Could It Be Lust For Power?

• Trying To Hold On To Power Following Defeat After Two Terms In Office

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa at Medamulana, J R Jayawardhana, R Premadasa, D B Wijetunga and Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumarathunga

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s attempt to return to power and seek a third term in office, though not as President, has raised eyebrows both here and overseas.

Historically, no Sri Lankan President has attempted to make a return to politics after two terms in office, especially as Prime Minister.

The unique nature of the current scenario is that Rajapaksa is trying to make a comeback after being defeated on January eighth this year when he tried to secure a mandate for a third term in office.

Many modern presidential republics employ term limits for their highest offices. The United States placed a limit of two terms on its presidency by means of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution in 1951. There are no term limits for Vice Presidency, Representatives and Senators, although there have been calls for term limits for those offices.

The only president to serve more than two terms in the US was Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1940 he won the election for his third term. Four years later in 1944, he ran again. He became the only president to be elected to a fourth term. However, he was president for only a year into his fourth term before he suffered from a cerebral hemorrhage and passed away.

According to Wikipedia, he was able to remain president for so long because his country was in a state of turmoil, World War II and the post-depression era, and they wanted a reliable figure to turn to and lead them during one of their weakened times.

Mahinda Rajapaksa, when seeking a second term in office, rode on his success in defeating the LTTE after 30 years of war.

He also looked for a mandate to rebuild the country, a mandate the people gave him in 2010 when he sought a second term in office. However the LTTE factor was not taken into account when he sought a third term in office as President and by then allegations of corruption took center stage.

Unsuccessful attempts to stay in power

A few US presidents unsuccessfully tried to hold their position for more than eight years. In 1880, after a three year break from the presidency, Ulysses S. Grant attempted to run again. However, he did not win his party’s nomination so he was not even a choice in the final election. About two decades later, Theodore Roosevelt became the president when William McKinley was assassinated. He then served as president from 1901-1909. Three years later, he tried to become the president again; however, he lost to Woodrow Wilson. (Courtesy yourdictionary.com)

The 22nd Amendment, enacted after Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected president for the fourth time, imposes a two-term limit on presidential candidates and was established to formalise a tradition George Washington started by refusing to run for a third term in 1796.

The 22nd Amendment states that no person elected president and no person to hold the office of president for more than two terms is allowed to be elected more than once more. It makes no difference whether the two terms are consecutive.

Clinging onto the chair

There have been a few world leaders who have managed to hold onto power for several years, either as Prime Minister or President.

In Russia, Vladimir Putin was appointed President in 2000, and he was re-elected in 2004. Due to term limits, Putin could not run for the presidency again in 2008. (That same year, presidential terms in Russia were extended from four to six years.) When his protégé Dmitry Medvedev succeeded him as president in March 2008, Putin secured the post of Russia’s prime minister, continuing his position among the top Russian leadership after eight years at the helm.

In Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, as one of the leaders of the rebel groups against white minority rule, was elected as Prime Minister, head of government, in 1980, and served in that office until 1987, when he became the country’s first executive head of state. He has led the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU–PF) since 1975.

In 2008 Mugabe suffered a narrow defeat in the first round of a presidential election but he subsequently won the run-off election in a landslide after his opponent Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew; Mugabe then entered a power-sharing deal with Tsvangirai as well as Arthur Mutambara of the MDC-T and MDC-M opposition party. In 2013, the Election Commission said Mugabe won his seventh term as President, defeating Tsvangirai with 61 percent of the vote in a disputed election in which there were numerous accounts of electoral fraud.

Sri Lanka’s Presidential Term

The office of President in Sri Lanka was created in 1972, as more of a ceremonial position. It was empowered with executive powers by the 1978 Constitution introduced by J. R. Jayewardene.

Former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, who served two terms in office from November 1994 to November 2005, was replaced by Mahinda Rajapaksa as President in 2005.

