You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘vote’ tag.

qrcode.29589564In this section I look at how Democracy has evolved in the modern period, and glance at the methods by which people choose their representatives.

 

Democracy in the Modern Period

During the Renaissance, when classical (that is, Greek and Roman) learning was revived in Europe, there were a few Italian city-states that practised some forms of democracy. But these too eventually submitted to the rule of autocrats, or became parts of larger kingdoms.

As the world began entering the Modern Period, beginning in the sixteenth century, Europe, after reaching Asia and the Americas through its voyages of exploration, began to exercise power over the rest of the world At this time Europe was dominated by large empires and kingdoms ruled by hereditary monarchs. But as wealth increased, and more and more people began to feel the need to participate in government, demands for democracy developed. Study of classical authors helped to establish the idea that the state should be based on a social contract, whereby the rulers were bound to act on behalf of the people. If they failed to do this, they could be challenged. The Divine Rights Theory of Monarchy, which held that a state belonged to the monarch, lost credibility.

 

As mentioned earlier, it was in England that parliament emerged in the seventeeth century as an institution capable of challenging the executive power of the king. The French Revolution against monarchy, and the American Revolution against British rule in the eighteenth century, established the idea that government essentially belonged to the people, and derived its authority from them. Even though at the beginning of the nineteenth century the kings of Europe tried to restore the old order, this was only temporary. Monarchies prevailed in most countries until the twentieth century, but the kings had to accept parliamentary authority which gradually increased. Those who resisted the longest were swept away during the First World War. Those who had compromised earlier, such as the English King, kept their thrones though actual decision-making powers passed to the elected representatives of the people. Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

sleepy 2Continued from Enemies of the President’s Promse: Mahinda Rajapaksa and the Seven Dwarfs – Sleepy 1

GL’s appointment as Minister of External Affairs in 2010 was generally welcomed. Bogollagama had lost the election, which made the President’s task easier since, given his complaisant approach to those who supported him, he would have found it awkward to replace Bogollagama. The only other serious candidate was Mahinda Samarasinghe, who had peformed well as Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights. The Sri Lankan Ambassador in Geneva, Dayan Jayatilleka, who had done a fantastic job in staving off moves against Sri Lanka at the Human Rights Council, had refused to deal with Bogollagama and instead insisted on the Minister of Human Rights being the main Ministerial presence at sessions of the Council.

Bogollagama however got his revenge soon after Jayatilleka’s greatest triumph, at a Special Session of the Council summoned on a largely British initiative to discuss Sri Lanka. This initiative, generally used only for emergencies, had succeeded only after the Tigers had been defeated. This was fortunate, since clearly the game plan had been to insist on a Cease Fire. Jayatilleka, who had extremely good relations with Sri Lanka’s natural allies, the Indians and the Pakistanis, Egypt as head of the Organization of Islamic States and Cuba as the head of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Chinese and the Russians, and the Brazilians and the South Africans, put forward his own resolution before the Europeans had got theirs ready, and this was carried with a resounding majority.

The ease of the victory, and the widespread perception in Sri Lanka that he was its architect, was his downfall. Samarasinghe was irritated in that his role was played down. Also upset was the Attorney General, Mohan Pieris, despite the fact that Jayatilleka had been instrumental in persuading the President to have him appointed. Pieris had come prepared to speak at the Session but, after Jayatileka made the opening statement, he got me to deliver the closing remarks, given that we had worked together on the Council very successfully, and knew which factors to emphasize. But this did not please the duo and they did nothing to defend Jayatilleka when the knives came out. Indeed they failed even to contact him when he returned to Sri Lanka.

Typically, the President was the first to get in touch, and try to use Jayatilleka’s services again: when the latter mentioned how disappointed he had been that no one had contacted him after he got back to Sri Lanka, the President said that was no surprise, after the manner in which he had been treated. The fact that the President himself had acquiesced in the dismissal was thus sublimely passed over.

It was less than two months after the resolution that Jayatilleka was summarily removed. The President may have been persuaded by the ease of the victory to the belief that any idiot could handle international relations, for that certainly is the view he and the government embodied over the next few years. It was also alleged however that the Israelis had moved heaven and earth to get rid of Jayatilleka, since his intellectual abilities had put him in the forefront of moves to bring the Palestinian issue to the attention of international fora. Unfortunately the Israelis had the ear of Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, and also of Lalith Weeratunge, both of whom actively promoted Jayatilleka’s dismissal.

He was replaced in Geneva by Kshenuka Seneviratne, who was perhaps the last official in the Ministry to represent the mindset of the eighties when, under Jayewardene and his Foreign Minister Hameed, it was assumed that Sri Lanka had to be firmly allied to the West. This also involved hostility to India, and Kshenuka certainly embodied this, and was found later to have actively tried to set the President against the Indians, after the 2012 March Geneva debacle when a resolution against Sri Lanka was carried at the Human Rights Council.

Kshenuka had been High Commissioner in London in the days when Britain was bitterly opposed to Sri Lanka but she had done little to counter this. She claimed on the strength of her time there to be an expert on the country, and when her successor, a retired judge, proved ineffective, she took charge of the President’s approach to Britain. Thus, late in 2010, she encouraged him to travel to Britain just to address the Oxford Union, something he had already done. The High Commissioner in London advised against this, as did his experienced Deputy from the Ministry, Pakeer Amza, but Kshenuka’s will prevailed.

