Sunday, August 18, 2019

Presidential Race: Some Challengers

Gotabhaya Rajapaksa was officially nominated as the SLPP candidate for the upcoming presidential election last weekend. With this nomination, the entire discussion in the political landscape is completely focused on the upcoming presidential election. Though the UNP is yet to officially announce who it will be nominated as the candidate to contest in the presidential election, we see a situation where several party members are self-nominating themselves.

Gotabhaya's speech in accepting the official nomination proposes a new dimension in the country's political discourse. It is very important to note that his speech was only focused about policy matters and development goals that are expected to be delivered if he is elected as the president but not about the opponent or the shortcomings of the opposition political parties.

In the recent past all the political campaigns in our country have always focused on criticism on the opponents but not on what they are going to deliver to the country. The 2015 Presidential Election campaign is a classic example of this

What happened during that presidential election was to attack the Rajapaksa government with various political rhetoric and baseless allegations without developing a substantial policy debate in the campaign discourse.  There is nothing wrong with saying that there was nothing new in 2015 presidential election campaign beyond the rhetorical criticism and mere name dropping such as good governance. The importance of Gotabhaya's speech could be more highlighted in that context

Mr Basil Rajapaksa, the staunch strength behind the rise of SLPP, has stated at a press conference that the party's policy manifesto is due to be released in the coming weeks and that the country's development strategies which are to be followed if SLPP candidate bags the victory in the next presidential election, will be presented there in detail. Gotabhaya's speech in that sense was a summary of country's development path in the aftermath of a political change. His speech is an attempt to change the dimensions of politics in our country, from talker’s project to a doer’s project.  

An election in a democratic society is building up social consensus with the people on governing the state.  Thus, it is not enough to have only political parties and leaders to build up this consensus but it is necessary to present the development strategies that each of these leaders intends to implement during their tenure. The election campaigning platform should be used to establish a substantial discussion on such policies with the voters.  The content of the speech indicated that it was focused on a range of areas from economic development to upholding cultural values to national security and environmental protection. In that sense he undoubtedly demonstrated the role of a mature administrator

If explained in academic terms, there is nothing wrong in saying that his speech was inclusive of a project mentality.

Project thinking is the process of realizing the responsibilities that one undertakes and identifying the objectives of the project and utilizing its resources to achieve its objectives. By 2005, the process of defeating terrorism in this country had dragged on to a point where no one could predict the end of it and it was with this managerial capability that then government could eradicate terrorism. 

With that note I wish to present few ideas which I think should be taken into consideration when formulating the party policy mandate of SLPP.

In other words, facing contemporary challenges as a country could be strategically addressed through three major points: Those three main challenges are how to make our country a strong country, how to make our country a free country and how to make our country a prosperous country. The three central words here are "strong, free and prosperous."

The word 'strong' here should be understood as how to make this country strong in order to gain recognition at the international arena. To bring the country in to such a strong position a serious change in the governance structure of the country should be made from top to bottom and our perceptions need to be changed as well. On the other hand, it is important to remember that the country's strength is linked to securing the internal peace and security of the country. Another area which is linked with this is improving the education system and strengthening the level of professionalism.

Secondly, making our country a free country is a serious challenge. We can very well recall that the slogans used in the regime change of 2015 was mainly about freedom and democracy. During the previous Rajapaksa regime, the idea of ​​independence was understood as liberating the country from terrorism and liberating the people from economic oppression.

But the civil society of January 2015 showed that democracy in this country is not limited to such ground realities but could be expanded more in to “living-room” type of a democracy linked with concepts like “good-governance” and “equal- society”.

The majority of our society accepted at that election such rhetorical babbles on democracy rather than the workable realistic form of democracy. By now this “fairy-tale” form of intangible democracy has brought in serious contradictions in our governing structure. It is because of this contradiction that laws are put in place to postpone every election while preaching about high standards of democracy.  Therefore, it is my understanding that the main force of the next political transformation in our country should be focused on formulating a new definition of democratic governance and strengthening the rule of law.
The third biggest challenge we face is how to strengthen the country economically

A new policy which focuses on the economic model which suits this country needs to be formulated for the betterment of the country. The new dimension proposed by Gotabhaya's speech will create a whole new chapter in domestic politics, as SLPP policies can contribute to this discussion in a substantial manner. 

Dr. Charitha Herath
Senior Lecturer, Department of Philosophy,
University of Peradeniya

Saturday, July 27, 2019

Battleground changed?

It is a well-known fact that the attention of the entire society is focused on the next election. Some feel that there is a possibility of holding the provincial elections before the presidential election.

