|
|
 |
  |
| Sunday, 10 October 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Imposition of civic disability on Sirimavo Bandaranaike : A monumental political mistake by Prof. W.A. Wiswa Warnapala, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
Governments have succeeded governments as a result of sharp national electoral swing. A and this could be easily attributed to the direct consequence of the universal franchise of 1931, obtained perhaps for the first time by any former British Colonial country. The 1977 July general election witnessed a landslide victory for the United National Party (UNP), reducing the SLFP representation in Parliament to negligible proportion. The left wing parties, which continuously maintained a representation in Parliament since 1948, were reduced to naught. The UNP government, armed with an easy two third majority, made use of this to set up several commissions to investigate the former ministers of the SLFP regime. The appointment of the Commissions of Inquiry to investigate matters of public concern had become a familiar phenomenon in Sri Lankan politics. Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the then leader of the Opposition, when the appointment of the Special Presidential Commission was mooted, welcomed it on the ground that it genuiningly helped to inform the public of certain facts and circumstances that were unknown to them at the time of their occurrence. It was her view that such advantages and benefits could be achieved only when such inquiries were free from any partisan political interest. In addition such an inquiry needed to be conducted with absolute impartiality. It was for this reason that Mrs. Bandaranaike who, being a charismatic politician with a formidable following in the country, fearlessly welcomed the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry and expressed her willingness to participate in an independent and unbiased inquiry. The strategy of the UNP and its arrogant leadership of the post - 1977 period was entirely different. With a view to thwarting the parliamentary opposition of the country it wanted to convert the Commission on Inquiry into an instrument of political revenge. The government of the UNP, shrewdly recognised its potentiality as an instrument for a very different purpose, namely, the cold blooded liquidation of chosen political opponents of the calibre of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike who still could mobilise the Sri Lankan masses to challenge the new regime. It was with this objective in view that the UNP made use of the massive majority in Parliament to enact the Special Presidential Commission Law in March 1978. The Law was amended again in the same year in order to conceal sinister motives behind the whole strategy. It was indeed an act of calculated political victimisation. The political strategy behind this facade of judicial inquiry was to destroy the formidable political personality of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike and thereby destroy the political fortunes of the SLFP. The Special Presidential Commission Law, No. 7 of 1978 was enacted, and Constitution of 1978 was adopted in 1978, The question of the jurisdiction of the Special Presidential Commission came to be challenged and Mrs. Bandaranaike went before the Court of Appeal and requested the grant of a Writ of Prohibition against the Commission upholding the contention that the Warrant was invalid as the law was not retrospective in its operation and did not authorise an inquiry in respect of a period prior to the law. The Court of Appeal granted a Writ of Prohibition against the Commission. The then Prime Minister, R. Premadasa announced in Parliament that steps would be taken to amend the law so as to make it retrospective. Parliament of Sri Lanka took the unprecedented steps of declaring the judgement of the Court of Appeal null and void. Dr. Colvin R. de Silva, writing on this unprecedented act of political revenge, stated "the law is a disgrace to our statute book and a shame on our Parliamentary democracy." It was his view that "It slaps the Court of Appeal in the face, not once but at least twice over, and throws in a few knocks on the head also for good measure." This kind of political interference with the judiciary fell on deaf ears and the lawyer fraternity did not raise a cry against it. Dr. Colvin R. de Silva, making a scathing attack on the whole strategy of the government stated that "to subject the citizen to civic disabilities, that is to say, to the loss of his civic right, is to sentence him to political death." In his view it was precisely the outcome sought from the precedings of the Special Presidential Commission. Dr. de Silva, condemned this act of political interference with the judiciary to achieve political advantage "as a shameful episode in our legislative history whose adverse impact on the independence of the judiciary and on judicial independence is incalculable." It was his position that it was only through political tasks that the damage done to the Sri Lankan judiciary could be repaired. He concluded his observations on the subject by saying that "it is in the political arena that the issue will be fought and won." First time in history With this opportunistic amendment by a Parliament dominated by an arrogant majority, the Parliament of Sri Lanka deprived Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike of any legal remedy. Mrs. Bandaranaike, making a statement before the Special Presidential Commission on May 7, 1980, stated that "This is the first time in the history of this country when Parliament declared void a judgement of one of the Superior Courts of this country. In the process I was deprived of the right of prosecuting my appeal before the Supreme Court. Not only did the government nullify the judgement, it went on to take away from the Court of Appeal any jurisdiction to deal with such an application as if to intimidate the Court in future case." The strange events that followed demonstrated that the desire of the Government was "to secure my enforced exile from politics." This is where the UNP and its leaders failed as the people of this country, en masse, wanted Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike to remain in the political field. She continued to remain in active politics and provided active leadership to the Sri Lanka Freedom Party in the context of the growing political authoritarianism of the post - 1977 period. Though everything relating to this important issue cannot be recounted here, Mrs. Bandaranaike had both political and legal reasons to withdraw from the proceedings of the Commission. In March 1978, President J.R. Jayewardene himself chose the Commissioners from over fifty members of the Judiciary who were eligible under section 2 of the Law for appointment. In other words, it was the President who appointed the members of the Commission and they held office at the President's pleasure and were removable by him at any time. This, in effect, meant the commission, though a judicial body, was part of the presidential fiat or an indirect appendage of the President. Yet another fact was that on receiving the report, it was the President who was the complainant and his political group in Parliament and not an impartial Court that determined the punishment, namely, the imposition of civic disabilities. The UNP, with all these intentions, was requesting Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike to co-operate with them to "bring about her own political destruction." Both the President and the Prime Minister made public statements to this effect and they were trying to mobilise support for this massive assault on the formidable political personality of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike. She expressing her reasons for withdrawal from the Commission, stated "I should not bow down to the machinations and the ruthless desire of this Government, which seeks to destroy me politically and destroy democracy in this country." The Government of the UNP was concerned whether the political consequences of the course of action which Mrs. Bandaranaike had adopted would result in events similar to those that took place in relation to Mrs. Indira Gandhi in India. Mrs. Gandhi came to her triumph through the Parliamentary democratic process and not through the judicial process. It was in this scenario that the UNP became apprehensive of a parallel course of events and a similar outcome in Sri Lanka. What was necessary, at that given point of time was for Mrs. Bandaranaike to remain there to fight it out herself and she did this with both tremendous energy and courage. The UNP with its massive majority and with its organised vilification campaign, could not deprive the tenacity of this great leader, who staged a come-back in November 1994 as the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. She achieved that great political feat during the life-time of J.R. Jayewardene who probably thought that with the deprivation of Mrs. Bandaranaike's civic rights he could permanently demolish the popular base and the foundation of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party. Monumental political mistake The deprivation of Mrs. Bandaranaike's civic rights was a monumental political mistake committed by a political regime, the guiding force of which was political vengeance. It was during this period that the UNP, purely because of the majority it commanded within the legislature, converted political revenge into a political ideology. Political revenge became the art of government during the period of office of J.R. Jayewardene, who made use of every institution of Government, both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary, to manipulate the system to achieve his narrow political ends. The imposition of civic disability on Mrs. Bandaranaike became an integral part of that manipulative process, the aim of which was to perpetuate themselves in power. They thought political power would remain in their hands permanently and took all measures, to destabilise the opposition. Therefore, the imposition of civic disability of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike who was an elected Member of Parliament and held the office of the Prime Minister twice was a deliberate act of political revenge. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
Sri Lanka's electoral process since 1956 has displayed unique features,
and the masses have demonstrated a political maturity and a skill in using
the right to vote. The Sri Lankan experience in changing government at
periodical elections is unique for a country practising parliamentary
democracy.