After being elected to office for a second term, Rajapaksa introduced the 18th Amendment to the Constitution that was termed by many as an ‘undemocratic’ piece of legislation that removed the two term limit of holding office by an elected President.

However, Rajapaksa who faced a Presidential election on January eight this year after holding office for a period of two terms was defeated by the people.

The Sunday Leader spoke to a broad section of society, both here and overseas to gather their views on a Sri Lankan President seeking more than two terms in office or attempting to return to power as a Prime Minister.

———————————————————

Ousted President seeks a comeback

By Amantha Perera

Six months ago, Maithripala Sirisena pulled off a stunning electoral upset in Sri Lanka, defying expectations to defeat incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa in a national election. Sirisena, a former Health Minister for Rajapaksa, rode to victory supported by a diverse political coalition united, above all, in its desire to displace the Sri Lankan strongman accused of increasingly autocratic rule.

Rajapaksa, who in 2009 ended a three-decade-long civil war with separatist Tamil guerrillas seeking an independent homeland in the north of the country, depended on the country’s Sinhala Buddhist majority to stay in power. Sirisena, himself a Sinhala Buddhist, was backed by minority Muslims and ethnic Tamils sidelined under Rajapaksa, along with many Sinhala Buddhists tired of the heavy-handed former leader. “The Mahinda Rajapaksa era is over,” Sirisena told TIME after his victory earlier this year.

His former boss, however, refuses to go away. With characteristic theatricality, he summoned the media to his ancestral home in southern Sri Lanka on Wednesday to outline his ambitions for a comeback. Standing at a podium installed near a tree that formed the backdrop for his late father’s addresses to his supporters — Don Alvin Rajapaksa was a prominent politician from the region — the former President said he would contest a seat in parliamentary elections set for August after Sirisena dissolved the Sri Lankan legislature on Friday. His goal: to become Prime Minister (and thorn in his former ally’s side).

“For the sake of the country … we will contest the upcoming election,” he said. “I ask all patriotic forces from all parties to join us in this struggle to regain the integrity of our motherland.”

But although the setting was rich with political imagery — before making his way to the podium, and with the media at hand, he listened to a Buddhist sermon at his family home — Rajapaksa was more subdued than usual as he made the much anticipated announcement. And he failed to answer a critical question: Under which political banner will he seek a parliamentary seat?

Both Rajapaksa and Sirisena belong to the Sri Lankan Freedom Party (SLFP), a section of which remains loyal to the former Sri Lankan leader. But Sirisena, who became the head of the party when he was elected President, has thus far resisted allowing Rajapaksa to run as an SLFP candidate. Rajapaksa didn’t specify whether he would continue to seek an SLFP ticket or if he would try to run as part of the broader United People’s Freedom Alliance, a political coalition led by the SLFP and chaired by Sirisena.

“It will be an uphill task for [Rajapaksa] to become a real force because right now there is no clear sign whether he has a party machinery to back him,” Jehan Perera, a political analyst and executive director of the Colombo-based National Peace Council, told TIME.

The elections will help determine the fate of Sirisena’s reform drive. In January he won with promises to, among other things, dismantle the executive presidency and devolve more power to the legislature by strengthening the Prime Minister’s office. His rise also brought hopes of reconciliation in a country marred by a deep ethnic divide. As President, Rajapaksa brazenly rejected international calls for a thorough and impartial investigation into allegations of human-rights abuses by the Sri Lankan army in the final months of the civil war. Sirisena campaigned with a promise to hold an independent domestic probe into the claims. The international community was supportive after he came to power, with the U.N. deferring the release of its own report into the matter until later this year to give Sirisena time to put together a domestic process.

