Sirisena-Ranil and the art of the possible

"Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall"

"Excellent joke!"
by Kumar David0-May 30, 2015
Whether this is a Ranil-Sirisena (R&S) government or an S&R one, is
significant. It certainly started off with all the trumps and partnership
seniority in Ranils hands, but time and completion of the 100-Day tasks
has moved the equation into an S&R domain; so I will use this acronym
assigning political seniority to the President. Typical of the shift is that
Ranil asked for dissolution of parliament but President Sirisena, sweating
under SLFP heat seems to be holding out for later, hinting at AugustSeptember. Pulling in different directions on this issue is understandable;
though the calculations on both sides I believe are erroneous. The UNP
opines that it will do better under the existing PR scheme while the SLFP (I
hope not under the influence of astrological opium again) seems deluded
that electorates which voted for Rajapaksa on 8 January are theirs for the
asking.
I have stuck up a rude finger at conventional wisdom and been proven
right before, so I make bold to say that both are mistaken. The SLFP will
be decimated in a first-past-the-post (FPtP) contest even worse than in
Proportional Representation (PR) because most of its candidates are
scoundrels and social dregs; if the UNP can put up a list of half decent
fellows (dont expect more) it will make gains. As an example, Vasudeva

though not a rogue, only (sic!) political traitor, will not hold his seat in an
FPtP contest. In one-to-one FPtP contests, sans Gotabhayas uniformed
killers and minus Basils robbed billions, SLFP candidate list will be routed
except, perhaps, in the deep South. FPtP will benefit the UNP more than
the SLFP. If PR however, the SLFP block vote will guarantee it a reasonable
number of seats.
I also believe that the SLFP casting lustful eyes on the 90 electorates that
voted pro-Mahinda in January is folly. The effects of the fiasco of his
defeat, exposure of a web of crime and intrigue, and the breakup of the
network of infamy have been devastating. The Party has been sapped and
to put it bluntly, the SLFP is weak and Mahinda a spent force. The Mafia
State erected in the Mahinda period has not been dismantled; oh no, only
the surface scratched and still a long way to go, but the rogue battalions
have been frightened and their ability to intervene in elections shrunk.
Should Rajapaksa loonies part company with the Sirisena SLFP and go it
alone I cannot see more than 10 seats go their way in FPtP only in the
South - and if PR, even less. Hence survival for the Rajapaksa loony faction
is predicated on hanging on to the SLFP and bargaining for nominations. It
is out of the question that President Sirisena will offer Rajapaksa the PM
slot but the resignation of Yapa Abeywardena, Dilan Perera, Pavitra and CB
Ratnayake is at odds with this common sense view and signals a deeper
plot. I grant this article is an opinion piece but these thoughts are worth
frank debate.
President Sirisenas dilemma is straightforward and I have sympathy. He is
the head of the SLFP and in this capacity it is his obligation to nurture its
performance and naturally he does not wish to be the chairman who
presides over its decline. Hence not only the Rajapaksa loony faction but
also the Sirisena mainstream sees the need to avoid a split. Formally,
Sirisenas task is not to help Ranil become the next prime minister but to
ensure the SLFP does well. I am not suggesting the President will
manoeuvre the 20th Amendment to benefit his party; not at all. All I say is
that without prejudice to his position as head of state, and irrespective of
the electoral system, he will (he must) do his bit to improve the SLFPs
fortunes. Hence to avoid a split he will throw crumbs in the direction of the
Rajapaksa loonies and consolidate the SLFP vote. The UNP doesnt like it,
but hell what does it expect? That the SLFP Chairman undermines his own
party?
The Presidents dilemma

