Politics of Caretaker Government | Daily News

Politics of Caretaker Government

The internal conflicts between the two main partners of the current Yahapalana government e.g. the United National Party and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party seem to be exacerbating day by day. As reported in the media, the ongoing overt discussions between the incumbent President Maithripala Sirisena and the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa about establishing a Caretaker Government by expelling the present government headed by Ranil Wickremesinghe shows the seriousness of the rift between two main coalition partners. It is also apt to state that this conflict has grown to such extremes that an amicable settlement between the two parties looks a distant reality. It also shows the President Maithripala Sirisena’s strong resentment in continuing with the political marriage between the UNP and the SLFP.

What is more problematic is the non-disclosure of facts relating to the conflict by the parties privy to the conflict. As a result, this has led the public to arrive at various conclusions based on their own imaginary assumptions. Needless to say that this situation is detrimental to the country’s political health as well as to the health of the parties involved in the power struggle aiming at toppling the Yahapalana government and bringing about a new Caretaker Government.

An important question arises in this context with regard to the establishment of a Caretaker Government and whether a Caretaker Government can be made into a political reality. In other words is it a viable political idea that can be achieved in the current political context of the country or is it a mere political utopia that can be never achieved. In order to seek an answer to this question it is necessary to pay attention to two things. First thing is to understand what a Caretaker Government means, and second thing is to understand the relative power positions of political parties that try to muster in a Caretaker Government.

The Caretaker Government is a political tradition associated with the Westminster model of government or so called Cabinet form of government. According to the established norms, traditions and practices a Caretaker Government can be formed under two special instances. First instance is where incumbent government - the Prime Minister and the Cabinet - is removed from office by passing a no confidence motion in the House of Representatives to which the government is bound to be held responsible. Second is the dissolution of the House of Representatives by the nominal executive on the advice of the Prime Minister of the incumbent government and go for a general election to elect a new government. Under the first instance, the nominal executive has two options. First is to appoint new permanent government, e.g. a new Prime Minister and a cabinet to govern the country for the balance period until the next general election is held.

Second option is to dissolve the House of Representatives and go for a fresh general election giving the chance for the public to elect new government on their own wish. Yet even under this situation a government must be appointed for the interim period e.g. that is the period between the dissolution of the House of Representatives and the conclusion of the general election and the formation of a new government.

The government appointed for the interim period may either be the old government which was in power or a totally new government with a new Prime Minister and a new Cabinet. The role of the nominal executive in this regard is vital as he/she has the power to decide the form of government. Whatever the nature of the government is, whether it is old or new, under the Westminster model it is generally called as a Caretaker Government. Under the second instance mentioned above, when the House of Representatives is dissolved there is no option to appoint a permanent government and the only option available is to appoint a Caretaker Government. Once again this government also could be either old or new depending on what is decided by the nominal executive. But the usual practice has been to retain the old government without inflicting any serious changes or by doing minor changes.

Characteristics

Based on the above discussion a number of conclusions can be drawn with regard to the so called Caretaker Government. Firstly, it is a fundamental political phenomenon associated only with the cabinet form of government and not with the Presidential or Semi-Presidential system of governments. (It is important to keep in mind that the present governmental system in Sri Lanka is a Semi-Presidential system.) Secondly, the dissolution of the House of Representatives is a must to form a Caretaker Government. Thirdly, a Caretaker Government is appointed only for a short period and only on a temporary basis. The usual period is the period between the dissolution of the House of Representatives and the election of a new government by a fresh general election. This may be limited to not less than one month and not more than two months.

Fourthly, since the Caretaker Government is not a permanent government it is charged with only handling day-to-day routine functions of the government. Hence it is not expected to make serious public policy formulations affecting the general political, economic and social body of the country. Fifthly, the main function assigned to the Caretaker Government is to hold the general election on an independent, neutral and fair basis. For this, it is expected that the public service and police service should be made totally neutral and this is another important function assigned to the Caretaker Government. Sixthly, a Caretaker Government is not a government formed with an objective of saving the country from a severe political, economic or social crisis as it is a government formed for the ‘in between period’ on a temporary basis with very limited number of functions assigned. Seventhly, once the election is held and a new government is formed, the Caretaker Government will be dissolved or it will naturally fade away.