To implement his promises, Sirisena appointed Ranil Wickremesinghe, a veteran of Sri Lanka’s fractious political scene and leader of the United National Party, as Prime Minister to head a minority coalition government. With Wickremesinghe at his side, he succeeded in introducing some checks on the power of the presidency, including bringing back a two-term limit for incumbents that had been scrapped under Rajapaksa. But with the Rajapaksa faction in Parliament acting as a roadblock, he had to discard his ambition to abolish its executive powers altogether. Lacking a two-thirds majority in the legislature, he also had to shelve a planned overhaul of the voting system and a right-to-information law to make government more transparent.

Sirisena now needs a Parliament that will be sympathetic to their cause, with enough MPs allied with the President to push through reforms. Rajapaksa’s candidacy means that the final outcome could hinge on the country’s minorities, says Perera.

“The minority parties could hold the key to gaining a majority in Parliament,” explains Perera. “I don’t think any [single] party will gain a majority in Parliament. We will have a situation where the major parties will be jockeying for support from the smaller parties.”

(TIME magazine – July 1, 2015)

Ravindra Wijerathne – Veteran Tele Drama Director

I am of the view that political leaders who have ruled two terms should retire after his second tenure in office. Thereafter they ought to offer their experience and political maturity for the development of the country. They can do such services by being in the comfort of their retirement. It is respectful.

At present, the quality of Sri Lankan politics is declining rapidly. No one knows what might happen next. One decision makes so many differences. It is futile to predict the future of Sri Lankan politics. All Sri Lankans are looking agape at the events happening in the country today. We cannot decide the future based on what happened in the recent past. We need a leader who has a vision that is capable of providing solutions for the problems of unprivileged people, unemployment etc.

 

—————————————-

 

Dr. Rukshan Bellana – President, Government Medical Officers’ Association (GMOA)

I like if a political leader is given only two terms for ruling. Even ten years is too much. We can understand whether our leaders have ruled fairly in the past when they were elected two terms for the office by looking at their achievements towards the betterment of people and the country as a whole. Recently a certain positive political change happened in Sri Lanka. A leader who commits to good governance is a must for a country but there should be a age limit for a leader as well for ruling. If Sri Lankan parliament has such persons, they must be removed. Politicians must have educational qualifications as well as other humane qualities. We do not need over-aged politicians. Political constitutions must be changed. We need real changes. Those who talk about racism should have talked about it in the past. Every day when the Election Day nears, they talk. That is not fruitful. We have to build a talk only at the relevant time.

——————————————

 

Father Rev. Benedict Joseph – Director of the Aquinas Higher Educational Institute

We witness the cream of democracy only in countries like the UK, the USA and Australia. Apart from the countries that controlled by Marxist governments, others have democratic governments that change after a constitutionally defined periods of time that have been defined by the people of these countries. Those countries also enforce check and balances for their governments and leaders.

We have seen many a time that being in the power for long time have resulted in disrespect of governmental bodies for law and order and neglect of their services towards the citizenry and so on. When a governance of a country changing after a constitutionally demarcated period of time, the citizens of that country have an opportunity to bring into the power another government or person that they like and to decide whether the present governance is suitable for ruling anymore.

Most suitable system is to allow political leaders to rule only two terms. Only those leaders who look back and understand their faults and positive aspects of their ruling should be given another chance.

We have gone through many inconveniences due to unfair governance of the former regime. We witnessed that by offering many items and briberies that people have been bought in order to receive their votes for the governing party. We have to ch

 

—————————————–

 

Prof. Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri – Colombo University

When being in a certain position for a long time, an individual and the relevant position become immoral. Such person can use their position wrongly – for instance, a president in a country. Longer duration in power may provide someone immense power in changing minds of the people to his or her advantage. Therefore, limiting the duration in the power is vital. Likewise, whoever who in the power should fulfill promises the relevant government gives to the people within the said duration. Allowing two terms in the power for a president can be acceptable to a country like ours, but during this tenure whatever promises given should be fulfilled.

 

———————————

 

Nadeeka Guruge – Music maestro

I cannot answer this briefly. It has to be discussed thoroughly. If my respond is brief, there may be communicative faults. It is utterly harmful. However, I say that being in the power by any one party or leader more than two terms is wrong. I never give my assent to such a system of governance.

