At a recent interview with the Sunday Observer, SJB MP Eran Wickremaratne addressed the speculation surrounding SJB MPs’ reluctance to rejoin the UNP, asserting that despite their origins in the UNP, the majority found insufficient democratic space within it.
He highlighted the detrimental effects of personality-driven politics and advocated for a shift towards robust institutional frameworks to address national challenges effectively.
Q: Speculation was rife that you, Harsha De Silva, and some others were planning to join the President. What’s the latest on that?
A: I am neither pro-Ranil nor pro-Sajith; my focus is purely on the objectives at hand. Since Ranil Wickremesinghe assumed the role of Prime Minister, there has been speculation about our potential alignment. However, this narrative has been constructed by interested parties and is unfounded. If you observe carefully, no one has joined the President recently. Only the two individuals who aligned themselves with him at the outset remain. Despite continuous speculation and discussions, primarily fuelled by social media, nothing has changed, and I anticipate that nothing will change in this regard.
We certainly don’t anticipate a situation where someone who has been in politics for 50 years, with 30 of those years as the leader of a party, yet during that time, the party has not managed to get a President elected. During this 30-year period, we have witnessed the rise of ethnic nationalism and the ascent of the Rajapaksas, which has gone unchecked. In any democracy in the world, such challenges would have prompted leadership changes. However, in Sri Lanka, we have not seen such changes within the political parties.
It’s essential to consider the future and leadership thoughtfully. In the political arena, leadership does not operate on the principle of merit as it does in the private sector. In politics, leaders often rise to positions of power due to historical connections, family ties, caste, creed, and race, rather than merit. Consequently, we seldom have ideal leaders. This phenomenon is not unique to Sri Lanka but is prevalent throughout South Asian politics.
One key point we need to consider objectively is moving away from the mentality of aligning with specific individuals. This mindset has been detrimental to the country. The belief that an individual can single-handedly transform the nation stems from the 1978 Constitution, which introduced the Presidential system. This system has been a significant disappointment, as placing our hopes on individuals rather than institutions has proven ineffective.
We must focus on strengthening institutions. In politics, one of the primary institutions is political parties. Often, emphasis is placed on building the image of an individual, which ultimately leads to a larger crisis. We need to shift away from this approach. A political institution should have a clear socio-political and socio-economic philosophy, a defined structure, a strategic plan, and a comprehensive strategy. This is what we need to develop continuously.
Q: Some have proposed that the president should be given two more years through a referendum. What is your take on this?
A: My general view is that we shouldn’t focus on individuals. We should focus on building institutions. How can we get this country out of the mess it is in? We’re heading for disaster if we keep going down this road. We already are in a bad situation. A country’s political system should be based on a fundamental set of rules, with the constitution being one of the main rules. We should also follow good practices, which we haven’t been doing. The constitution should be followed, especially when it comes to elections.
I’m saying this in the interest of the country. I think Sri Lankan leaders have failed wherever they’ve had discretion over elections. They have messed it up. Even as a child during J.R. Jayewardene’s time, I opposed postponing elections in principle. Politicians tinkering with the political system is unacceptable and always leads to bad results.
For example, in 2018, we said the Provincial Council system should be revamped. What have we done? We’ve destroyed institutions, and we had no business doing that. If we want to revamp the system, we should follow the proper process and put everything in place. We shouldn’t change the rules of the game on a whim.
We’ve really messed the country up by getting rid of the Provincial Councils, and we haven’t had a Provincial Council election. Sri Lankan leaders have always misused their discretion on elections and cannot be trusted. Therefore, I believe the dates of elections should be set in the constitution, and nobody should be allowed to change them.
For example, a Presidential election should be held on a specific day every five years. Parliamentary elections should also be set on specific dates. If we wish to have some flexibility, we could let Parliament decide to dissolve itself but not leave this decision to the President. Local Council elections should also have fixed dates. This brings certainty, which is good for stability and investment. Constantly tampering with the system creates a lot of uncertainty, which negatively impacts investors and the economy.
Q: Regardless of who comes to power, do you agree that the IMF agreement has to be carried forward?
A: I would say definitely. The understanding with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to create economic stability is welcome. We can defer on the details, and we do defer on the details. We will certainly renegotiate the specifics, but it’s about the details. We believe in fiscal consolidation, which is currently being implemented, so revenues have to increase. However, we differ on where the revenue should come from. We believe in taking money from those who can afford to pay and lessening the burden on the public.
Another area where we differ is that the program must include cost rationalisation, which hasn’t been adequately addressed. This involves reforming the public sector and its expenditure. While we agree with the broad principles of the IMF agreement, we will need to reassess and adjust many aspects of its implementation.
Q: But is it also possible to change the terms of the IMF agreement?
A: Yes, it is definitely possible. As the Government and Executive in power at the time, we have the authority to make changes. People often misunderstand this. I have dealt with the IMF before and made changes to agreements. The IMF is concerned with broad principles, such as revenue consolidation, and increasing the country’s revenue as a percentage of the GDP over time. How we achieve this is up to us, not the IMF.
Q: You mean the details can be changed?
A: Absolutely. The details can be changed, and they will be changed. The IMF program is based on principles, not specific instructions such as where to put VAT or income tax. They agree on the overall goals, and it’s up to us to decide how to achieve them. This Government hasn’t gone into these details yet, but we will. There is no issue with negotiating with the IMF; it’s entirely possible.
The IMF understands that no reform is worthwhile if it leads to social unrest, as the consequences of unrest could outweigh the benefits of the reform. I have personally communicated this to them. The IMF agrees on broad principles and targets, and it’s our responsibility to strive to achieve those. We can change many details and discuss any major pillars that need adjustment during regular reviews. Blaming the IMF is just a political tactic. The IMF sensibly agrees on broad principles and targets, and we can adjust the details accordingly.
Q: So there seem to be some divisions within SJB on various issues. How will this affect the party’s electoral fortunes?
A: I think there is a lot of misunderstanding here. This narrative has been planted, hasn’t it? This story has been circulating for the last four years.
We have a democratic party, and it’s normal to have more than one opinion on policy issues, whether it’s agriculture, education, health, or social protection. This is typical in a democratic setup.
However, what we ultimately agree upon and what will be reflected in our policy statement is the final policy of the party. This isn’t about following any particular individual or faction. Our focus is not just on winning an election but on forming a government and implementing effective policies.
Q: The proposed debates with the JVP were non-events. Can you explain what happened?
A: Originally, we suggested having a debate between the economic teams of the SJB and NPP. However, the NPP declined for political reasons and proposed a debate between the two leaders instead. Our stance is that debates can be ongoing, but if we are to have a Presidential debate, it should follow the global standard of occurring only after a Presidential election has been announced. Both parties should present their manifestos, and the debate should be based on these manifestos. It should be moderated by an independent party, as is done from the USA to France.
Ultimately, this situation turned into a debate about the debate itself. If it involves non-Presidential aspirants, we can have a debate anytime. However, if candidates are debating, it should be after the Presidential elections are announced, and the focus should be on policies. We are not getting into the traps of the Government , we are more advanced than they think.
Q: What do you think of the NPP economic policy? Are they compatible with modern times?
A: I’m not sure if they have a coherent policy. The JVP seems stuck in the past; they only know how to make speeches. They were making speeches at 5, 25, 35, and now at 55, they are still making speeches. As Steve Jobs once said, “I’m one of those people who think Thomas Edison and the light bulb changed the world more than Karl Marx ever did.” I don’t disregard Marx, but if Edison hadn’t been there, we’d be discussing Marx’s ideas in the dark.
What I disagree with is their stance that the means do not matter, only the objective does. I believe both the means and the objectives matter.
Q: Will a future Government reduce the tax burden on the public? If so, how will the revenue shortfall be met?
A: We definitely have to pursue our revenue goals. The primary balance needs to be positive, and we must move in that direction. There’s no question about that. We advocate for working people, so PAYEE tax must be reduced to provide them some relief. When we do that, we need to find alternative sources for the balance. Therefore, we will have to consider other taxes. The wealthy will have to contribute more. There is no other way.
Q: How do you propose to emerge from bankruptcy?
A: To overcome bankruptcy, we need to prioritise growth. This involves reducing costs and focusing on increasing revenue sources. Creating an environment conducive to investment is crucial because growth relies on investment. Currently, there’s a lack of confidence in our system, which hampers investment. Political stability is essential to build trust among investors. Corruption is a significant issue hindering foreign investment in Sri Lanka. Although new laws have been enacted, their implementation remains inadequate.
One of our proposals is to establish an independent public prosecutor’s office to handle corruption cases impartially. This office would ensure transparency and prevent political interference in investigations and prosecutions.
Leveraging technology can streamline interactions between citizens, consumers, politicians, and state officials, reducing opportunities for corruption. Consolidating the Excise Department, Customs, and Inland Revenue under a unified revenue collection authority is another practical step we intend to take.
These measures are pragmatic and aimed at addressing systemic issues, unlike the simplistic approach of merely apprehending wrongdoers advocated by others. Investigations should operate independently of political influence, as demonstrated by cases handled by professionals like Shani Abeysekara, does not matter whether he sat in JVP meetings, regardless of their associations outside official duties investigations must be carried out.
Q: Don’t you think Ranil Wickremesinghe stabilised the country?
A: Ranil engaging with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was very beneficial. We had an IMF program during the previous 2015-2019 Government as well, with Mangala Samaraweera as Finance Minister and myself as State Finance Minister. Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s sudden changes led the country to bankruptcy. Wickremesinghe, upon taking office, has restored stability. However, the challenge now is transitioning from stability to sustainable growth.
Q: Is the SJB assured of victory in future elections? There is a notion that SJB and UNP must merge to defeat the NPP.
A: SJB and UNP have no disagreements; in fact, 90% of us came from the UNP due to the lack of democratic space within it. Changing names doesn’t alter one’s character; similarly, the UNP is welcome to join forces with SJB at any time. Assessing parliamentary seats, as well as research and polling, clearly positions SJB ahead of the UNP.