She was strongly supported by Sajin Vas Gunawardena, whom the President chose as what was termed Monitoring Member of Parliament for the Ministry of External Affairs, on the grounds that administration there was a mess and someone was needed to sort things out. Sajin was a good friend of Namal’s, and GL naturally acquiesced in the appointment.  Sajin and Kshenuka got on extremely well, and they in effect ran foreign policy over the next few years. Read the rest of this entry »

… after the unprecendented action of two Cabinet Ministers who did not vote for the government in a vote of confidence, after which one of them has put the government on probation.

 

Your Excellency

Last year, when I did not vote for the impeachment of the Chief Justice, instructions had been given, before I even returned home, to reduce my Security. I did not see this as a problem, since I have long argued that we now deploy far too much security, which makes a mockery of your great achievement in getting rid of terrorism from Sri Lanka in 2009. Two officers, as I now have, are quite enough for Members of Parliament, with perhaps one more for Constituency members. And certainly Ministers too could do with far less security, given the numbers and the expense involved.

I was happy therefore to contribute even in a small way to reducing government expenditure, and I realized that such a token reprimand made sense given the general requirement to support government in votes. However it is generally accepted in all parliamentary democracies that votes of conscience are acceptable, and certainly so when there is no threat of instability for government.

The case is very different in the case of a No Confidence Motion against government, and it is unthinkable that Cabinet members should refrain from voting. I hope therefore that I will not be the only person to suffer for having failed to vote, given also the great difference between that occasion and this.

On a related point, two years ago you called me to say I should not criticize public servants who are not able to respond. That was with regard to the falsehood told you by Ms Kshenuka Seneviratne, calculated to rouse suspicions about the Indian Parliamentary delegation as well as the Leader of the House. I noted that it would have been reprehensible to remain silent, and you told me then that I should write to the Ministry. I did so, but have not as yet had a response. I was told by the Secretary to the Ministry of External Affairs at that time that he had sought advice from the Presidential Secretariat, given the seriousness of the matter, but had received no response.

I should note that your Secretary was aware of the incident, and confirmed that you had indeed been misled about the delegation, but that he had sought reassurance from the Ministers of Economic Development and of External Affairs, who had confirmed that there was no truth whatsoever in the story you had been told. Given the tremendous sympathy displayed towards Sri Lanka by the head of the Indian delegation, Sushma Swaraj, and the important role she is likely to play in the new Indian government, it is worth reflecting on the enormous damage that would have been done to Sri Lanka had you cancelled your meeting with that delegation as was your inclination after your mind had been poisoned.

Recently I was sent by Mr Kumar Rupesinghe the text of an interview given by the Minister of Housing and Construction, in which he is deeply critical of the Secretary to the Treasury. This is the more reprehensible since, as Mr Rupesinghe pointed out, the Secretary must be acting in accordance with policies decided on by government and by you as Minister of Finance. This is a very different situation from that of Ms Seneviratne who acted on her own in spreading malicious gossip.

I hope therefore that suitable action will be taken to make it clear that the Secretary to the Treasury should not be publicly insulted when following government directives and that such conduct is not acceptable in a Member of the Cabinet.

In all fairness however to the ideas expressed by the Minister of Housing and Construction, I believe he too has now understood the need for reforms, so that we might fulfil the tremendous potential the country had at the time of the last election. But it would be a pity if reforms sent us backward, whereas the commitments to pluralism and wider consultation that were made at the time would help us to move forward and overcome the various threats we face. We should also be aware of the increasing feeling against current structures, and should therefore – given your immense popularity as compared with that of your Cabinet colleagues – work towards a Presidency that can function effectively with full accountability to a Parliament that is strengthened to fulfil its basic responsibilities.

 Yours sincerely,

 

Rajiva Wijesinha

 

 

cc.      Hon Dinesh Gunawardena, Chief Government Whip

Mr Lalith Weeratunge, Secretary to the President

Presentation at a meeting of the Pakistan Liberal Forum – Islamabad, 11th September 2012


I am grateful to the
Pakistan Liberal Forum for having invited me to speak today at your seminar on Challenges for Democracy in the upcoming Elections. Though you have suggested I present a regional perspective, it would be more practical I think for me to talk about democracy in Sri Lanka and the challenges we have faced, which may perhaps have lessons for you in Pakistan too.

Sri Lanka has been a functioning democracy for 80 years now, with Universal Adult Franchise bestowed on us by the British in 1931. That they gave us a privilege you in the then united subcontinent did not receive for over a decade longer is not a tribute to us, but rather a function of our small size and the perception that, whatever happened, we would not be a threat to the Empire. We were given not only the opportunity to select a legislature, but also an approximation to Cabinet government with seven Ministers chosen from amongst the members of the Legislature. Needless to say, though, there were three appointed Ministers, for Law and Finance and what was termed Chief Secretary, while Defence and External Affairs were kept in the hands of the Governor.

We followed the classic Westminster model which, as you know, does not separate the Executive from the Legislature. All members of the Cabinet were chosen from the Legislature, but unlike in Britain this soon turned into membership of the Legislature being seen as the main qualification for becoming a Minister.  Ability was not considered important, and seniority seemed a sufficient claim.

There were a few exceptions, and I can also think of one case where a man of recognized ability was brought into a safe seat, a practice that the British had, so as to bring in people of talent. More importantly they also had a House of Lords to which proven talent could be introduced, which India for instance still continues with, in the form of the Rajya Sabha. As you know, several of the most distinguished Ministers in the Indian cabinet have not faced the hustings, but are in effect appointed.

Read the rest of this entry »

Rajiva Wijesinha

June 2019
M T W T F S S
« Dec    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: