The National People’s Power (NPP), which accused previous governments of ruining Sri Lanka’s economy, has been following the economic policies of those very same old governments – particularly that of former President Ranil Wickremesinghe – since coming to power.
Wickremesinghe asserted that Sri Lanka had no alternative path to recovery other than implementing economic restructuring under the International Monetary Fund (IMF) assistance programme. As a result of the Wickremesinghe Government implementing the conditions imposed by the IMF to increase State revenue – specifically, austerity measures – the public faced severe hardships.
During the 2024 national elections, the NPP promised to renegotiate the agreement with the IMF to alter the conditions that placed the bulk of the economic restructuring burden on ordinary people. However, after coming to power, it was unable to do so. It continues to manage the economy in accordance with the IMF’s conditions. In other words, it is following the economic policies of the previous Government.
During the ‘Yahapalana’ Government era, Wickremesinghe introduced a confusing amendment to the Provincial Councils Elections Act, which left the country unable to hold Provincial Council (PC) Elections for several years. Later, while serving as President from 2022 to 2024, he resorted to various manipulative tactics to avoid holding Local Government (LG) Elections due to fear of defeat. He also claimed that the Government lacked funds to conduct those elections.
Wickremesinghe, who went so far as to defy the Supreme Court’s ruling stating that the Government could not withhold funds allocated for LG Elections, did not hold those elections until the end of his term. He argued that meeting the basic economic needs of the people was more important than holding elections.
The NPP Government, which seems intent on not holding PC Elections, has so far been citing the election law as the reason. The Government even appointed a Parliamentary Select Committee to determine under which electoral system the elections should be conducted. It was stated that this committee would submit its report within three months. Those three months, too, are now coming to an end.
Addressing a press conference during a visit to Jaffna last week, Tilvin Silva, the General Secretary of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) – the core party of the NPP – stated that the funds allocated in this year’s budget for conducting PC Elections had been spent by the Government to provide immediate relief and undertake rehabilitation projects for the people affected by Cyclone Ditwah in November last year. Consequently, he noted, the possibility of holding PC Elections could only be considered next year.
At a time when fears are being expressed about the risk of another economic collapse, Silva’s statement raises suspicions that the Government intends to postpone the PC Elections for as long as possible, using the financial crisis as an excuse.
The NPP Government, which follows the policies adopted by Wickremesinghe in economic matters, is acting just like him in terms of seeking excuses to postpone elections out of fear that it cannot win. Such is the true nature of its promised ‘system change’ and ‘new political culture.’
Commonality between Anura and Vijay
There is a commonality between Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay. This similarity does not stem from their ideologies or actions, but rather from the criticisms levelled against their governance by the Opposition parties in both Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu.
During the 2024 election campaign, Opposition leaders – particularly Wickremesinghe – stated that if the NPP were to win the election and come to power, it would merely be an ‘L-board’ (learner) Government. However, the people of the country did not care about that. They not only elected Dissanayake as President, but also brought the NPP to power in the Parliamentary Elections with a sweeping two-thirds majority.
Although international political situations are also largely responsible for many of the issues the country faces today, Opposition political leaders continuously claim that the lack of governance experience among those in the NPP Government is the primary reason.
Opposition leaders seem to find a twisted sense of satisfaction in repeatedly claiming that the country’s economy will collapse again. It cannot be said that they are genuinely worried about the depreciation of the Sri Lankan currency against the US Dollar. They constantly prophesy daily that a Government run by those without administrative experience will collapse soon.
Despite all this, many leaders of the NPP, particularly the JVP, are not entirely devoid of political experience. After transitioning from armed insurgency to democratic politics, they have served as Members of Parliament (MPs) for over three decades and have even been government partners once before.
However, as far as Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay is concerned, he entered politics only two years ago. Neither he nor the members of his Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) possess any prior political or administrative experience.
Apart from a few former ministers and Legislative Assembly members who left other parties to join Vijay, almost all TVK candidates who won this election are completely new to politics. Chief Minister Vijay selected his ministers from among them.
