For the past couple of years, there has been a persistent call for a system change. However, up to date, no one has ventured as to what that change should entail or the objectives it strives for from this new system. If at all, the only suggestion has been to get rid of all 255 lawmakers in Parliament.
The absurdity of that notion alone highlights the lack of seriousness attached to the demand to change the system. Clearly, the call for a change does not come from a place of sincere interest to see a better country. Nevertheless, if the disastrous 2022 had any lesson to offer, then that would be that the present systems are unsustainable and an actual change is a must.
Therefore, the call for a system change should not be relegated as an idle, rabble rousing cry just to discredit governance or the Government. It should be a serious discussion, leading to a dedicated drive for clear tangible goals.
What do those crying for System Change really want?
Clearly, ‘get rid of all 255 Parliamentarians’ is not a plan. It is just a slogan stemming from the suggestion that all politicians are collectively responsible for our current dissatisfactions. However, no one has ventured with what we are to replace this sacked Parliament. If the next step ought to replace parliament with another set of 255 new faces or if the very concept of Parliament is to be scrapped has never been made clear. Somehow the inference is that, once the current set of Parliamentarians are ousted, all problems waylaying us would instantly disappear.
Certainly, we cannot wait without filling the void created when all Parliamentarians are thrown out. If we are merely to replace the heads to continue with the same procedures, then it would not be a system change - just a cosmetic change only.
The same temptations would exist, leading to corruption; same bottlenecks would allow inefficiency and lethargy and we would continue to exist with our chicken-wire-chewing-gum solutions to get by but without a clue as to what ought to be our short, mid and long term goals. Without a clear objective to strive for, we would continue to entertain new policies every time the face changes. This is what we have been doing for the past seven and half decades.
Consequently, we yo-yo between extreme ends. For instance, we blame capitalism for corruption but laments inefficiency as an offshoot of socialism. At the very least, we cannot decide if winning against terrorism was a victory or a crime. As we lack a national policy on any of these matters, instead of moving forward decisively on an accepted framework, we are forever squabbling on where we stand on these issues.
Placing overseeing committees would be a moot point, if the weaknesses of the system are allowed to continue. It is being insinuated that an overseeing committee would strengthen accountability. However, the question remains as to what or who would oversee the overseeing committee to ensure that they would deliver.
The performance of the current commissions is a case in point, whether it be the Public Utility Commission, Human Rights Commission or the National Police Commission. All it has yielded at the end of the day is controversy and conflict with the political arm. This in turn further discredits the political order. The commissions itself have failed to produce any real benefit to the people, but add to the woes by being an additional expense.
At the same time, whether an injustice is done to the voter to have their elected representatives overridden by an unelected group is a fair question. Commission members maybe appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister or Parliament. Yet, once in position, they are to act independently. This is the idea. However, most unfortunately, as was seen especially by the Election Commission, this independence was abused by members who turned rogue. This proves that commissions in a weak system is just a plaster over a leak.
Therefore, this slogan to rid all Parliamentarians is originating from a very dark place and echoed by confused minds. Its only purpose is to discredit the faces rather than a real change in the system.
Getting rid of leaders in a society is an old tactic of conquerors. In the olden days, all leaders were killed by the new ruler. Today, opponents are not killed by harming the mortal body but their character. Hence, the question arises if ‘system change’ is another ploy of the deep state in pursuit of their own agenda and goals.
The effort since 1987 to rid the Executive Presidency (EP) cannot be ignored. Every presidential candidate latches on to this demand and pledges to scrap the post the minute they are elected to power. However, not a single elected president, once in power, has shown any inclination to do so.
This is because of the gap between reality and the devious agenda behind the anti-presidency campaign. Indeed, this is the most insincere one of all campaigns. Granted that the EP is far from perfect. It allows the sitting president to get away with almost anything without being held accountable. However, this is not the real reason that motivates those exerting to abolish the EP.
The EP is the only hold over the unitary status of our country. As long as the EP exists, the nine provinces must act in accordance with the President’s wishes. If the EP is abolished, the Central Government loses its control over the provinces and in turn the provinces become autonomous. Therefore, the EP is a real thorn in the eye of the separatists.
Presidential candidates get on this bandwagon not out of sympathy to the separatists. Their objective is to win over the minority votes. Hence, it is little wonder they lose interest in fulfilling their own pledge to abolish the EP once in power. In fact, it would be quite suicidal if they did allow EP to be abolished.
Nevertheless, if ever a president would want to distract nationalists and die-hard Sinhala politicians, all that needs to be done is to pretend to mull over implementing the 13th Amendment in full. Even if EP prevailed, granting land and police powers to Provincial Councils can create a situation as good as abolishing the EP.
