wanted to internationalize the issue.
Thereafter he wrote to the ambassadors of USA, UK, Germany France, Norway and Italy, on the letter head of the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, saying that he sought their cooperation to protect Sri Lanka and its peace. He said, please consider the possibility of deploying UN Peacekeeping Force here, and let me know.
It is of note that instead of seeking the support of his own people when removed as Premier, Ranil Wickremasinghe turned to his mostly Western friends and allies, said Tamara Kunanayagam. The intention was to agree on a narrative that helps legitimize external intervention, she said. A photo of this letter is available on Lankaweb (https://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2018/10/31/call-for-ranil-to-be-indicted-for-high-treason)
Ambassadors of EU, UK, Canada, and Germany had warned the Speaker of inimical outcome of the unexpected transfer of political power’ and the unfriendly situation the country could face. There was also a comment that the crisis could lead to a “bloodbath” on the streets if Parliament does not hold a vote soon. The Speaker’s Office said that Jayasuriya urged the delegation not to take action against Sri Lanka.
Foreign intervention can be carried out in several ways. One possibility is the Right to Protect Strategy (R2P) which gives countries the right to invade other countries saying the people in it need to be protected. R2P” is definitely the line which interested western countries will try to use to invade Sri Lanka and therefore, Sri Lanka should be alert about R2P. Tamara Kunanayagam has repeatedly drawn attention to this danger. , Damien Kingsbury has written on Sri Lanka and the Responsibility to Protect”.
Sri Lanka tumbled into the R2P scenario in 2008. In 2008, there was an attempt to make the International Centre for Ethnic Studies in Colombo into the Southern affiliated centre of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. ICES was listed as such on the website of the Global Centre. Rama Mani, the ICES director responsible for this activity had her visa revoked and was asked to leave the country. Rama Mani and Radhika Coomaraswamy were on Advisory Board of the Global Centre.
Before that, Gareth Evans, the head of Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, was invited to deliver the Neelan Tiruchelvam Memorial Lecture 2007. In his talk he said that mismanagement of the Eelam issue could lead to international intervention. There were murmurs but since this was almost a private function, nothing transpired.
In 2000 an International Commission on Intervention and State sovereignty (ICSS) was created in Canada, with funding from the government of Canada. Its head was Gareth Evans, also head of the International Crisis Group. ICISS was convened, to provide information to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, on the subject of intervention .
ICISS issued a report titled ‘Responsibility to Protect’ in 2001.This put forward the idea that when any group faced a crisis in a sovereign state, the international community could respond by, inter alia, coercive actions and military intervention, and bring ‘security and justice’ to the victim population. This was an attempt to set a new set of rules that might allow intervention in sovereign matters.
R2P argued that when the sovereign state was unable or unwilling to protect its people from internal war or repression the principle of non-intervention in the affair of sovereign states must give way to the international responsibility to protect. R2P wanted to bypass Security Council permission to invade. This was rejected. Security Council authorization remained.
Countries feared that R2P would be used to legitimize military actions intended to advance imperial ambitions, rather than human protection. R2P is just another pretext to justify neo colonial intervention in the domestic affairs of developing nations, said Ajit Randeniya. R2P has still not been formally accepted, observed G.L.Pieris.
R2P has not been accepted by the UN though supporters of R2P say so. At the UN World Summit, 2005 R2P was reluctantly included into the statement, and given minimum mention in items 138 and 139.This is not the victory it is made out to be. UN appointed a Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect in 2009. This Special Adviser is responsible for the further development and refinement of the concept as well as for the continuation of dialogue with Member States.
R2P was debated in UN General Assembly in 2009 with 94 member states voicing concerns and the resulting resolution only records that it had taken note of R2P. In 2018, UN General Assembly include R2P, with prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity” as part of the Agenda of its 72nd session. Delegates have talked and talked but nothing seems to have been decided. It is most unlikely that UN member states will allow blanket R2P, but it is best to be watchful.
