Sri Lanka is a land like no other, says the slogan promoting tourism. That must indeed be so. A few weeks ago, the country had two Prime Ministers. Now, we have two Leaders of Opposition!
Mahinda Rajapaksa, unceremoniously deposed as Prime Minister after being hastily appointed to the position, has been recognised by Speaker Karu Jayasuriya as the new Leader of Opposition.
The position’s previous incumbent, Rajavarothiam Sampanthan is challenging that decision. His party, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has indicated that it is preparing to contest the issue in courts.
Jayasuriya has made his decision based on the fact that the party from which Rajapaksa was elected to Parliament, the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA), is no longer part and parcel of the Government, having left the ‘Government of National Unity’ on October 26.
It would be recalled that, for several years, the Joint Opposition (JO), the parliamentary grouping representing the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) which is not formally represented in Parliament had been agitating to have Rajapaksa appointed as the Leader of Opposition.
Speaker Jayasuriya resisted those demands. His reasoning was as simple as it was rational. The party from which Rajapaksa was elected to Parliament, the UPFA, was part of the Government. Therefore, it could not be part of the Opposition, notwithstanding the fact that the JO was a separate faction of the UPFA in Parliament.
Now, that has changed. The UPFA has left the Government. It forms the single largest opposition group in Parliament. Jayasuriya has decided that it is therefore, a reasonable proposition to appoint Rajapaksa as the Leader of Opposition.
In the recent constitutional crisis, the one person who emerged with maturity, credibility and integrity was Jayasuriya. Despite being a ripe old 78 years of age, he withstood the despicable insults hurled at him by the JO, in the Chamber, without flinching. He acted without fear or favour and with the wisdom of Solomon.
Jayasuriya did not hesitate to appoint Rajapaksa as the Leader of Opposition when the political equation changed.
Ironically, the beneficiaries of his decision are the JO which bayed for his blood, dragged away his Speaker’s chair and poured water on it and chanted ‘Karuta wediya Paba hondai’ (Paba is better than Karu). We wonder what hypocrites like Udaya Gammanpila and Wimal Weerawansa say about the Speaker’s alleged partiality now!
Be that as it may, the TNA does have cause to feel aggrieved. It stood steadfastly by the Government during the constitutional crisis. Even now, the Government depends on the TNA to have a working majority in Parliament, albeit on an issue by issue basis. Yet, when the constitutional crisis was resolved in the Government’s favour, it found its leader stripped of his position as the Leader of Opposition.
The TNA now plans to contest Speaker Jayasuriya’s decision, in courts. So be it. It was a Supreme Court verdict that ended the constitutional crisis.
Similarly, a determination by a court of law may be the best way to resolve this conundrum.
However, Sampanthan, the veteran of many a political battle will know that Jayasuriya’s decision is not personal.
He will also know that politics is not about niceties and that it is not for the faint hearted. These two gentlemen, the two elder statesmen in the current legislature, have conducted themselves at all times with a level of dignity and decorum that puts their younger colleagues to shame.
The TNA does have several arguments that merit consideration, at the very least. First, they contend that President Sirisena, who heads the Government and is head of the Cabinet is also the head of the UPFA. So, how could the UPFA also claim the post of the Leader of Opposition, they ask.
There has however been precedent. When Chandrika Kumaratunga was President, she too was head of the Government and yet, her party held the post of Leader of Opposition. So, the TNA might be clutching at straws there.
Then, there is the contention that Rajapaksa has left the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and joined the SLPP. Therefore, the TNA claims that his eligibility to remain in Parliament is itself suspect and therefore, he should not be the Leader of Opposition.
Although it was widely publicised that Rajapaksa had obtained membership of the SLPP, whether he has formally done so is mired in controversy and will now be contested in courts.
Still, it is best that such issues are dealt with in the appropriate manner, discussed and debated in suitable fora and decided upon by the judiciary.
Speaker Jayasuriya, we are certain will have no reservations about that. He has already appointed a parliamentary committee to look into the vexed question of who should be the Leader of Opposition.
What we do not want to see is the kind of squabbling and frankly disgusting and disruptive proceedings we witnessed in Parliament over the premiership.
At the time the constitutional crisis was triggered by the dismissal of Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe, the SLPP enjoyed enormous pubic support. As the crisis unfolded and we saw the vulgar depths to which parliamentarians supporting the SLPP (and a few MPs from the United National Front) descended, that support evaporated quickly.
As a result, Mahinda Rajapaksa, twice President and the leader who won the war against terrorism, who is still arguably one of the most charismatic politicians in the country, was made to look like an impostor. Social media was flooded with messages ridiculing him because of the antics of his acolytes.
There were even memes promoting brands of chilli powder bearing his name because of the infamous chilli powder episode. Rajapaksa did not deserve that.
If the SLPP and its parliamentary faction, the JO, learnt anything from the past few weeks it would be to allow for discussion, debate and decorum in dealing with political disputes and not to resort to fisticuffs.
The big question is, have they done that? The next few weeks will tell us, but if recent statements by JO stalwarts are anything to go by, we should not be holding our breath in anticipation!