Herein lies the crux of an unenviable dilemma for the President, and to a
degree the Prime Minister and the UNP. The S&R combination is working
well. If one grants that nothing is perfect and the shortcomings - which I
will presently touch on - are not fatal, the government is working as well
as a bourgeois-democratic contraption can be expected to. Has a decade in
the Rajapaksa sewer so lowered the bar that I am easily satisfied by
modest gains? Maybe, but what I am trying to say is something different.
As the Americans say "If it aint broke, dont fix it!" That is to say, if the
S&R engine is chugging along, and if Messrs S and R are working well with
each other (the importance of the subjective side can not be
overemphasised) then why open Pandoras Box?
It may sound sacrilegious to the SLFP but the truth is that President
Sirisena is better off with Ranil as his prime minister for the next five years
than if the SLFP wins the election and foists some incompetent
nincompoop as prime ministerial partner. Of course Sirisena cannot say
this openly, but in private he can hope. A national government, per se, will
not work in the period ahead, but one that additionally marries a Sirisena
presidency to a Wickremesinghe prime ministership might. The crisis in the
SLFP is driving the two closer together and forcing the President into a
quick dissolution.
The sting in the tail
No unabashed, unrepentant and unapologetic Marxist should finish an
essay without bitching about the state of the world or the nation. I will
leave the world at large to a future date: Is the global economic recovery a
myth? Is ISIL beckoning Armageddon? Why is Pope Francis the most
popular man on the planet? Why are the frontiers of theoretical physics in
confounded confusion? Instead, I will make do with a smaller national
canvas today.
Having sung hosannas to S&R Ltd. it is time for a little course correction;
otherwise I will be lynched by unsentimental hard-core realists. The
question is are all the shortcomings of the S&R administration a
consequence of the most that could be achieved under intractable
constraints imposed by circumstances, or was it possible to have achieved
more? The verdict is mixed. 19A had to be passed with a 2/3 majority, that
was sine qua non or the government would have perished. Punches had to

be pulled and rotten apples swallowed through gritted teeth (what a

metaphor!) to get it enacted. I grant limitation of presidential powers
instead of abolition falls into this category. But why an inane Council of
State whose inmates will be over 80% appointed by the leader of the UNP
and leader of the SLFP, because that is the reality?
And why capitulate and replace seven good men on the Constitutional
Council by seven parliamentarians? Parliamentarians are just the persons
who SHOULD NOT be included on the Council if one respects the principle
of division of power between the three branches of the state. Refusing this
capitulation would have brought down the vote on 19A from a 215-to-1
majority to say, 190-to-30, still safely over 2/3rds. Politically however, it
would have been a much better result as it would have isolated and
exposed the saboteurs of the Rajapaksa looney mob for what they are;
wreckers with no concern for constitutional amendment, hell bent on
disrupting the government and salvaging Rajapaksa and his retinue of
crony criminals. A wonderful opportunity to carry 19A with about 190 votes
and show up the wreckers was lost because at the 11th hour both R&S got
butterflies in their soft bellies; indeed "some by virtue fall" (Measure for
Measure).
Everybody, yours faithfully included, has been complaining loudly that the
R&S (note order reversal) administration has wasted useful months going
easy on the blackguards of the previous regime who robbed and abducted
with no hesitation. OK, my prayer that with the fall of the regime these
scoundrels, siblings included should be strung up on lamp-posts, like
Benito Mussolini, was too much for the good Lord to grant. But the snails
pace of prosecution has been painful. Now with 19A done and dusted why
do prosecutors still fear to storm the breach?
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.
In peace theres nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility.
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, Disguise fair nature with hardfavourd rage;

And lend the eye a terrible aspect".

(Henry V; Some lines omitted)
Professor Carlo Fonseka had rather an odd take on the alleged activism of
the Sirisena administration in "President Sirisena and the Law" (Island, 21
May). He suggested the president was a revolutionary activist historically
somewhat above the law when he kicked out bogus Chief Justice Mohan
Peries and when he appointed Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister.
Only a few weeks previously ("Strike while the iron is hot", Sunday Island ,
3 May) I had grumbled how diffident this government was compared to the
revolutionary resolve of the Jacobins without whose intervention the tasks
of the French Revolution would never have been completed. Same
concepts, two opposing conclusions! Prof Carlo enjoys revolutionary history
and is fond of his collection of Shakespeare studies. Time to get back to
the library Prof; lock the door and work on fundamentals!
Posted by Thavam