Ultra-nationalists looking to MR:

LG polls delay stalls UPFA break-away party

In an interesting turn of events, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa last week took part in a Vijaya Kumaratunga commemorative event organised by the Sri Lanka Mahajana Party.

Although Rajapaksa and Kumaratunga were party colleagues in the blue camp during the late 70s and early 80s, they were never on the same page about issues concerning the party and the country-at large. In fact, they took diametrically opposite views about many matters when the SLFP, led by former Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike, struggled in the opposition after its landslide defeat in 1977.

It all started when Mrs. Bandaranaike lost her civic rights in 1980 following the findings of a presidential commission. After the former Prime Minister lost her civic rights, her son, Anura Bandaranaike, launched a campaign demanding the leadership of the party saying a person who lost her civic rights could not remain as the leader of the SLFP. At this point, Maithripala Senanayake and Mahinda Rajapaksa were close allies of Anura Bandaranaike and they had no qualms about joining Bandaranaike’s campaign against his own mother.

Rajapaksa, at that time, was working as an ordinary lawyer as he had lost his Parliamentary seat to Dr. Ranjith Atapattu at the Parliamentary election in 1977.

Anura Bandaranaike’s group, of which Rajapaksa was a staunch supporter, held meetings with grassroots level activists of the party claiming the SLFP leadership should be changed. They were, in many ways, similar to the village level meetings held by pro-Rajapaksa groups in the recent past, demanding Prime Ministerial candidacy for Rajapaksa at the last Presidential election. It was widely known among political circles that during the early ‘80s, Rajapaksa often referred to Anura Bandaranaike as ‘lokka’, showing his loyalty to the Bandaranaike family’s ‘uncrowned prince’ rebelling against his mother.

During the presidential election campaign in 1982, SLFP presidential candidate Hector Kobbekaduwa was not supported by the Anura Bandaranaike-Maitripala Senanayake-Mahinda Rajapaksa group. In fact, addressing a meeting in Balangoda, Anura Bandaranaike reportedly said that the SLFP’s presidential candidate Kobbekaduwa was a ‘contractor’ and he would hand over the post of President to the leader of the party.

Vijaya

This remark received wide publicity and it damaged the entire election campaign of the SLFP in an irreparable manner, plunging Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and her husband Vijaya Kumaratunga, the key speakers in Hector Kobbekaduwa’s campaign, into a difficult situation.

The Presidential election of 1982 was the first open battle between the Kumaratungas and the Rajapaksas. It was all too evident that at the election, Rajapaksa preferred the defeat of the candidate fielded by his own party while Vijaya Kumaratunga desperately battled for the SLFP’s victory. Kumaratunga, in his speeches, often claimed that those who were trying to sabotage the party’s campaign were pawns of the UNP. It was obvious that Rajapaksa too was at the receiving end of Kumaratunga’s scathing criticism.

Serious differences of opinion between Rajapaksa and Vijaya Kumaratunga were again visible when the J. R. Jayewardene administration entered into the 1987 Indo-Lanka Peace Accord with India. Kumaratunga, a politician who had always pushed for a negotiated settlement with the LTTE, wholeheartedly supported the Indo-Lanka pact as it ensured devolution of some powers to the newly formed Provincial Councils. Kumaratunga, who led the Sri Lanka Mahajana Party at this point, walked the extra mile to support the India-led peace initiative and by doing so he earned the wrath of the JVP and other ultra-nationalist groups.

It was later revealed that Kumaratunga’s position on the Indo-Lanka pact was the key reason behind his murder on February 16, 1988.

Kumaratunga, literally and metaphorically, sacrificed his life for the Indo-Lanka peace accord signed by Jayewardene seeking a lasting solution to the North and East problem.

Opposed

Mahinda Rajapaksa, on the other hand, was vehemently opposed to the Indo-Lanka pact. His party launched various campaigns against the peace initiative saying it would amount to ‘treason’ and a ‘great betrayal’.

The day before the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord in 1987, a satyagraha was held in front of the Bo Tree in Pettah, where Mahinda Rajapaksa was a prominent figure among the other leaders present. Rajapaksa was still out of Parliament, as he did not have an opportunity to make a comeback until the Parliamentary election in 1989.

