Author: TELO Admin

Sri Lanka is grappling to balance between the reforms required to extricate the country out of its economic collapse whilst ensuring minimum disruption to households, but the data does not reflect the same. Seven million people are in poverty as per research by LIRNEasia.

According to the Department of Census and Statistics, 53% of children’s education is disrupted with 44% of them struggling to buy their stationary, whilst 108,330 micro and small enterprises have shut down. It is also reported that 544,488 households have not paid their electricity bills resulting in the supply being disconnected, resulting in a challenging situation at grassroot level.

In this backdrop, we see the book launched by former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa titled ‘The Conspiracy’, which goes into an ideology on why he believed he was ejected out of the hot seat. However, the book fails to capture the analysis on the bad decisions made during his tenure that led to the economic crisis and what Sri Lanka and the world can learn. I also did not see any key insights as to why such decisions were made that can be amazing learning points for future leaders to be cognisant of.

Supreme Court ruling

For perspective, let’s revisit the most neutral analysis done on the economic crisis and the verdict given. In a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, a ruling was given by a five-bench eminent panel stating that former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the then Finance Minister, two Central Bank Governors, the President’s Secretary, and Monetary Board Members at that time had violated the public trust and breached Article 12(1) of the Constitution in their governance of financial matters, leading to the economic crisis in the country.

The key observations highlighted by esteemed Supreme Court judges, as reported in the media, emphasise that the respondents significantly contributed to the circumstances that led to the situation. They were expected to be aware of these issues and take proactive steps to address them, rather than exacerbating the adverse effects on the economy.

Public officials are entrusted with the duty to fulfil their obligations in the public’s best interest. The Respondents, entrusted with significant authority to maintain public trust, are obligated to execute their duties in accordance with constitutional directives. They cannot evade responsibility by simply categorising their decisions as policy choices. The Respondents were aware of the prevailing circumstances and had a duty to avert potential disasters. Regrettably, they failed to take appropriate actions in the public interest to rectify the situation. Ultimately, their inaction contributed to the economic crisis.

The 119-page judgement was conclusive, but the main question asked by many was what action can be taken from the Respondents today, as there are seven million in poverty, 73% of the population have only two meals a day, and 108,380 companies have shut down. A point to note is that we hail the five people from civil society who decided to fight the system and bring to book the people who were responsible for the economic collapse in Sri Lanka. I guess a few good men still exist that are willing to fight for a righteous society.

The conspiracy ideology

In this backdrop we have a totally new perspective that has been given by the former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa announcing the publication authored by him titled ‘The Conspiracy to oust me from the Presidency’. This presents an alternative viewpoint regarding the events leading up to Sri Lanka’s current dire economic situation, and highlights that despite the nation’s experience during the 30-year war with the LTTE, the current economic crisis stands as one of the most severe challenges ever faced by the country.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa stated in his book that Sri Lanka faced significant foreign intervention following his victory in the war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in 2009. He further asserts that since his election as President in November 2019, both foreign and local entities had intentions to remove him from power.

He goes on to say, “The entirety of my two-and-a-half-year tenure in power was spent combating the COVID-19 pandemic that swept through Sri Lanka and the whole world shortly after I took office. Thereafter, conspiratorial forces commenced the political campaign to oust me from the Presidency at the end of March 2022. This occurred at a time when the pandemic had been brought under control, the vaccination campaign concluded and the economy starting to show signs of recovery.”

The statement also highlighted that foreign intervention and the manipulation of internal politics have become prevalent in Sri Lanka in a manner unprecedented during the first 60 years of independence. “The political campaign aimed at removing me from office introduced a new dynamic into Sri Lankan politics, which, since independence, had only witnessed peaceful transfers of power following elections. Therefore, the events of 2022 carry significant implications for the future of the country.”

What the book explains was the first-hand experience of an internationally sponsored regime change operation, prompting a closer examination of what was left unsaid in “What Gota did not tell.”

What Gota did not tell

There is no reference to the Supreme Court’s decision that came after a careful deliberation of the five-bench Supreme Court panel on who was responsible for the economic collapse in Sri Lanka.

The 119-page deliberation is directed to three reasons why the economic crisis happened: the tax break that cost the Treasury Rs. 681 billion, the decision on the payment of the $ 500 million ISB, and the delay in going to the IMF led to Sri Lanka having to declare bankruptcy.

Sadly, the book titled, “The Conspiracy to oust me from the Presidency” does not give us any insights to the logic of these decisions that the landmark judgement pointed to. Whilst it’s interesting to hear the former President’s side of the story, it is an ‘internal’ point of view that is academic in nature without the support of facts. The book does not give the logic for the three questionable decisions that led to the economic collapse. What Sri Lanka requires is depth of analysis and not just rhetoric. For instance, we talk of a system change that the current president highlights post his appointment but we don’t take actions that support this rhetoric.

