The Impact of the No-Confidence Motion: A

Round-Up

Featured image courtesy Colombo Gazette

GROUNDVIEWS-04/06/2018
On April 4, the no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister
was defeated after a marathon 12 hour Parliamentary debate, with 122 MPs
voting against the motion, and 76 voting in favour, while 26 MPs abstained from
the vote.
There was no shortage of volte-faces in the run-up to the vote. State Minister of
Irrigation and Water Resource Management Palitha Range Bandara, who initially
said he and 27 other UNP MPs would back the no-confidence motion, changed his
decision at the last moment. Parliamentarian Ven. Athuraliya Rathana Thero, who
initially said he “could not oppose” the no-confidence motion, as
the yahapaalanaya Government had betrayed the principles it stood for, later
chose to abstain from voting. However, the biggest turnaround was from several
Government MPs, many from President Maithripala Sirisena’s SLFP, who declared
that they would support the motion against the Prime Minister.
Following the vote, 33 UNP MPs signed a letter demanding that 6 of the MPs who
had voted in favour be removed from their posts. A defiant SLFP MP Dayasiri
Jayasekara said that the defectors had offered to resign, and that President
Sirisena had refused to accept their resignation. In a subsequent press
conference, President Sirisena urged all political parties to work together,
irrespective of party differences, and added that a proposed Cabinet reshuffle
would be discussed at the Central SLFP Committee meeting on April 9.
In an interesting development, Joint Opposition MP Namal Rajapakse tweeted
that President Sirisena had “betrayed” the SLFP, encouraging MPs to vote for the
motion and then “backing off.” This, as well as Sirisena’s reported statement at a
meeting of party representatives that he would allow SLFP MPs to vote
“according to how they feel” indicated a split within the governing coalition.

Namal Rajapaksa

✔@RajapaksaNamal

#SriLanka President @MaithripalaS’s habit of betrayal proven again at

#NoConfidenceMotionSL against Prime Minister @RW_UNP. First he encouraged
SLFP members to support it and then backs off. He has betrayed both the SLFP &
UNP.
2:05 PM - Apr 4, 2018
52 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
There were many questions raised online on the fate of the MPs holding
portfolios who had voted in favour of the no-confidence motion (implicitly stating
that they had no confidence in the government), the fate of the reforms
programme that was part of the coalition government’s mandate, and indeed,
the future of the coalition government itself.
Groundviews spoke to a cross-section of MPs and civil society for comments on
the unfolding situation.

State Minister of Finance, Eran Wickramaratne speaking to Groundviews noted

that the dissident voices within the Government had separated themselves as a
result of the no-confidence motion. “You cannot act within the Government and
simultaneously not have confidence in it. That’s not logical,” Wickramaratne said.
However, he added that the Government had managed to retain a two-thirds
majority during the vote, taking away the atmosphere of uncertainty that has
prevailed since the February 10 local government elections.
“I think now is there is ample opportunity for a ministerial reshuffle, and a
relaunch of the Government’s programme for the next two years,” he added.
Unsurprisingly, Joint Opposition MP Dinesh Gunawardena did not share
Wickramaratne’s optimism. “The no-confidence motion was moved on known
public facts, which has caused damage to the Central Bank,” he said. “Though the
UNP had the numbers, there has been a political crisis. The UNP lost its two-thirds
majority in Parliament for the first time in history, as SLFP Ministers voted against
the Prime Minister who is the head of the Cabinet. The numbers might win, but
these problems cannot be solved in this manner. This instability will affect the
economy as well.”
Shortly after the motion, former President Mahinda Rajapakse said that the Joint
Opposition would have prevailed if all the SLFP MPs had voted in favour. This
is false, as even counting the 26 who abstained from voting would have brought
the brought the “for” vote to 102, short of the majority needed.
Head of Political Research, Janeen Fernando, Verite Research said that he felt the
outcome of the no-confidence motion was positive for the UNP and the Prime
Minister. “[The motion] saw the UNP close ranks despite rumours and threats of
defection. They also managed to retain support of the smaller parties within the
United National Front for Good Governance, including all the minority parties,
with the exception of one abstention,” Fernando said.
“However, this may be considered a mere temporary respite for the UNP, as it
won on Parliamentary strength, based on a mandate that is over two years old.
The UNP has since lost a quarter of its voters compared to 2015, and the result
with this motion has no significant bearing on that electoral popularity problem.”
The outcome was in fact most positive for the Joint Opposition, Fernando said,
particularly due to the about face from the 17 MPs from SLFP. “The no-confidence
motion can, to some extent, be interpreted as reflective of the ripple effects of
the local government election campaign and outcome. In the campaign, the SLFP
took a strongly anti-UNP stance making the co-habitation within the unity
government less tenable. In terms of outcome, the party lost a bulk of the SLFP
leaning voter base to the SLPP. The SLFP’s gravitation towards the JO hence is a
logical progression to the force led by Rajapaksa that has emerged as the ‘true’ or
‘new’ SLFP.”
As a result, Fernando said, the most urgent need would be a power-sharing
arrangement or a parting of ways between the UNP and SLFP – any other
alternative seemed unrealistic as it would result in a deadlock. “The fragile
grouping of the SLFP faction in government has come under severe strain after
emerging a distant third [during the local government elections], and may be
considered unviable leading MPs to seek alternative alignments prior to the next
national election cycle.” As a result, those within the SLFP might either align with
the UNP or leave the Government and join the Joint Opposition, as the only viable
options for them, he said.