Rohan Gunaratna, in his book Indian intervention in Sri Lanka, has the following narrative of the events during the SLFP-led protest during which Rajapaksa was at the forefront:

“On 24 July 1987, in a handbill issued from her private residence at No. 66, Rosmead Place, Colombo 7, Mrs. Bandaranaike called on the patriotic people of Sri Lanka to meet at the Railway Station at Fort, Colombo, on Tuesday, 28 July at 8.00 a.m. for a ‘prayer meeting.’

“(This meeting was originally to be held at the Vihara Maha Devi Park). The MSV arranged a Sanga Sabha at the Vidyalankara Pirivena under the Chairmanship of the Ven. Palipane Chandananda, Ven. Dr. Wimalaratane, Ven. Sobhitha, Ven. Ananda and Ven. Ittanpane Dhammalankara organised the meeting.

“The SLFP had called on their members of the Buddhist clergy through their electoral organizers in support of this meeting. On behalf of the SLFP, there were bhikkhus from as far as Ambalangoda, Ratgama, Galle, Attanagalle, etc.

The plan of action was spelled out by Ven. Sobhitha. He called the people to hoist black flags, apply pressure on Members of Parliament to vote against the Accord, conduct Bodhi poojas, toll temple bells, gather people and inform them of the ill effects of the Accord.

“They also planned to perform a satyagraha on 28 July 1987, at 8.00 a.m. at the Maligakanda Maha Bodhi Viharaya. As the hours went by, the younger bhikkhus including the Ven. Tharapeliya Ratanajothi of the Deshapremi Sishya Viyaparaya and the Inter University Bhikkhu Federation made vitriolic speeches deploring the tame speeches of others.

Ven. Ananda stimulated this further by urging a ‘fast unto death’ and another stated, “Lives must be sacrificed in the course of this protest”.

“Ultimately, without assembling at the passive temple grounds on 28 July, the people decided to assemble near the Bo Tree in Pettah, so that they could solicit the support of the workers. Present at this meeting from 3.00 p.m. to 5.45 p.m. were Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Anura Bandaranaike, Lakshman Jayakody, Anuruddha Ratwatte, A.C. Gooneratne and Sadha Sakalasuriya of the SLFP and Dinesh Gunawardene of the MEP.”

The protest took a violent turn after the Police opened fire at the demonstrators and angry protestors damaged a large number of government properties. It marked the beginning of a bloody insurrection in the South, which claimed the lives of over 60,000 urban and rural youth.

Hostile

“Indians are going to occupy this land. They are going to take over this land. Already there are 100,000 Indian soldiers in this country. Our feeling is that they will come to down south. They might occupy this area too. What will happen to us? We will have to be another part of India!” Rajapaksa said during a BBC interview in 1988, highlighting his hostile approach towards the Indo-Lanka accord.

This clearly shows that Rajapaksa was not a fan of Vijaya Kumaratunga until the latter’s death in 1988. Therefore, quite understandably, he never took part in Vijaya Kumaratunga commemorations for nearly 28 years. Even when the former President was in power, there were no State-sponsored commemorative events for the late politician although his party was a member of the grand UPFA coalition.

Therefore, Rajapaksa’s sudden willingness to commemorate Vijaya Kumaratunga this year caught many by surprise. Addressing the event, Rajapaksa said, “If Vijaya was alive today, he would be on our side and fight against this government.”

The most notable characteristic of the political campaign of the former President was his leaning towards Sinhala-Buddhist ultra-nationalism.

His comeback completely relies on this ideological base and he has deliberately left out ethnic and religious minorities from his campaign. The most blatantly ultra-nationalist political organizations, such as the new Sinha Lé movement and the Bodu Bala Sena, are openly supporting the comeback bid of Rajapaksa as he has projected himself as the ‘true defender’ of Sinhala-Buddhism.

It was this campaign that Rajapaksa referred to when he spoke of Vijaya Kumaratunga’s ‘would-have-been’ political aspirations. Kumaratunga, a centre-left political activist to the core, was never a supporter of utra-nationalism and his unwavering position even led him to have face-to-face discussions with Tamil militant leaders in the mid-80s. If Vijaya Kumaratunga loathed one thing in his short but illustrious political career, it was racism.

Therefore, there is much irony and contradiction in Rajapaksa’s speculation today about the late Vijaya’s ‘would-have-been’ stand.

New party

The former President’s camp had to face another setback last week as they had to postpone the formation of their planned new political party.

The ‘official reason’ for the postponement was a legal impediment preventing them from proceeding with the registration.

There is an on-going court case with regard to Puthukudiiruppu and Muhububadapaththu Pradeshiya Sabha elections and as a result there are no legal provisions to register new political parties at this juncture. Elections Commissioner Mahinda Deshapriya, speaking to media a few weeks ago, made it clear that he would not register any new political party due to the on-going court case.

Speaking to the Sunday Observer, a stalwart of the Rajapaksa group said this was the main reason behind the postponement of the new party’s formation.

However, the Rajapaksa group was aware of this situation when they started talking about forming a new political alliance to contest the local government election. Their original plan was to change the name and the symbol of an existing political party. Therefore, the new party’s registration was never a real concern for the Rajapaksa’s group.

Fear tactics

Their real fear is the SLFP’s current tough approach towards party dissidents. Initially, they thought that the SLFP and its Central Committee would bow down to the pressure and agree to hand over the party chairman’s post to former President Rajapaksa – at least until the completion of the local government election.

Their claims of forming a new political party came as a fear tactic. It was the same tactic they used to obtain nomination for Rajapaksa and his group to contest the last Parliamentary election on the UPFA ticket.

This time, however, the SLFP Central Committee adopted a wiser approach and stressed the need for ensuring party discipline.

As a result, the Central Committee decided to take disciplinary action against a group of local government members who allegedly criticized the party and its leadership. Only Kumara Welgama, a staunch supporter of the Rajapaksas, raised objections over this move at the Central Committee meeting last week.

This move sent a strong signal to the pro-Rajapaksa group who were trying to create a fear psychosis among grassroots members of the SLFP. It was clear that the President had the backing of the party’s Central Committee - the supreme decision making body of the SLFP - and the dissidents had no option but to meekly toe the party line.

In addition, the party also explored possibilities to renew its call for applications from candidates willing to contest the local government elections on the party ticket. The SLFP has so far received 14,000 applications and the new move will offer a fall back option for the party in the face of a potential split. This story too sent shock waves across a large number of local government SLFP councillors supporting the former President. They earlier assumed that the party leadership would end up in a destitute position if they, the local level activists, aligned themselves with the former President’s group.

During two SLFP press conferences held last week, the former President’s conduct came under severe criticism from several party seniors including Ministers S.B. Dissanayake, A.H. M. Fowzie and Sarath Amunugama.

Dissanayake said the Local Government members’ meeting held at Kochchikade, Negombo, by the Rajapaksa group was an utter failure and the actual number of participants stood at 531.

The former President’s group claimed that 1,401 out of 1,437 local government members of the party took part in the meeting. Dissanayake, who started backing President Sirisena after the latter’s victory in January, last year said his informants too were present at the Kochchikade meeting addressed by the former President.

It was later revealed that MP Geetha Kumarasinghe received a phone call from a senior Cabinet minister who urged her to stay away from the Kochchikade conference. The SLFP minister shares a long-standing friendship with the actress turned politician and he had apparently said that he would not be able to ‘look after’ Kunmarasinghe if the latter decided to attend the conference.

However, Kumarasinghe had cut short the conversation saying the people who voted her into Parliament would look after her.

Despite his minister-friend’s warnings, Kumaratunga, along with several other MPs of the party, attended the event.

Meanwhile, Minister A.H.M. Fowzie, who is not the most vociferous member of the SLFP MP group, also launched a scathing attack on the former President attempting to create a division in the blue party.

“The biggest blunder made by Rajapaksa was the 18th Amendment. He thought he could remain as the President until his death.

That was the start of his downfall. I was an active member of the SLFP for nearly 25 years. But, I was made a Senior Minister under the Rajapaksa administration. The senior ministers were not given any important responsibilities.

“We knew Rajapakasa could not win the presidential election as he lost nearly 1.4 million minority votes. At one point, senior ministers such as D.E.W. Gunasekera and Tissa Vitarana proved with statistics that Rajapaksa could not win the election,” Fowzie revealed addressing a press conference in Colombo on Thursday.

Minister Dr. Sarath Amunugama took on the SLFP dissidents by slamming their claims on ‘war heroes’. Referring to the manner in which the Rajapaksa administration treated former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka, Amunugama also alluded to the allegations of gifting money to the LTTE to obtain a voter boycott of the Presidential election in the Northern province ten years ago.

All these actions and comments are strong indications that there is a huge wall of resistance within the SLFP against Rajapaksa’s initiative. This makes their job tougher and probably that is why the former President and his allies have postponed the formation of their new political party.

Adding to their problems, Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena announced a few weeks ago that the local government election might not be held this year.