History of ‘System Change’
Until about 1990s, the vote blocks were quite solid. Most voters tended to vote for the political party that their parents voted for. There was no effort to weigh in their past performances or present policies. It was a matter of immense pride for most that they had voted for the same party for generations. Perhaps the only clear exception was in 1977 when the UNP won with a five sixth majority.
However, since the 1990s, the then younger generations became more discerning and moved out of this traditional block. One reason was that the two main political parties, the UNP and the SLFP, who were always on every policy spectrum’s extreme opposite, had to move to a more moderate stance. Hence, the UNP became more socialist and the SLFP more capitalist. Thus, the clear division of the two parties were no longer visible.
Besides this blurred policy stance, politicians themselves diluted the solid image of the party. Most politicians became opportunistic and began to frequently switch party alliances. Some politicians have thus managed to remain in power irrespective of which party is in power. Delivery wise also politicians could not be distinguished.
Thus until 2005, the political situation in the country was rather unstable. The UNP that had been ruling for 17 years began to lose their clout, especially after their charismatic leaders such as Lalith Athulathmudali, Ranasinghe Premadasa and Gamini Dissanayake were assassinated in quick succession by the LTTE.
During these 17 years, national security deteriorated quickly. The country underwent two terrorist movements. Though the JVP’s second uprising was quickly suppressed, it was a brutal and traumatic experience. LTTE terrorism, which the UNP inherited from the 1970-77 SLFP Sirima Bandaranaike’s Government, spiraled out of control during their tenure.
By 1994, we saw island-wide riots targeting middle class Tamils and narrowly avoided an Indian invasion. We barely managed to contain the situation into an intervention. This was a very low point for our country. The 13th Amendment is the scar that reminds us of that very unsavoury episode.
Hence in 1994, Chandrika Kumaratunga - Sirima Bandaranaike’s daughter - was elected as the Executive President. With her ascending to power, the long UNP reign ended. Yet, in 2001, her Government lost the General Elections and it was once again Ranil Wickremesinghe from the UNP who managed to muster the necessary majority to form a Parliament.
Ranil Wickremesinghe might have most probably become the sixth Executive President of Sri Lanka in 2005 had it not been for the LTTE. For reasons of their own, the LTTE forbade the voters in the North and East Provinces from voting at the Presidential Elections.
However by 2009, most of the voters had gravitated towards Mahinda Rajapaksa. The annihilation of the LTTE made him a hero. That political migration was also possible as by that time most voters had moved out of that notion that they too must support the party voted for by their elders. Even though political opponents tried to drive a wedge between Mahinda Rajapaksa and his huge following by fielding then General Sarath Fonseka, this was not successful.
By 2014, this began to change. The collective Opposition, who were sent to the dog house by the voter in 2010 for failing to support the war, managed to establish that the Rajapaksas were corrupt and arrogant. This became the foundation on which the battle cry for a system change arose.
Those who carried the system change flag were quite passionate about it. It was on this high emotion that President Mahinda Rajapaksa - a strong, national leader - was voted out of Office in 2015 to make a change. By ridding him, many voters thought good governance would be instantly established.
However, they did not elect fresh faces into Parliament. Instead, as president, the man elected was a stalwart SLFP member, who during his long political career as a politician held a number of significant portfolios, including the health ministry. Yet, when he was fielded as the ‘Common Candidate’ for the then collective Opposition, he was an unknown figure. Such was his unremarkable political career.
Yet, voters embraced him enthusiastically, simply for his simplicity. Many found his weak personality, in contrast to Mahinda Rajapaksa’s alpha male persona, endearing. Needless to say, Maithripala Sirisena failed to deliver good governance.
As we bounced from one misadventure to another under Maithripala Sirisena’s watch, voters matured. This can be perceived by the change in goal. Instead of a vague call for a system change, people deduced that for progress, we need a strong leader who can instill discipline in the society. It was in this mind frame that Gotabaya Rajapaksa was elected as the eighth Executive President of Sri Lanka with an overwhelming majority.
However, due to a multitude of reasons that are beyond the scope of this essay, he failed to deliver. His efforts to prioritize democracy over discipline nearly costed him his life. Especially the last few months of his presidency were very confusing and it is very difficult to understand the logic or reasoning behind the decisions he enacted or allowed.
This left the voter reeling. A proven officer with a clear track record as a disciplinarian was brought to power. Yet, the country became the most indisciplined whilst under his watch. It is during this state of confusion that the call to rid all 255 Parliamentarians has emerged as a way of system change.
Now that the country has returned to some semblance of normality again, people too have calmed down. The call for a system change too has subsided. Yet the need for a true system change remains strong and urgent.
Add new comment