From the day he sat in the Chief Minister’s chair at the Tamil Nadu Secretariat, leaders of the Opposition parties – especially the two main Dravidian parties – have been talking only about the new Government’s lack of experience.
Former Chief Minister and Dravid Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader M.K. Stalin, along with his son Udhayanidhi, has called on their party members to prepare for fresh elections, claiming that Vijay’s Government will collapse soon.
Even before the elections, Stalin and leaders of other parties told the public that Vijay’s party members lacked experience and that a state could not be governed merely by cinema charisma. They do not seem to think about why the voters of Tamil Nadu ‘blew the whistle’ (voted for them) regardless of those warnings. The people, having decided that they no longer wanted corrupt governance, did not worry about Vijay’s lack of experience.
Anti-defection law again?
Last week, Cabinet Spokesperson, Minister Nalinda Jayatissa announced at a press conference that the Government intended to introduce a new bill in Parliament soon, which aimed to immediately revoke the parliamentary membership of those who defect from their parties, defying the mandate given to them by the people during elections. The reasoning he provided for this move, however, seemed rather peculiar.
He stated that various criticisms were being levelled against the NPP Government’s economic management and fiscal policies. Concurrently, rumors are being circulated suggesting that secret negotiations are underway to absorb several key Opposition members into the Government.
“In the November 2024 General Election, the people of this country elected a very clear Parliament. By granting the NPP a thumping majority of over two-thirds (159 seats), the public brought a powerful Government into power. We fully respect that historic mandate. Therefore, the Government has absolutely no need, nor the slightest desire, to absorb anyone from the struggling Opposition parties into our ranks,” Jayatissa said.
He expects us to believe that this bill to strip defecting MPs of their parliamentary seats is being introduced solely to prevent Opposition members from crossing over to the Government side, contrary to the public mandate.
Conventionally, when a government begins to lose its public appeal, its members tend to defect to opposition parties with an eye on upcoming elections. Conversely, opposition members who see no prospect of their own party coming to power in the near future often cross over to the ruling side. Yet, looking at Jayatissa’s remarks, it appears as though this bill is being brought forward specifically to block Opposition MPs from entering the Government fold.
At the same time, the current state of the Opposition parties is hardly appealing enough to entice any Government MP to defect and join them.
The 1978 Constitution, which is currently in force, initially contained stringent provisions against party defection. Having introduced the proportional representation election system, this Constitution shifted the focus of elections from individual candidates to political parties. Because voters cast their ballots for a party’s candidate list rather than a specific individual, the framers of the Constitution argued that parliamentary seats belonged to the party, not the politician.
Consequently, if an MP changed parties, resigned, or was expelled from the party through which they entered Parliament, they would automatically lose their seat. The party could then easily fill that vacancy by appointing an alternative candidate from its original nomination list.
While this rule was designed to prevent defections – which had destabilised previous parliaments – and to ensure absolute party discipline, it also granted party leadership absolute authority over MPs. If an MP voted against a controversial government bill based on their conscience, the party could immediately expel them and strip them of their parliamentary seat.
Without entirely repealing this rule, the J.R. Jayewardene Government added a crucial ‘safety valve’ through the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
This amendment allowed an expelled MP to file a petition in the Supreme Court against their expulsion within one month of the action. Once an MP filed such a petition, their parliamentary seat remained secure while the case was pending. If the Supreme Court ruled that the expulsion was invalid or had violated the principles of natural justice, the MP retained their seat.
Over the past few decades, this legal window has fundamentally altered the nature of the original provision. Cunning politicians and defecting MPs began utilising tactical manoeuvres and intricate legal arguments to drag cases out for long periods, effectively evading the anti-defection law. As a result, over time, that constitutional safeguard could no longer be used effectively.
Furthermore, certain judgments delivered by Sarath N. Silva, who served as Chief Justice between 1999 and 2009, made party defections even easier. In cases involving Opposition MPs who crossed over to the Government of that era, Chief Justice Silva based his rulings on procedural technicalities rather than the ethical merits of the cases. This prevented political parties from taking decisive action against defecting MPs.
(The writer is a senior journalist based in Colombo)
(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official position of this publication)