In an interview with the Sunday Observer, Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda, a veteran political analyst, shared his insights on the upcoming parliamentary elections in Sri Lanka. He discussed the significance of the NPP Government securing a comfortable majority, the urgent need for Constitutional reform and the challenges within the current political landscape. Prof. Uyangoda highlighted the importance of reconciliation among communities and the need for a balanced Foreign Policy, providing a nuanced perspective on Sri Lanka’s path toward stability and democratic governance.
Q: How important is it in this upcoming election for the NPP Government to have a Parliament with a comfortable majority?
A: It is very important for the NPP Government to secure a comfortable majority in Parliament, ideally between 120 and 125 seats. This would allow them to pass legislation without constantly worrying about maintaining majority support.
The Government has three main legislative responsibilities: To pass new Legislation, to annul some existing Legislation—particularly any repressive laws—and to address Constitutional Legislation which is the trickiest since it requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament. Given the Proportional Representation (PR) system, achieving a two-thirds majority may be challenging for the NPP. Therefore, they might have to work with the Opposition on Constitutional reforms. These dynamics present some interesting possibilities following the parliamentary elections.
Q: What is your opinion about the discussion that has been there in the country for the last several decades on the need for a new Constitution?
A: Yes, actually that’s a historical need as well. For the Sri Lankan people, there has been a consistent expression for a new Constitution at a number of elections since the 1993-1994 period. The new Constitution must reconstitute the foundation of the Sri Lankan state. The Sri Lankan state, for the past several years since 1978, has transformed into an authoritarian and to some extent, autocratic system of governance. This system needs to be abolished. That is why it is necessary to use the term ‘reconstitution of the state’ rather than mere constitutional reforms. This requires a democratising agenda.
Secondly, there is the need for national reconciliation and ethnic conflict resolution. This also necessitates some constitutional changes, particularly regarding the 13th Amendment, because there is a demand from the Tamil polity. Although there is a system of devolution under the 13th Amendment, it has not been properly implemented, so certain safeguards for the Provincial Council system are necessary, which also requires additions to the constitutional provisions.
Thirdly, the electoral system has faced a lot of criticism. Some people are very unhappy, while others seem to be okay with the existing PR system. However, there are structural deficiencies in the PR system that we have observed over the years. For example, the district-based electoral divisions have created a situation where some people don’t know who their MP is. In a parliamentary democracy, even in the American democracy, there is a close link between the representative and the represented. American congressmen and senators have a very close relationship with their voters. But because of the peculiar PR system we have, representatives are elected based on the districts, leading to situations where people don’t know who their representative is.
In a parliamentary democracy, there must be a close engagement between voters and their representatives, but this has been accurately subverted under the PR system, so that needs to be changed. Some people are also unhappy with the preferential voting system. The criticism is that the preferential voting system has created a culture of political corruption and a patronage system, which also needs to be addressed.
Fundamentally, Sri Lanka needs a new Constitution to replace the existing authoritarian and autocratic system of governance with a truly democratic one. Some people argue that it should be a parliamentary system. Nevertheless, even within a parliamentary system, certain new imaginations are necessary. For example, under the Prime Minister and the Cabinet in 1972, we had a fairly authoritarian Government. In India, under Prime Minister Modi there is an authoritarian Government. Therefore, new checks and balances should be established to prevent the ruling party in the parliamentary system from abusing both the Legislature and the Executive for authoritarian and autocratic purposes.
Q:In your opinion what are the new policies and Laws needed for reconciliation among the various communities in the country?
A: There already is sufficient legislation in place; what is lacking is implementation and political will. For example, consider the Language rights of the minorities. There is an Official Language Commission and some Laws are outlined in the Constitution, but they are not being properly implemented. This requires a significant amount of political will from the ruling party to ensure that Legislation is enacted.
Q: What are the other Legislations that you think have already been established but are not yet implemented?
A: Certainly, the 13th Amendment is one of them. The 13th Amendment has not been fully implemented. For the past ten years, we have had a Provincial Council system, and there are representatives elected by the people. However, without Elections, the Provincial Councils no longer functioned as intended. They are currently run by a Governor, who is accountable to the President rather than to the people of the Province. This situation needs to be seriously addressed by the new Government, ensuring proper, adequate and the full implementation of the 13th Amendment as an elected body.
There has been an unwarranted tendency within the Provincial Council system where ruling parties in Colombo have sought to have Provincial Councils governed by their own political party. In fact, only in the North and the East did a party other than the ruling party get the opportunity to have its own Provincial Council. All other Councils have been controlled by the ruling party—if the UNP was in power, then the UNP governed; if the People’s Alliance was in power from 1994 onwards, they controlled all the Provincial Councils. Later, under the SLPP and the previous Mahinda Rajapaksa Government, a similar pattern followed. This situation is not conducive for an effective system of devolution.
No central Government should control the Provincial Councils. The spirit of devolution would be best upheld by allowing different parties to run the Councils and win elections. However, this has not happened in Sri Lanka thus far. It is an issue that needs to be addressed both in terms of Legislation and Policy.
Q: Should there be action taken to revise or change agreements with other countries, such as international organisations, that are not conducive or harmful to the interests of Sri Lanka and its people? How important is it to have a balance in international relations to sustain as a nation?
A: I don’t have detailed knowledge about the agreements between countries. However, in general, when discussing our international ties, Sri Lanka needs a clear vision for its foreign relations. The country must carry out its Foreign Policy in a manner that it does not antagonise global and regional powers. This is why some form of non-alignment is necessary, especially since the world is increasingly divided into hostile power centres. We are currently observing a multi-polar system, along with crises such as the one in the Middle East and the war in Ukraine, which are reconstituting global power relations.
In such a situation, a small country such as Sri Lanka cannot afford to alienate global powers; maintaining a certain balance is essential. I believe that not only Sri Lanka but many small countries need to manage their foreign relations with this balance in mind.
In the past, particularly during the 1970s and ‘80s, we followed a Non Aligned Policy, which provided a guiding framework for thinking and policy. Currently, we lack such a guiding framework. The Bandung Spirit of the 1950s offered a vision for countries in Asia and Africa, but now the global environment has become increasingly anarchic. Traditionally, we believed that the international system should be governed by rules, and that everyone should respect international law. However, we see issues in Gaza, Palestine, Lebanon and the Ukraine, where the so-called rule-based international order is only a myth.
The entire world requires critical rethinking of the existing international system, especially considering the ongoing debt crisis affecting many countries in the global South, including Sri Lanka. These countries find it extremely difficult to manage their debt problems and require new forms of assistance, rather than just advice from institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. This is why initiatives such as BRICS are emerging, positioning themselves as alternative fora to challenge Western dominance in the global order. However, it remains uncertain to what extent these alternatives will benefit countries such as ours.
While China and Russia are attempting to construct a new global order, countries such as Iran are likely to join them because they perceive threats from the West. Therefore, the term ‘world order’ may not be accurate; we might be witnessing a world disorder! Consequently, countries such as Sri Lanka must develop a sophisticated Foreign Policy to avoid becoming victims of new global and regional power struggles.
Q: In relation to that, what do you think and how do you understand the recent security alert that has been announced by the US Embassy regarding Israel’s situation in the country?
A: The whole episode puzzles me. We can observe a variety of reactions in Sri Lanka. On the one level, the Government is trying to manage the situation without creating significant drama. They seem to be downplaying the severity of the issue to avoid giving various parties the opportunity to exaggerate and make a spectacle of it. The Government has been careful not to provide critics and Opposition parties a chance to gain political advantage from this situation, especially with Elections coming up in two weeks. The politicisation of any issue is likely to be a top priority for the Opposition and some media outlets. I think the Government is wise to prevent these forces from amplifying the issue and its consequences.
Regarding the American Embassy, I don’t understand why they issued a travel advisory and then later stated that there were no advisories against visiting Sri Lanka. This creates a lot of confusion. What we can see is that the situation in Sri Lanka is somewhat volatile, particularly in the context of the parliamentary election campaign. The political environment is still recovering from the fallout of the Presidential election, and we can expect some degree of stability after the parliamentary elections.
Until then, this confusion and the emergence of conspiracy theories provide an opening for many individuals to present their own theories. Some politicians are attempting to stir public discontent against the Government to redefine their political relevance. Those who are trying to regain attention want to portray themselves as individual heroes to win elections and secure more preferential votes.
Therefore, we should expect this dynamic during the parliamentary elections. The relationship between the ruling party and Opposition parties will likely be very hostile. I believe the Government’s approach is to prevent these destabilising forces from escalating the situation. To that extent, the situation is coming under some control.
Q: How do you foresee the future of Sri Lanka after this Election and with the NPP Government having a group of fresh faces in Parliament?
A: I believe we can expect some degree of political stability following the parliamentary Election, although polarisation between the ruling party and the Opposition will continue. Opposition parties will always look to capitalise on the ruling party’s weaknesses and shortcomings and any missteps will be quickly politicised. Therefore, we can anticipate a very aggressive stance from the Opposition. The reason for this is that many Opposition politicians and political parties do not want the NPP Government to succeed, largely due to concerns over investigations into corruption and serious human rights violations. For many of these politicians, there is a considerable existential threat to their political careers.
We’ve already begun to see signs of the toxicity in the Opposition’s reactions. While many have claimed that in the event the NPP comes to power, it lacks experienced politicians’ However, I have observed in recent weeks, the Government has been handling crucial issues with a certain degree of patience and maturity. It is true that most MPs in the new Parliament will be first-time parliamentarians and consequently, inexperienced. However, these fresh faces should be viewed as an asset. They are idealistic and committed to the party’s program aimed at restoring ethics in Parliament and improving parliamentary behaviour.
To support their development, initial training and exposure to parliamentary procedure, behavioral ethics and Bylaws are necessary. The Secretary General’s Office can undertake the training and awareness-building component, as they have a very committed staff. Some capacity building is required to empower them to fulfill their roles as Lawmakers, Policymakers and members of various oversight committees.
The new MPs should be encouraged to see themselves as the democratic link between citizens and the Government. Improving the quality of parliamentary debates and enhancing MPs’ contributions is an urgent necessity. Strengthening the parliamentary research service and encouraging MPs to utilize the Parliament library should be prioritised. They should also be encouraged to study parliamentary debates from the 1950s to the late 1970s, which is considered the Golden Era of parliamentary debates in our country.