He attributed the delay to the delimitation work which is yet to be finalised. “Although a considerable amount of funds has been allocated,” the Minister said, “the delimitation work has not yet reached completion in any of the 24 districts. Faizer Mustapha, the Minister in charge of the subject, is trying his best to complete this work but it has to be done meticulously.”

From the point of view of the Rajapaksa camp, the postponement of the local government election is a setback for their political movement. Many top-brass members of the UPFA rebel group, including former President Rajapaksa, are facing multiple investigations and no one is certain about their outcomes.

The postponement of the election will deprive them of the opportunity to ‘politicize’ the ongoing investigations and play the sympathy card before their traditional electorate.

“We challenge the government to announce the local government election before March 31. If the government fails to do so, hundreds of thousands of joint opposition supporters will take to the streets,” UPFA rebel MP and MEP Leader Dinesh Gunawardena said, addressing a meeting in Colombo last week. Gunawardena’s remark was a reflection of the sentiments running within the UPFA dissidents’ camp.

Ministers face KPI

It is now known in the public sector that the government has decided to use the KPI (Key Performance Indicator) system to streamline operations in state enterprises and measure their performance in a transparent manner.

National Policy and Economic Affairs Ministry Secretary M.I.M. Rafeek has already ssued a circular to all line Ministry Secretaries asking them to prepare and report their organisational Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the first quarter of the year ending in April.

“The main challenge of all government agencies is the implementation of programmes. Everyone talks and nothing is done. Under the KPI system, the government agencies are required to set their own targets and the Department of Project Management and Monitoring is assigned to monitor whether these targets are met or not,” Prime Minister’s Senior Advisor Charitha Ratwatte, the man who plays a key role behind this initiative, told our sister paper, the Daily News, recently.

Highly placed government sources said state enterprises meeting the KPI targets would be recognised and duly rewarded.

At the same time, there will be fresh targets for them and it will be done in a fully transparent manner with a strong focus on their work-load and the output.

Project Management and Monitoring Department Director General Dharshana Senanayake said her department was expecting all state institutions to report their organisational KPIs and action plans by mid February.

“Then we can monitor them and analyze their performance by the end of April.

There are 240 odd State-owned enterprises. So far I have not received the KPIs and action plans from any of them.

Therefore, I decided to directly write to the chairmen of those SOEs reminding them of this requisite and the letter will be copied to the line ministry secretaries.

My department has to inform the Secretary to the President with regard to the progress of the activities planned in each of these SOEs to reach the KPIs,” she said.

Senanayake said when chairmen and boards of directors were appointed, the Presidential Secretary informed them in writing to prepare the KPIs and report the progress quarterly to the Project Management and Monitoring Department.

She said the guidelines to formulate the KPIs were made with expert help and sent to all SOEs. “The objective of this move is to streamline the organisational activities. We can enhance the productivity level through this means.

The targets can be set for 2016 or a few years ahead according to the nature of the KPI,” Senanayake said, explaining the KPI concept which has been successfully implemented in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa and Canada.

Meanwhile, speaking to the Sunday Observer, a senior government spokesman said the government was looking at the possibility of adopting the same KPI system to measure the overall performance of Cabinet ministers on an individual basis.

“As much as KPIs are useful to measure the performance of an organization within a given period of time, it can also be used to gauge the performance of each Cabinet member.

The KPI targets will primarily measure their efficiency and ‘target-oriented-ness’. It is somewhat similar to evaluation systems adopted by a private sector company,” the spokesman explained.

This is the first time a Sri Lankan government has taken measures to improve the performance of its Cabinet members. So far, Cabinet members functioned above the existing systems of the country and no one was allowed to scrutinise them.

In another step in the direction of improving performance and professionalism of ministers and Parliamentarians, the UK Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA UK) participated in a three day workshop in Sri Lanka on ‘Sectoral Oversight Committees for Members of Parliament’.

The workshop, which ran from February 15-17, was attended by many Sri Lankan MPs and parliamentary officials. Both the Prime Minister and the Speaker of Parliament personally intervened to ensure the success of the workshop conducted by the British group.

Even some members of the UPFA rebel group were seen taking part in the event, closely following the new committee system.

British Members of Parliament Fiona Mactaggart, Richard Bacon and Julie Elliott, representing the Conservative and Labour Parties, worked together with Sri Lankan Parliamentarians to support Parliament’s aim of creating a strong, independent oversight committee system that will in return strengthen Parliamentary democracy in the country.