Sri Lanka yet to learn

Let’s do a deep dive on the Budget 2023 implementation progress. As per the study done by Verite, 68% of the projects in the Budget 2023 that was passed in Parliament has no data to demonstrate a movement forward whilst 48% of the projects had zero data to show progress.

A deeper analysis revealed that of 25 key projects that had an allocation of over Rs. 49.3 billion, there was no data on the impact. There was an accountability issue and responsibility which is very sad for a country trying to grow out of the economic crisis. Going into the specifics of the report if I may take one such budget proposal ‘Developing export processing zones’. This has been in successive budgets way back as 2014, but has not been implemented for years. Though we talk of system change, how is it that such proposals were included in the 2023 Budget and not acted upon when the IMF very clearly says that Sri Lanka needs to come out of the economic collapse by driving exports via a manufacturing approach. But what we see is just rhetoric to this challenge rather than a much talked about ‘reform agenda’.

Verite Research goes on to state that in the organisation’s history of reviewing budget proposals since 2017, the worst performing year has been 2023 which does not augur well for a country fighting to recover. But sadly, we have not captured why such badly implemented Government action plans have not happened, and what are the lessons for 2024.

Pragmatic reform

Another classic case in point where pragmatic reforms were not seen and only rhetoric we see in the media was where it was reported that the Ceylon Electricity Board had made a Rs. 61.2 billion profit in 2023. As a group, a profit of Rs. 75.7 billion was made with the other investments as per the unaudited interim financial statements for the year ended 31 December.

The question that everyone is asking is how the CEB was allowed to make profits as a state-owned entity that exists to serve the people of Sri Lanka where almost 800,000 people’s electricity connections were disconnected due to the non-payment of bills.

The private sector was crying out that their businesses were not viable financially due to the escalating cost of electricity that was said to be highest in South Asia. Some companies were relocating their businesses to other parts of South East Asia especially in the sectors like Apparel. How could the policy makers not understand the reality and not take action to readjust the electricity prices? Is this the policy reform that the President advocates to build the economy that was the talking point at a ‘business conference’ last week?

Conclusion

Whilst it’s interesting to read the many books that authors release in Sri Lanka on a weekly basis, the only lingering thought regarding the book by the former President is ‘What Gota did not tell’. Perhaps the second edition will address this aspect.

Sri Lanka has so far witnessed eight Presidential elections. But in no previous election have we seen the kind of confusion prevailing among the main political parties in the run-up to a Presidential election.

President Ranil Wickremesinghe has not yet announced his candidacy, though the election is only six months away. He cannot think of entering the fray relying only on his United National Party (UNP).

After the three decades of Wickremesinghe’s leadership, the UNP is now at its weakest in its history. Wickremesinghe believes that his popularity among the people is gradually increasing as a result of the economic restructuring programme being carried out by his government with the help of the International Monetary Fund(IMF).

Moves by the President to forge a grand alliance ahead of his bid for the Presidency have not seen significant progress so far. He is relying entirely on a section of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP ) parliamentarians who defected from the Rajapaksas after the popular uprising the Aragalaya.

At the same time, the President is having talks with Rajapaksas also. It was reported that during their talks last week SLPP leaders Mahinda Rajapaksa and Basil Rajapaksa were unable to take a final decision on forming an alliance. The Rajapaksa brothers are said to have vehemently objected to the President approaching the ministers and MPs of their party bypassing the leadership.

The Rajapaksas, who are not ready to understand the current extent of their support among the people, do believe that their party has the capacity to decide the future of Sri Lanka. They say whoever gets their support will become the next President.

As for the Rajapaksas, they must either come to power or ensure that someone who does not hold them accountable for the past mistakes comes to power.

Although it is widely believed that President Wickramasinghe will contest the presidential election with the support of the Rajapaksas, it cannot be said that their support will be of great benefit to him either. But both sides almost have no choice but to support each other.

On the other hand, as far as Wickramasinghe is concerned, he always has the option of avoiding contesting if he finds that there is no conducive situation for his victory.

The Janata Vimukti Peramuna (JVP)-led National People’s Power ( NPP ), which is said to be at the forefront of popular support in the South has been carrying out its campaign with great enthusiasm and conviction. Important foreign powers are also paying attention to its leader, Anura Kumara Dissanayake, who is seen as a front-runner for the Presidency. NPP leaders are talking about their future government’s plans as if they are forming the next government.

There is confusion within the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (United People’s Power – SJB) led by opposition leader Sajith Premadasa also. He is unable to keep many MPs of the party including chairman Sarath Fonseka who has been openly critical of him under his control.

Premadasa seems to be imitating the NPP in several political strategies, including inducting ex-army and police officers into the party and mobilizing women’s support across the country.

