26 September, 2022


Can The President Insist On Appointing Only An Untainted MP As PM?

By Rajan Philips

Rajan Philips

Rajan Philips

The prelates of the Congress of Religions have called upon the people to “Leave aside political parties. Just concentrate on worthy candidates. … Think of the country and choose the best people from whichever party you’ll be voting for.” According to the Island’s lead story on Thursday, the prelates “excoriated” the major political parties for not abiding by the ‘March 12 Declaration’ and other pledges, after signing on to them, and nominating candidates who are known to have broken the law and/or to be in the business of drugs, gambling and prostitution. Let down by the leaders, the prelates appealed to the people to exercise their vote to prevent lawbreakers from entering parliament again.

Independently issuing a political supplement to the moral call of religious leaders, former President Chandrika Kumaratunga has appealed to all members of the SLFP and all patriotic citizens to rise above party loyalties and vote for candidates who will protect and carry forward the victory achieved in the January 8 presidential election. On Friday President Sirisena added his voice to the midweek pleas of religious leaders and his favourite among the two former presidents. Speaking at a book launch ceremony at the BMICH, President Sirisena said “People should use their intelligence, knowledge and their experience of what happened in the past in casting their vote” and elect “only qualified and untainted candidates for the next parliament.”

These appeals to the voters are unprecedented because one cannot think of a past election when there was so much emphasis on the merits of individual candidates as opposed to the policy platforms of political parties. In fact, the emphasis is specifically on the demerits and unsuitability of many known individual candidates who are contesting the current election. The people are directly being asked not to vote for them. The appeals to the voters are not controversial because most people are fed up with the rascals who have been getting into parliament by getting their names on a party list. The January 8 verdict of the people was a collective rebuke against all the unqualified and tainted MPs and non-MPs who constituted the Rajapaksa regime. It was not just an individual verdict against President Rajapaksa.

Maithripala Sirisena 13, July 15 Prz mediaThe March 12 Declaration and other pledges for clean candidates arose in the wake of the January 8 verdict to ensure that the known undesirables of the old parliament will not be running for re-election in the new parliament. Yet, the former President is known to have insisted that every one of the MPs who supported his return to parliamentary politics should be given nomination regardless of their incompatibility with the criteria for good candidates that the UPFA leaders had signed on to in the March 12 Declaration. And with the exception of a handful of thugs, the others who are unqualified and tainted are on the UPFA list. The twin-secretaries running the UPFA, both lawyers, came up with the silliest of reasoning – that they could not exclude sitting MPs based on allegations of corruption or criminality insofar as the allegations have not been proven in court and the individuals have not been found guilty. One cannot get sillier than this in articulating political accountability. Not surprisingly they came in for “excoriation” by the prelates of the Congress of Religions.

The President’s criteria for PM

Things were not so easy under the first-past-the-post system because each party could have only one candidate (two or three in a handful of multi-member electorates) in an electorate, and political parties could not risk nominating someone who was a known undesirable in the local community. The proportional representation system based on lists of candidates prepared by party bureaucrats has made it convenient for known and unknown undesirables to sneak into parliament as MPs. Under the proportional representation system, the proportion of undesirables in parliament has increased significantly than it could ever have been under the first-past-the-post system. Equally, the presidential system seems to have spawned political thuggery to a far greater extent than it ever was prior to 1978. Until the 1980s, the countervailing social force against political thuggery was the trade union movement. With the trade unions gone or weakened after the 1980s, political thuggery has had no one to put it in its place. Ever since, the underworld has established itself openly on the political terrain.

Perhaps with the exception of the current President, every elected President is allegedly known to have harboured and/or used thugs for political purposes on a systematic basis. This was never the case with any of the Prime Ministers under the earlier parliamentary system, including JR Jayewardene before he became President. It was JRJ, known for his haughty candour, who famously said, after the 1981 riots which were orchestrated by UNP thugs, that the UNP was an open party and therefore it should not be surprising to find murderers, fraudsters and other criminals among its members. No one ever suggested that there was no corruption or criminality in Sri Lankan politics until the arrival of the Rajapaksas in Colombo. But the mistake they made was their attempt to personalize and perpetuate the system of corruption and criminality. In a BBC interview last week, Mahinda Rajapaksa admitted to no mistakes during his presidency, except the mistake of calling an early presidential election. It was not a mistake, nor was it an astrological blunder. It was a calculated move that spared an even bigger defeat two years down the road. But the question now is about the outcome of the election due in one week.

Unlike in a presidential election where one either wins or loses, political party leaders in a parliamentary election can both win and lose. They can win election as MPs, but their parties may not win enough seats to form a government. Mr. Rajapaksa will certainly become an MP from the Kurunegala District. But will the UPFA candidates win in sufficient numbers to form the next government? That is the question. The focus on the qualifications and merits of individual candidates and the appeals to voters to elect only ‘qualified and untainted’ candidates as MPs, target the candidates of the UPFA more than those of other political alliances or parties. If the appeals are successful, and if voters, whether persuaded by the appeals or acting independently on their own, choose to vote against candidates who do not belong in parliament, such a vote swing would be a significant blow to the UPFA. The eventual beneficiary could be the JVP more than the UNF.

In contrast to the enthusiasm that was evident during the campaign for the January election, the current campaign has been listless and uninspiring. The electorate seems tired. The UNF seems to be relying on winning more by default than on positive undertakings. There are also election sideshows; to wit, the exercising over a potential bridge linking Mannar to Rameswaram in South India; a body of economists caviling at the record of a six-month old government after sitting on their hands with their mouths shut for ten years during the Rajapaksa rule; and last but not least, the pathetic spectacle of public mud-wrestling involving the two ‘governors’ of the Central Bank. All in all the country seems to be heading to a hung parliament with President Sirisena standing by to hold and exercise the balance of power.

In light of his earlier assertion that he will not appoint Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister in the new parliament, President Sirisena seems to be laying down markers – such as “qualified and untainted”, to justify his assertion and to emphasize his intention to carry it through. The President’s assertion was initially dismissed by pundits as untenable. However, persuasive legal and constitutional arguments, in support of that assertion, have since been advanced by two prominent lawyers, Lal Wijenayake and Reeza Hameed. While the balance of political forces will ultimately validate or invalidate his actions, President Sirisena would seem to be on valid legal and constitutional grounds in his understanding of the presidential power to appoint “the Member of parliament who in his opinion is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament.” The President cannot be faulted if he were to look for an MP who is not only qualified, but also untainted. That would be in accordance with his January mandate and the constitution arguably empowers him to do that.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 3

    “In a BBC interview last week, Mahinda Rajapaksa admitted to no mistakes during his presidency,”

    What else could we expect from this congenital liar? He was on national TV admitting he harboured and protected ‘wrongdoers’ and promised not to let it happen again if he returns to power, and now he says he made no mistakes?

    This alone displays his wonky thought process, so quite clearly he is not fit to be in any position of power, let alone, be president!

    • 6

      If Prez. Sirisena wants to appoint and untainted Prime Minister he will have to appoint JVP’s Anura Kumara, since Ranil is already tainted with insider traders Mahendran and a corrupt Finance Minister – Ravi K- to boot!

      • 3

        Rosy Senanayake would do for Prime Minister. Sri Lanka needs a woman who is NOT from a political dynasty to lead the way and bring it quotas – 33 percent reservation for women so that talented women take to politics.

        Also, after the election, civil society must focus on and there needs to be a process of cleaning out Political Parties and bringing in a new Sri Lanka National constitution that has a CHAPTER ON PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE essential for GOOD GOVERNANCE in POLITICAL PARTIES and the principles of GOOD GOVERNANCE IN POLITICAL PARTIES.

        Political parties are the root of the problem of corrupt democracy. UNP is a dictatorship with Ranil who has lost countless elections and SLFP is a party of corrupt thugs.

        Increasingly in the world it is recognized that political parties need good governance principle laid out in constitution of the country.

        Politicians crossing floor of the house for the highest bidder and becoming a power elite and super caste is partly because of lack of democracy in political parties.

        • 1

          Very good idea to have a Chapter on Good Governance of Political parties in the Constitution of Sri Lanka.

          This would prevent political parties becoming dictatorships, family businesses, and gerontocracy run by dead old men like Vasudeva Nanayakkara and the dead leftists who are the worst in this regard.

          Also if a leader loses twice should be required to resign and hand over to younger generation and quotas for women in all political parties is a must.

  • 2

    The clarion call ever since the last hopper supper that effectively signalled the downfall of the evil Kurakkan Satakaya has been that the crooked and wicked must no longer have free reign in our politics. Party leaders have paid lip service to that pledge, but the prelates have sent a timely reminder to the voters. The people have heard the message and will make their choice. It is left to the media to scrutinise those who are elected and help with the continued weeding out of those undesirables that would invariably creep in. Name and shame!

    Rest assured, MS knows full well the importance of appointing the right person, and he can and will appoint HIS choice of PM.

    Now that’s Yahapalanaya!

  • 4

    I like to see those who did not hop between parties with senior cabinet portfolios. I know, this will disqualify a number of people. People deserve a better governance. I certainly don’t want to see Rauf Hakeem and Rishard Badhurdeen in the cabinet.

  • 0

    Whatever MS says, he will have to or he will be compelled to allow MR to form a Govt, if the latter’s Group gets a majority.The power rests with the people. Before a JANAMATHAYA OR A PEOPLE’S Choice, he cannot be a dictator. In the same way MR handed him power as it was the Janamathaya, he too will have to behave HONORABLY. Otherwise, people will send him home!

  • 2

    Mere because a person could not be forwarded for justification by law is that any proof he did not do any wrong. If a person is wrong he is wrong whether proved or not

  • 0

    One can understand this restriction relating to an untainted candidate being selected as Prime Minister. It is just to keep Mahinda Rajapakse out. One hopes that the question whether the proposition is correct is not put to test. It is a premature question to raise.

    The constitutional sanctity of the principle that the person who commands the majority in Parliament should be the Prime Minister should not be sacrificed on any account. We hold elections to ascertain the will of the people. If the people are not discriminating enough to elect a scoundrel, they must be condemned to having him.

    There is nothing to guarantee that the President vested with such powers would not turn dictatorial. We have seen in a short while that Maithree did act in a the way of all Sri Lankan politicians, giving his brother certain advantages.

    It is best to keep to time tested principles of the constitution. However eminent the lawyers are who argue to the contrary, the suspicion is that, as in the case of all lawyers, the opinion is colored by who butters their bread and it is only worth so much.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 5 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.