 

 

———————————————

 

Jagath Premalal – Veteran Actor

I think if the people in a country think that their ruler should be in power a longer duration, they must have freedom to do so. If a ruler can provide what the citizens of his/her country want, there must not be time limit for that governance. However, being in the power for an unlimited duration is wrong. But I do not think it is wrong to be in the power more than two terms. Likewise, I do not blame those who vote for such a leader.

 

——————————————-

 

Ven. Ranmalketiya Siridamma Thero –Religious Zonal Educational Director

Being in the power by someone who has capability and qualification is not wrong. But that person should respect and obey our culture and system. Some say that being in the power for a long time is the beginning of an aristocracy. At present we do not think it is wrong. We need governance where everyone can live in harmony. Again we need a system of governance that give priority to Buddhism and also that protects other religions as well. With all these qualities and responsibilities, I do not think that it is wrong a leader who has already been in the power once or twice having another term to rule.

 

—————————————-

Senior Attorney at Law Sagara Kariyawasam – Sri Lanka Law College lecturer

The system of executive presidency is practiced in more than 100 countries out of 196 countries of the world. Thus one would say that more than 50% of the countries have opted to have executive presidential system with necessary changes best suited for their countries. In Sri Lanka we also have introduced executive presidential system after coming in to operation of 1978 Constitution of the Republic.

It can be observed that some countries with the executive presidential system have opted to have different types of limitations on the number of terms one person could be elected as the executive president where certain other countries have not imposed such limitations. For an example in South Korea the executive president can be elected for only one term of five years where in US and France number of terms one person could be elected as the executive president has been limited to two terms. It can be observed that in Germany and Russia even though such limitation on number of terms an individual could be appointed as the executive president has not been imposed there is a limitation where any person cannot be appointed as the executive president for more than two consecutive terms but if the terms are not consecutive an individual can be elected as the executive president for any number of terms. It is also observed that most of the developing countries have not imposed such restriction on the number of terms one person can be appointed as the executive president.

The present Sri Lankan Constitution initially had a restriction on number of terms one person could be appointed as the executive president and this restriction was removed by the 18th amendment to the Constitution and after the said removal opposition parties were successful in convincing the public that such removal is detrimental to good governance principles (which I do not agree) and accordingly by 19th Amendment to the Constitution said restrictions were brought back.

My personal opinion on this matter is that in a country where there is a democratic system where the franchise of the people can be exercised through a free and fair election no such restriction is necessary since the people of the country can decide whether they are willing to allow another term to the incumbent president or not by exercising their franchise.

In my opinion there is no harm in allowing the executive president to serve for more than two terms when the system allows the people to exercise their franchise freely and fairly. This was proven at the last Presidential election held on  January eighth, 2015.

 

—————————————————

 

Dr. Silverine de Silva – Asst. Professor (Mass Communication) – American International University-Bangladesh

We talk of politics, we talk of government. Have we really analysed the meaning of these two words? We start with the government. What is it? A Wikipedia definition states that a government is the system by which a state or community is controlled. The Commonwealth of Nations refers to government as a collectivegroup of people that exercises executive authority in a state. In American English it is called administrationand the concepts of the state and the government may be used synonymously to refer to the person or group of people exercising authority over a politically organised territory.

Speaking of a politically organised territory, the word politics plays a significant role. What does it mean? Once again the Wikipedia defines the word as the practice and theory of influencing other people andrefers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organizsd control over a human community.

Furthermore, politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and resources within a givencommunity (a usually hierarchically organised population) as well as the interrelationship(s) betweencommunities.

We can combine the two and apply it to the political situation and government of Sri Lanka. After achieving freedom from the British, the United National Party was formed and after sometime was broken up and the SLFP was formed. These are current main political parties in Sri Lanka – of course not forgetting the minor parties that are in existence and combine with one or other of the major political partiesto form analliance.

Governments are formed when one or the other party wins an election. Is this real? Do those who join political parties have any idea of politics? Where do they get knowledge from?

Here another question arises. What do we really know about politics? Are the members of a politicallyelected governing body aware of what politics is? We have heard and witnessed how politicians come into being. It is kind of ancestral. The father supports or is involved with a particular party, the son follows, then the grandchildren and the great grandchildren and the chain continues. Lay people or even sometimesthose in power do not understand the meaningof politicsand what values it holds towards the country and the countrymen. So what’s lacking? Education, awareness. How many of us have been made aware of what politics is? How many of our political leaders have studied the scienceof politics? Wealth plays a major role in politics today. If you have the money to spend during your campaigns, and making promises (whichalmost never sees the light of day), you could become a politician. This is very visible in the South Asian region. Is this fair?

Sri Lanka gives a great deal of importance to education and literacy. Isn’t it then the responsibility of thiseducation system to educate those entering politics? Politics is not individualism. It is communitarianism.

It is the togetherness of a community that brings strength to the system and makes it possible to strike a balance. Once the balance is struck and a well-balanced political party comes into power, it will know how to choose its leader and governing body. Then comes the importance of the leader or the President to hold the reigns and carry forth promises of the party made during election campaigns and hold high the hopes of thosewho work behind the scenes to elect the governing party to power. Let’s take Singapore as an example. At the time Singapore was being built, it held Sri Lanka as an example to prosperity. Where does stand SriLanka in comparison to Singapore? The party has to choose persons who will be undoubtedly be good torch bearers with solid backgrounds; firm and capable. We have to understand that once in power; the government needs to draw up long standing strategies and executable development projects that will be beneficial for the people and the country for generations to come. A lead time must be given to any work undertaken. Time is required for planning and implementation and without this essential or crucial planning stages no development work can beimplemented.

Ideas could be called to inform other parties and/or the general public as well (if required).Could there be a manner in which expatriates (some – a chosen handful, if not all) are also involved inmaking suggestions and giving opinions to the government or governing bodies? Expatriates look at SriLanka from a different perspective than those living in the country itself. We see the development workdone, we could sense drawbacks; we could let our voicesbeheard.

We are proud of our motherland, and we wish Sri Lankato be the most developed in the South Asian region.

 

——————————————-

 

Asela Fernando – Sri Lankan residing in Bangladesh for the past 12 years.

We have seen governments come and governments go, Governments with great strong leaders and others who just flow with the tide.

If a government is led by a leader – a president – with great visions and plans for the betterment of the country, how long does s/he have to be at the top to continue the execution of the plans?

In Sri Lanka a president’s term (a term of government) lasts six years. Now the question is are six years sufficient to embark on new development plans and execute it to the benefit of his/her countrymen?

In my view, I do not think so.  Each person needs time and space.  Space to conceive all that has been going on before, to digest if the work introduced and planned by the previous government would reap benefits? If they,  need to be continued? Should they be stopped or turned round? Should they be diverted?

Could a new president along with the new team of ministers and fellowmen be able to show positive results within a short span of six years? No, it is not possible, especially if development projects are long term ones.  Yes maybe two terms might bring out some of the expected results. After all, it’s the people who decide whether they accept the same president for the third term or so forth.

It must be clearly understood that politics or ruling a country does not depend on just an individual, but on the strategy adopted by the leader and his/her team. If we assume that the political system is dependent on a particular individual, it is a wrong concept.

Let us now look at what usually happens at the end of a term of one ruling party especially in the South Asian region, which we belong to. The new ruling party once in power looks for the loop holes, mistakes, delays and whatever it can find to make the on-going development work come to a standstill.  New projects are started and carried on while the current government is in power and at the end of its term, a new government trails in, the old projects come to a halt, new projects are started and the cycle continues. ange this system and regulate the voting system of the country this time.