Articles by Dr Jehan Perera

In a change from the past the ongoing session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva is no longer generating political passion at it did in the past. There is a sense amongst most people that the present government is on good terms with the international community unlike the previous government. Therefore they see no real threat emanating from Geneva. This has enabled the government to engage in a flurry of legislative activities that have not attracted so much of public interest. The government has drafted legislation to amend the Office of Missing Persons (OMP) Act and a gazette notice has been issued in this regard. The draft legislation will be presented in Parliament shortly. The government has also presented a Bill to parliament to ratify and implement the 'International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance'. Sri Lanka became a signatory of this Convention in December 10, 2015.

The weekend after the opening session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, I went to the public library to exchange books. While standing in line to return the borrowed books, I was approached by one of the other library members standing in line. He had seen me on television at the opening session in Geneva where I was part of the government delegation but representing a civil society perspective. This event had received wide coverage in the Tamil media in particular. He urged me to ensure that the victim survivors of the war should be compensated by the government without delay. He said they needed jobs and money to look after their children and the disabled needed to be provided with artificial limbs in addition.

Constitutional reform is once again on the front burner of the national agenda. The election manifestos of both President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in 2015 gave high priority to it. The government started strongly with passage of the 19th Amendment through parliament. In an unprecedented act of statesmanship President Sirisena voluntarily relinquished much of the power he was vested with as executive president of the country and reduced the term of office of the president. This was followed by the government appointing a Public Representations Committee on constitutional reforms comprising leading public intellectuals drawn from academia and civil society. They were mandated to canvass the views of the general public on constitutional reform in a hitherto unprecedented manner.

A year ago a contractor whom I spoke to rejoiced that corruption was much reduced under the new government. He said that the minister in charge of his area of work had merely asked for a donation to be made to support a public institution. Though this donation had nothing to do with the contract, he was happy to oblige, as it was for a public cause and not for the minister’s personal pocket. When I met this same contractor last week he was a disillusioned man. He said that business was good, but that corruption had gone sky high, and there was no limit to what was now demanded. Although perhaps still less than it was under the previous government, corruption is on the rise and is likely to get worse unless government policy changes and there is the political will to implement it right from the top.

The government has been dogged by negative public opinion on its failure to tackle what it promised during its election campaigns of two years ago. In the public perception it has yet to satisfactorily tackled corruption, bring about visible economic development or ensure the correction of war-related injustices. It has been losing popularity due to its inability to defend its performance on these issues. Marriages of convenience tend to get weakened in times of prolonged stress. There has been open bickering between the two main constituent parties of the government alliance. It is no surprise in this context that the government has been balking at facing local government elections. These have been postponed on various grounds for the past two years. The government’s justification with regard to not holding the local government elections has been wearing thin.

The constitutional reform process appeared to be on track with the presentation of the report of the Public Representations Committee in June last year followed by the reports of the six parliamentary subcommittees in November. However, time tables and road maps are necessarily contingent. Whether the time frames or the targets to meet are realistic will also depend on the actions of others and cannot be exactly predicted. The government’s most ambitious reform project is the drafting of a new constitution. This could change the power balance between the different branches of government, the ethnic communities and between the government and people. It would hardly be cause for surprise if the time frame for constitutional reform changes or the content of the envisaged reforms themselves should be revised.

The formation of the Government of National Unity in the aftermath of the victory of President Maithripala Sirisena at the presidential election of January 2015 generated hopes of a rejuvenation of the polity and the unleashing of its full post-war economic potential. However, much to the disappointment of those who believed in the new government, the rift between the UNP and SLFP, which are the two main constituent parties of the government, appears to be increasing with the passage of time. At its root is the perennial quest of politicians and political parties for power, to gain it, keep it and not to lose it.

The change of government that took place in 2015 gave rise to much hope that the new government would solve the most intractable problem that the country faces, and resolve the ethnic conflict that has been a festering sore from the time of Independence in 1948. It is not as if sincere efforts at problem solving were not made in the past. But a notable feature of past attempts at ethnic problem solving was that they were made by one of the two major political parties, while the other remained in opposition. The lesson of history is that the party in opposition always did its best to scuttle the efforts of the party in government in order to come back to power using unleashed emotions of nationalism. The failed solutions of 1957 (Banda Chelva Pact), 1965 (Dudley-Chelva Pact), 1987 (Indo Lanka Accord), 2000 (Chandrika Constitution) and 2002 (Ceasefire Agreement) provide a dismal testament to this reality.

The change of government that took place in 2015 gave rise to much hope that the new government would solve the most intractable problem that the country faces, and resolve the ethnic conflict that has been a festering sore from the time of Independence in 1948. It is not as if sincere efforts at problem solving were not made in the past. But a notable feature of past attempts at ethnic problem solving was that they were made by one of the two major political parties, while the other remained in opposition. The lesson of history is that the party in opposition always did its best to scuttle the efforts of the party in government in order to come back to power using unleashed emotions of nationalism. The failed solutions of 1957 (Banda Chelva Pact), 1965 (Dudley-Chelva Pact), 1987 (Indo Lanka Accord), 2000 (Chandrika Constitution) and 2002 (Ceasefire Agreement) provide a dismal testament to this reality.

The disquiet about the government’s commitment to deliver on its promises is now extending itself to those sections of the international community that gave their support to the government on the basis of its commitment to human rights and reconciliation. The sense of disenchantment amongst the general population is also getting more pronounced. The common factor is the failure of the government to deliver on its promises. With regard to the general population it is the continuing failure to deliver economic development that directly benefits those who depend on governmental largesse to get them out of poverty. It is also the ineffectiveness of the government’s anti-corruption programme that is reflected in the failure to take cases through to their conclusion.