The Constitution of Sri Lanka has been invoked in the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister. The present Constitution is the old 1978 Constitution with 19 amendments added on. The original 1978 Constitution converted Sri Lanka abruptly from traditional Parliamentary rule to extreme Presidential rule. It was specifically designed to give excessive powers to the then President, J.R.Jayewardene, who was pro USA. These powers were hidden in the body of the text.
I had looked at the original 1978 Constitution but not its numerous amendments. The present ‘crisis’ sent me to the 2015 version of the Constitution of Sri Lanka. This Constitution contains howlers. The Legislative function of Parliament usually takes precedence over the Executive and the Judiciary. But in the Constitution of Sri Lanka, the Legislature appears at Chapter X, behind Executive, Cabinet, Constitutional Council and Public Service Commission. In Chapter XI, legislative power’ (75) comes after ‘voting’ (72) ‘quorum’ (73).This indicates the low importance placed on actual law making.
The Constitution declares at 30/1 that ‘there shall be a President of the Republic of Sri Lanka who is the Head of the State, the Head of the Executive and of the Government, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces’. Section 33/2 says President shall have the sole ‘power to declare war and peace’ . Yahapalanites state that these powers are now restricted by Section 33A which says ‘The President shall be responsible to Parliament for the due exercise, performance and discharge of his powers’. Howlers appear when you look at this provision closely. They make it difficult to go ahead with 33A.
Section 33/2/C states that the President shall have the power to summon, prorogue and dissolve parliament. Therefore, the President has to summon Parliament before Parliament can summon the President. Section 32/3 says ‘The President shall, by virtue of his office attend Parliament once in every three months” but Section 70/2 says ‘Parliament shall be summoned to meet once at least every year’. This means is that the President can summon Parliament once a year, (or once in three months,) and tell Parliament what he did or what he plans to do.
The problem does not end there. Section 33A is far too vague for the vast powers given to the President. Section 33A does not say what Parliament should do after listening to the President. Does it have the power to approve, ratify or cancel any action taken by the President? If so, why have an Executive President at all. The work can be done better by a Prime Minister answerable to Parliament, like in the old days.
We could attach another observation to this analysis. The value of Parliament lies in the fact that its members are elected by the people. When Parliament includes persons who actually lost the election, (coming in through the National list), it no longer represents the people. It is a tainted Parliament, sort of ‘kiri hattiyata goma.’ If so, it also loses the right to judge the President, who at least is directly elected.
A constitution must be able to accommodate change and respond to public opinion. When the public are fed up with the government they elected, the head of state must be able to dissolve Parliament and go for elections. If the Prime Minister is exceeding his role and also the trust placed in him, the Constitution must enable the Head of State to dismiss the Prime Minister. Sri Lanka showed through demonstrations and elections that they wanted a change of government and also that it wanted Ranil Wickremasinghe removed.
The 19th amendment was set in place to make sure that neither of these happened and that the present puppet government would continue till its purpose was achieved. Under the 19th amendment, there were two undemocratic features. the Prime Minister could not be dismissed by the Head of State once appointed, and the Yahapalana Parliament could not be dissolved for four years. Within those four years, it was hoped that USA could take full control of the country, own its land, destroy its people and move the USA’s 7th fleet” into Trincomalee.
(to be Continued)
The most important thing was that all the Mahinda Sulanga rallies were a case of staging Hamlet without the prince. Mahinda Rajapaksa himself never appeared on the stage and all that the people saw was a photograph of him. Yet they came in their thousands just to see the photograph of their fallen leader and to pledge their loyalty. That itself was a very unusual occurrence and probably unprecedented in the world. Usually when a fallen leader regroups, he has to lead the movement himself and give the people the assurance that he would lead them. In the case of the Mahinda Sulanga rallies, the most the assembled crowd got was to hear a message from Mahinda Rajapaksa read out to the crowd. The first time that Mahinda Rajapaksa appeared at one of these rallies was at the Matara rally where he did not get on to the stage but was seen on the ramparts of the Matara fort observing the unprecedented crowd that had assembled in Matara to demand his return to politics.