Meanwhile, political analyst Professor Jayadeva Uyangoda, said he felt that the
Government should focus on healing division between the two main partners of
the coalition government as an urgent priority. Given that the SLFP as a party was
in disarray, it was unlikely they would take punitive action against those who had
voted for the no-confidence motion in its ranks, or indeed those who abstained.
The pressure to remove these MPs would likely come from the UNP (a prediction
which subsequently has been proved accurate). However, Uyangoda opined that
it seemed likely that the Prime Minister would not lead this call, opting instead to
act cautiously in order not to deepen existing antagonism between the two
parties. However, it seemed likely that the rupture within the Government might
prove too deep to heal, he added.
Another unanswered question was on the fate of the reforms initiated by the
Government.

TNA MP Sumanthiran reiterated the sentiments made in his speech that it was
important that the Government should implement its mandate. “You don’t form a
national unity Government every day. For the first time, we have all the parties
have collaborated together to set up a Constitutional Assembly and attempt to
build a new constitution. Though we may be dissatisfied at the pace of reforms, it
is at least a step in the right direction,” Sumanthiran said. This was the reason
that the TNA had decided to oppose the no confidence motion, as they feared a
slide or reversal of the national unity government. “Just because there are delays,
there is no reason to abandon this process.” Sumanthiran added that it was a
reasonable deduction that this was only the first in a series of steps on the part of
the Joint Opposition to get back into office, and this too was a reason that the
TNA had chosen to ‘nip such moves in the bud.”

Researcher from the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), Luwie

Ganeshathasan noted that the while the no-confidence motion provided an
opportunity for the Government to refocus on constitutional reform, this
outcome was unlikely, since achieving the 150 votes needed to pass a new
constitution in Parliament would be increasingly difficult. A referendum would be
difficult due to the chaos and division within the Government following the local
Government elections, he added.
“The biggest threat to the government is that they will hobble through the
remainder of their term without achieving any sort of meaningful reform. ”
Speaking on the transitional justice process, Senior Researcher from the Centre
for Policy Alternatives, Bhavani Fonseka noted the “extremely disappointing”
progress on transitional justice, with many of the commitments made in 2015 yet
to be realised. “The inability of this government to have a plan in terms of
implementation, involve the various stakeholders including victim communities
from across Sri Lanka in a conversation around TJ and initiate a coherent
communication strategy to explain how Sri Lankan’s are able to benefit from the
proposals all demonstrate the lack of political will and leadership necessary for
transformative reforms in a post war context. It is indeed disappointing that only
one of the four mechanisms promised is established and many confidence
building measures still to be fully implemented,” Fonseka said that given the
division within Government, serious concerns persisted on whether the
Government would be able to keep pace with its commitments.
Adding to the confusion, a further no-confidence motion against the 6 SLFP MPs
who had voted in favour of the no confidence motion against the Prime Minister,
as well as Deputy Speaker of Parliament Thilanga Sumathipala was handed
over to the Speaker on April 6. The SLFP Committee on Monday (April 9) may be
critical in determining how the Government will move ahead in the immediate
future.

Editor’s Note: Also read “After the NCM: Thinking About Positive Possibilities” and
“The Fall of the No Confidence Motion Against the Prime Minister”
Posted by Thavam