The talking point in political circles last week was an interview given by President Ranil Wickremesinghe to the German television station, Deutsche Welle in an interview with one of its senior producers, Martin Gak. The interview evoked a strong response in Sri Lanka and went viral.
The characteristic feature of the interview was President Wickremesinghe’s robust defence of his Government’s stance vis-à-vis the Easter terror attacks of 2019 and Sri Lanka’s human rights record in recent years. The President categorically rebuffed the allegations directed towards the Government.
In no mood to treat the interviewer lightly, President Wickremesinghe repeatedly noted that due process has been followed with regard to the Easter attacks, several inquiries and commissions had concluded sitting and further investigations are being planned in light of recent accusations.
These allegations came in the form of a documentary aired by Britain’s Channel 4 television network. President Wickremesinghe lashed out at the interviewer for giving undue credibility to the allegations. “Why do you treat Channel 4 as sacred, a lot of people in Britain don’t,” the President noted.
One of the most noteworthy revelations of the interview was the President’s declaration that an international inquiry would not be conducted into the Easter attacks. “The Sri Lankan Government does not conduct international inquiries”, President Wickremesinghe declared categorically.
The President noted that many agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the United States and the British Police had indicated that no outside agencies were involved in the attacks. As such, there was no need whatsoever for an international inquiry, the President said.
Clarifying IMF assistance
Another revelation made by the President was regarding the second tranche of financial assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The interviewer claimed that this disbursement had been ‘stopped’. President Wickremesinghe clarified that this was not the case with regard to funding.
“It’s not that they are stopping the second package; we have come to an agreement. We will see the results of what we’ve done this year, by next year. With regard to targets, it was always felt that some targets may not be achieved, and the IMF was informed of this,” President Wickremesinghe clarified.
The President also noted that there were some proposals of the IMF which were not accepted. “We have not agreed because we feel it might add to the burden endured by people. The IMF has asked us to come up with alternate proposals. The alternate proposals were given to them,” he explained.
President Wickremesinghe also dismissed concerns that Sri Lanka was not honouring its commitments to human rights. “I am working with the international community on putting this right. We are working together with them. They know we are doing it,” he told Deutsche Welle.
The reaction to President Wickremesinghe’s interview in Sri Lanka was significant. Video clips of the dialogue went viral on social media and many commentators were to note that the tone and tenor of the President’s response reflected a sense of indignation that had not been publicly displayed before.
They observed that for decades, President Wickremesinghe, particularly when he was in the opposition, had been portrayed by political opponents as the darling of the West and had been labelled as a leader who was prepared to pander to them at the expense of the country’s interests.
The interview with Deutsche Welle debunked this myth. It depicted the President as a leader who was very mindful of the national priorities of the country he leads and as one who was prepared to say so without the traditional inhibitions of diplomacy, while articulating his concerns eloquently.
Political implications
Commentators have been quick to note that the President’s performance on Deutsche Welle, wittingly or unwittingly, would enhance his political standing in the country. This will not hurt him if he did contest the Presidential Elections which must be held by this time next year according to the Constitution.
The President’s performance at the interview also gave credence to speculation that, at the time of the next Presidential Election, he would be offering to lead the nation for a further term, not as the candidate from his own United National Party (UNP) but as a ‘common’ candidate.
As the leader of the country, President Wickremesinghe has demonstrated that he has the ability to govern utilising politicians from not only the UNP, but its one-time arch-rivals, the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) as well those from the UNP breakaway group, the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB).
The political philosophy underpinning the President’s pronouncements at the Deutsche Welle interview also resonates well with the ideology of the SLPP, much more than the traditional framework within which the UNP has operated in, in the past, political observers have noted.
The other major development which may have significant political implications in the months to come was a verdict by the Supreme Court declaring that a decision by the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) to expel the Minister for Environment Naseer Ahamed was valid in law.
Under the terms of the Constitution, this will lead to Ahamed’s expulsion from the SLMC which in turn will mean that he will forfeit his seat in Parliament as well as his ministerial portfolio. Ahamed was sacked by the SLMC for violating a party decision to oppose the vote on the Budget in 2021.
When Ahamed was sacked by his party, he took his case to the Supreme Court. This week, a three-judge-bench bench headed by Justice Preethi Padman Surasena observed that there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the party to expel petitioner Naseer Ahamad from party membership.
Historical context
Why this verdict becomes so significant in the current political scenario is because many parliamentarians elected at the August 2020 general election have now become ‘independent’ and parted ways with the political parties under whose banner they contested that election.
The decision has been hailed as a landmark verdict. While there have been numerous political cross-overs in recent years and political parties have taken dissident MPs to court on many occasions, very few parties have been successful in obtaining a verdict in their favour, leading to expulsion.
There was a time decades ago when political parties expelled parliamentarians for violating party discipline. A notable case in point was when the UNP under President Ranasinghe Premadasa expelled Lalith Athulathmudali, Gamini Dissanayake, G. M. Premachandra and others.
However, after the UNP was forced into opposition ranks, there were numerous instances when its parliamentarians crossed-over to the Government, most frequently under then President Mahinda Rajapaksa. When it attempted to expel these MPs, it was stalled by the legal action.
Among beneficiaries of such decisions were Tilak Karunaratne who was disciplined by the SLFP for criticising then party leader Sirima Bandaranaike and UNP parliamentarians such as Sarath Amunugama, Rohitha Bogollagama and current Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella.
Political party discipline
The most recent example of this was when the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) attempted to take disciplinary action against ministers Nimal Siripala de Silva and Mahinda Amaraweera for defying a party decision, joining the Government of President Wickremesinghe and accepting Cabinet posts.
In the current scenario, the verdict on Minister Ahamed can potentially open the floodgates for political parties to pursue those who have defected from their ranks. Already SLPP general Secretary Sagara Kariyawasam has sounded a warning, saying the party will study the Ahamed verdict closely.
Kariyawasam noted that a number of SLPP members had breached the party discipline recently with some of its MPs even joining the Opposition. “We will consider taking action against them in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. We will meet this week and discuss further action,” he said.
Kariyawasam named Dullas Alahapperuma, Dilan Perera, and Anura Yapa as SLPPers who could be potentially expelled. However, he said the SLPP cannot take disciplinary action against Udaya Gammanpila, Wimal Weerawansa and Vasudeva Nanayakkara as they were from different parties.
While the verdict on Minister Ahamed throws an interesting conundrum to political parties, it is likely that all parties will evaluate this development with an eye on the next national elections and what impact it will have on those polls. It all points to some very interesting months ahead.