Pseudo-Caretaker Government

Mentioned above are the general characteristics associated with the Caretaker Government. Can such a form of government be formed in Sri Lanka under the existing political context? It can be said that it is not an easy thing under the current constitutional framework. Firstly, it can be said that the concept of a Caretaker Government does not go hand in hand with the existing Semi-Presidential system of government.

Establishment of a Caretaker Government involves either appointing a totally new government or to retain the incumbent government until a new government is formed on the basis of a new general election. So if a new Caretaker Government is to be made, it is necessary to remove whole incumbent government from power. The removal of the whole government in the Sri Lankan context means the President, Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Those who are advocating the Caretaker Government have forgotten the fact that the President is part and parcel of the government created under the 1978 Constitution. But those who argue for a Caretaker Government do not talk about removing the President and their attempt is to keep the President untouched and remove only the Prime Minister and other Ministers. It can be said that this notion is politically wrong and does not go together with the concept of the Caretaker Government. If a Caretaker Government is created leaving this factor behind, it would definitely be a pseudo-Caretaker Government and such a government cannot claim due legitimacy to remain in power and to rule the country even for a short period.

Even to create such a pseudo-Caretaker Government, it is necessary to expel the Prime Minister and the Cabinet or to dissolve the incumbent Parliament by a Presidential decree. To remove the Prime Minister and the Cabinet it is necessary to adopt a no-confidence motion in the Parliament with the support of 113 members. Can President Maithripala Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapaksa muster this number under the prevailing strengths of political parties representing the Parliament? The proponents of the Caretaker Government currently have only 92 members. Twenty three out of these belong to the SLFP headed by the President Maithripala Sirisena and these 23 are also members of the current government.

The Joint Opposition has 54 members and 15 others belong to the breakaway faction of the government who voted against the Prime Minister when the no-confidence motion was put forth against him. So if a no-confidence motion is to be brought about by the proponents of a Caretaker Government they need to source additional 21 votes from other parties representing the Parliament. Under the prevailing political scenario of the country it appears that it is not an easy task. Furthermore, a no-confidence motion will not be limited only to the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and other UNP ministers. It will also equally affect the SLFP ministers and if the no-confidence motion is adopted they also have to resign from their portfolios. So, a decision to support the no-confidence motion might and can boomerang against the SLFP ministers in no time and it is doubtful that they would agree to support a motion that will perhaps destroy their political career.

If the case is as such, the only option available to the proponents of the Caretaker Government is to dissolve the Parliament by a Presidential decree and then attempt to appoint a fresh Caretaker Government. But within the provisions of the Constitution, this also cannot be done as the President has no power to dissolve a newly elected Parliament until it completes four and half year’s duration since its inception. The current Parliament completes this mandatory period in January 2020. Even if the current President is re-elected to office in 2020 and then dissolves the Parliament in February 2020 and appoints a Caretaker Government immediately, that government can only be in power for one or two months as the general election has to be held within one month of the dissolution of the Parliament. Again, it becomes clear that the second option available to create a Caretaker Government too is unrealistic.

Unrealistic

From all these, it is apt to state the political tactics of the proponents of a Caretaker Government are absolutely unrealistic, imaginary and utopian. Politicians mostly take decisions on imaginary political grounds which are far detached from realistic politics. As far as the Sri Lankan Constitutional context is concerned it appears that the idea of Caretaker Government is not only theoretically wrong, but also it is an utopian idea that can be never realized. Therefore, everyone should clearly understand the current political situation and know that the current government headed by Ranil Wickremesinghe cannot be removed through such imaginary and utopian political means.


Add new comment