Though President Wickremesinghe has not yet announced his candidacy, it is widely expected that the Presidential election will be a three-way contest between him, Anura Kumara and Premadasa.

Candidates from many other parties are also likely to contest the election. It is noteworthy that as many as 35 candidates contested the 2019 presidential election.

Former President Maithripala Sirisena, the leader of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), had earlier announced that he would also contest the Presidential election. But he hasn’t been talking about it in recent weeks.

The President of the United Republic Front (URF ) Champika Ranawaka has been meeting leaders of various parties including the President with his policy plan. He even said that he was ready to consider contesting as a common candidate if he was approached. It is unlikely that anyone will be fielded as common candidate of the opposition this time.

It is reported that many SLPP MPs want parliamentary elections to be held before the Presidential election. Basil Rajapaksa said in a television interview last week that people do not vote rationally when a parliamentary election is held after the Presidential election and if the parliamentary election is held first, there is a better chance for a balanced parliament.

This is a strange argument. When almost all the recent opinion polls showed clearly that it is impossible for any party to get an absolute majority in the next parliamentary elections, one is at a loss to understand as on what basis Basil Rajapaksa says that a strong government can be formed if the parliamentary elections are held before the Presidential one.

The President currently has the power to dissolve Parliament at any time. But it is not clear whether he would like to dissolve Parliament at the moment. A motion requesting the President to dissolve Parliament can be passed with a two-thirds majority. But with the ruling party lacking a two-thirds majority it is certain that the opposition will not support such a motion. Those parties are firm in their stance that the Presidential election should be held first.

Common Tamil Candidate

Meanwhile, an idea of fielding a Tamil common candidate has been floated in the Northern Province.

The leaders of the Democratic Tamil National Alliance, comprising five Tamil parties, have agreed in principle on the need for a Tamil common candidate. Politicians and observers have already commented on its pros and cons.

Even as 15 years have passed since the end of the civil war, the numerous humanitarian problems resulting from the conflict and the national ethnic problem have not been resolved. The argument presented to justify the idea of a Tamil common candidate is that the Presidential election should be used as a referendum in the Tamil North and East to tell the Sinhala South and the world about the current stance of the Tamil people regarding a solution to their problems.

A civil society organisation called ‘Makkal Manu’ (People’s Petition) has taken the initiative to take this idea among the Tamil people. Last week this organisation arranged a public seminar at Thanthai Chelva Art Gallery in Jaffna under the topic of ‘How to face the Presidential election?’.

Apart from the three political analysts who were invited to address the gathering, leaders of some Tamil parties also presented their views in this regard.

Since the Tamil people of the North and East have so far voted in Presidential elections mostly with the intention of defeating the Southern candidates they despised, the essence of the speeches of the analysts at the seminar was that the Tamil people should abandon the behaviour of voting in this way and treat it as a referendum using their votes to tell their present predicament to the world.

It was argued that the person who can be nominated as a common candidate should have no personal political ambitions. He should be an eminent figure in the society who enjoys the respect of the Tamil people of both provinces. That is, he will only be a symbol that will be used to tell the world about the political aspirations of the Tamil people today. It may be very difficult to find such a person in the Tamil community in the present context.

It cannot be expected that the Tamil people will be able to decide for themselves how to advance the next phase of their struggle for political rights or what kind of political solution to the ethnic problem should be found in the new internal and international political climate.

It requires a visionary political leadership with clarity of thought. It should have learnt proper lessons from past experiences. Such a leadership is absent among the Tamil people today.

While the Tamil polity is severely fragmented into various parties and groups with their leaders having different agendas, it should be understood that today’s Northern and Eastern Tamil community does not possess any characteristics of being a society that has gone through a three-decade of liberation struggle marked by great sacrifices.

Before thinking about a Tamil common candidate, the Tamil parties should come to a unified stance on the ways to find solutions to the immediate problems faced by the Tamil people and also on the short-term and long-term political solutions to the national problem.

Some Tamil politicians with extremist views have demanded for a long time that a referendum should be held to know the present opinion of the Tamil people regarding the national problem without a proper understanding of the exercise. There are those who asked that the referendum should include the Tamil Diaspora as well, but nobody heeded that.

In the end, the idea has been put forwarded that the Tamils themselves should think of the Presidential election as a referendum in the North and East.

The leaders of the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF ) who put forward the demand for a separate state, used the July 1977 parliamentary elections to claim a mandate of the Tamil people and captured 18 seats in the North and East. Appapillai Amirthalingam became the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament and made history as the first ever Opposition Leader from the Tamil community. History tells us what Tamil leaders could achieve with such a “mandate”.

In the absence of a clear unified stance by the Tamil parties to guide the Tamil people in a prudent way the attempt to field a Tamil common candidate would not only become a political farce but render the votes of the Tamil people meaningless. It will create the risk of undermining the legitimate political aspirations of the Tamil people.