Public challenge to the pillars of democracy | Sunday Observer
Opinion

Public challenge to the pillars of democracy

24 April, 2022

In a democratic country, the three branches of democracy, the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, have separate powers.

While the legislature makes laws, the Executive is composed of Government institutions and bureaucrats that implement the laws made by the legislature. The judiciary upholds laws and constitutional principles.

The main criterion for these branches is that they must be separate and independent of each other all the time. The principle of “separation of powers” has been adopted and followed for centuries in order to ensure that a single person or group of people cannot accumulate too much power. These three pillars are critical to the functioning of a democratic country, not only in theory but also in practice.

The idea is that even if one of the branches fails due to incompetency or corruption, the doctrine of separation of power allows the other two pillars to intervene. However, a section of the population strongly believes that all three of them failed the general public, causing them intolerable hardships. Perhaps for the first time since independence, the executive, the legislature, and, to a certain extent, the judiciary, are simultaneously challenged by the public.

Prompt action

The effect of the protest has been considerably high, and the President and the Government were compelled to take prompt action on some of their demands. In a positive move, the President dissolved the Cabinet of Ministers and reappointed several of them for administrative reasons. The Government also restricted the engagement of law enforcement in the protests.

Public hostility is not only directed towards the Government. The protestors are equally strongly opposed to all political parties, including the main Opposition, Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), Jathika Jana Balavegaya (NPP), and the group of eleven dissident parties who have become independent.

When the first incident occurred near President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s private residence, many people assumed that the protest was against the President personally. Disproving such presumptions, the protestors extended their disapproval toward the entire political system and rejected all Parliamentarians, including those in the Opposition. Therefore, the initial belief of most of them was that they could go on unperturbed if the President abandoned the office.

The invitation from the President to establish an interim Government was swiftly rejected by the Opposition. As always transpires in Sri Lankan politics, the main Opposition is seemingly impatiently looking forward to grabbing power. They seemed hardly concerned about the escalating burning issues and refused to be a part of the solution.

The behaviour and speeches in the Parliamentary sittings during the past several days amply displayed that sitting Parliamentarians, both Government and Opposition, except a very few, are not genuinely interested in solving the gruesome situation. Most of them were either defending their actions or slinging mud at each other on personal issues. No viable idea or proposition was submitted to the house to provide solutions to current issues.

The ongoing protests, particularly the one that is in and around Galle Face Green, seemingly have neither political involvement nor conspicuous leaders. The vast majority of participants are youth. The entire campaign that went on for over a week by the time this article was written, from day one, showed both commitment and creditable discipline.

Their main demand is that the President must resign with the entire 225 Parliamentary members. It is abundantly clear that they do not intend to grab power or form a Government. The demands are justifiable as the public experience of party politicians, both ruling and Opposition has been far from satisfactory for at least the past five decades. However, a democratic state such as Sri Lanka has a Constitution that explains how the governing power should be reassigned to a new group.

According to legal experts specialising in Constitutional law, the incumbent Government can be ousted by passing a motion of no confidence with a simple majority where the President is compelled to dissolve the Government. However, according to the Constitution, the removal of a President is a much more complex and tedious process.

Only if the President resigns or ceases to be a citizen of Sri Lanka will his office become vacant. The only other process is to impeach him with a two-thirds majority of the Parliament or 50 percent of the members with the Speaker’s consent.

According to experts, even if the President vacates his post or is impeached, the Prime Minister can instantly take over the presidency if there is no legal barrier for the remainder of the outgoing President’s full term. However, if the Prime Minister refuses to be qualified for legal reasons, the Speaker of the House becomes the President. If the Speaker decides so, he can call for a vote and appoint a suitable person who can gain the majority of votes.

Pertinent questions

Hence, it is unfortunate that the vast majority of people in the country, including the protestors, do not realise that if President Rajapaksa vacates the office, his successor will be appointed from among the 225 sitting Parliamentarians. The pertinent questions are whether the replacement would be better than the incumbent and whether the protestors would accept such an alternative. If not, what further action would the protestors take?

Not a single person, including the legal fraternity that supports the protestors, has made any attempt to explain the legal implications if the President vacates the office or the Government is ousted. Obviously, despite the gruesome situation, the Opposition parties will make no effort to educate the protestors on this important matter, as they eagerly expect the Government to fall.

Although blame for the current dire economic crunch is mercilessly directed at the incumbent President and the Government, the entire citizenry is aware that this is a result of long-term mismanagement and arbitrary spending. In addition, long-standing corruption and waste during the past several decades were also strong reasons.

The current vehement opposition to the ruling party is mainly based on the escalating cost of living, shortages of essential items, power cuts, and the general hatred toward politicians. For the first time, the country’s powerful middle class felt the pinch of these shortages, which have now reached intolerable proportions.

Obviously, the easiest slogan that can be utilised in this situation is asking the Government to quit. At this point in time, the majority of the general public does not think about the long-term repercussions. Any indiscriminate, irrational, or illogical action may lead to a complete collapse in the system that may result in unimaginable consequences. They do not realise that a new Government will also not be able to provide immediate solutions. They demand the shortest possible getaway.

The country has seen three major battles since 1971 that created utter chaos in the country, with lasting ill effects. The cost of the 1971 battle was enormous in terms of young lives. The gruesome period of 1988/1989 was even harsher, with an unknown number of deaths and irreparable damage. Also, the battle between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Government that lasted nearly thirty-years (known as one of the longest-running battles in Asia) created gigantic political, social, and cultural problems for every community in the country.

Nevertheless, all three times the campaigning parties possessed a clear ideology and also a distinct goal. Also, all three times, they had strong and accepted leadership. The current protest has no such ideology or strong leadership. They only have a goal, and the chances of realizing that are remote at present due to the democratic Constitutional framework in Sri Lanka.

However, they are already victorious. To their credit, they have sent a precise message to all political parties and politicians that the public will no longer tolerate corruption, malpractices, inefficiencies, and waste of public funds. This has never been done previously in Sri Lanka.

The mistakes, mismanagement, and mediocre attitudes of Government politicians and bureaucrats are inexcusable. The top culprits have already jumped ship and fled, perhaps to safe heavens, by now. Now is the time for the Government to stand together strongly and face the consequences of its mistakes. The public challenge can be managed effectively only by understanding the grave issues and the ground reality.

Comments