The notion that provincial council elections will precede the presidential election has arisen due to some statements made by the Election Commission Chairman recently. He declared that he will resign if provincial council elections are not held before December. Due to his statement, some think that there is a possibility of provincial council elections being held first. However, my understanding is that all the chances of such a possibility are over. Since holding presidential elections in November is mandatory under the Constitution, there is nothing wrong in thinking that the first national election we will face this year will be the presidential election.

In this week’s column, I am not focusing on what kind of person should be the candidate for the next presidential election. My focus is to highlight some issues that are relevant to the current situation in the country which need to be addressed in the next presidential election.

In other words, I am trying to raise some points which people think should be debated in the discourse space of the next presidential election campaign.

In my point of view, it does not matter who is nominated by each political party as their candidate because economy and international relations-related subject matter has surfaced in the political landscape as matters of much greater importance due to the nature of the country’s current political situation.

Although it is clear that the topic of national security is of great concern in addition to the two aforementioned topics, in my personal point of view – although the need for strengthening national security is relatively high with the emergence of Islamist extremism – the issues of national security are not as complex as the ones of the economy and international relations. It is clear that economic issues have been a major topic of discussion in almost every national election in this country, but this time, the gravity of that factor has increased.

Saturday, July 13, 2019

Social Media Politics

The issue of banning a social media page has once again become the talk of the town in Sri Lanka. It seems that the government has banned the social media page of a young popular musician.  It appears that a large number of people are coming forward against this baseless ban, regardless of their political opinions. Since this social media page is one of the most popular pages which has over 100,0000 followers with a significant social power, there could have been some hidden agenda behind this sudden ban.  It is true that it’s only one individual who is subjected for this incident, but the blocking of social media in that way has an indirect link with the rights of every citizen in the country.

In this week’s column I wish to discuss the relationship between social media and democracy on one hand, and on the other hand, one of the significant developments in the political arena of our country today. A very significant interconnection has been developed in the recent times between social media and day to day activities common people. It is a noteworthy factor that this has spread not only in to the political arena but also in to the other zones of social life such as economy and trade.

The fact that whether a country is thriving was measured in the past based on the criteria how well the country's physical infrastructure has developed. In other words, development ratio was set against the improvement of things in the material realm such as roads, airports, ports, electric power, etc., But now that the situation has changed, and there is a direct relationship between the fact whether a country has achieved better social status and how the digital infrastructure of that country has changed. In this context it is not wrong to state that foreigners decide to visit a country as tourists, taking into consideration both the security and the status of digital infrastructure facilities.

The nature of the developments in the political arena is very large in relation to this situation. One of the decisive factors in the 2015 presidential election was the kind of anti-establishment situation which was created in the social media space.  No room was left to control or modify the social networking which was created in this context due to the unique nature of influence in these platforms. In addition, as this type of social media networking is formed in some kind of undercover dimension their impact is unlikely to be understood before it comes.  What I am trying to point out is that the social pressure or social change caused by that influence can only be realized only after it has happened. Therefore, understanding this new dimension in the digital space is very important from a political perspective.
An important survey on world’s social media literacy conducted by a Singaporean corporation, shows that the impact created by social media on every social dimension of this country is extremely alarming. According to the survey, the world's population as of January this year is about 7.67 billion. The survey found that 42% of the total population of the world who use a mobile phone to access social media is accounted to 3 .25 billion subscribers.

This survey has presented some very important data in relation to the situation in Sri Lanka. According to the above survey, the mobile subscriber base in Sri Lanka is about 28.71 million. That number is larger than the country's population of 20.98 million. However, there is no difficulty in realizing the gap between the numbers as we know that there are some individuals who use more than one mobile phone. Now, in addition to this, it is said that the number of Internet users in Sri Lanka in January 2019 is about 7.13 million. According to the survey, the number of social media users among them is about 6.2 million. In addition, one of the most important data presented in this is that in January 2019, a sample of about 5.7 million among the mobile phone users in Sri Lanka access social media through their mobile phones. In my opinion, this figure represents a number of very important issues in term of politics. This is approximately about 20 percent from all mobile phone users, and is roughly equal to the size of the youngest groups voting in the next election. This is the group born within the five years from 1997 to 2002. Nevertheless, this does not mean that all between 18 to 22 years of mobile phone users in this country access social media platforms by phone or nor does it mean that all who access social media platforms are between this age group. But the fact that this group has a large impact on the voter turnout in our country is undeniable. The youth groups that I am saying are neither morning newspaper nor night television news. There is nothing wrong with saying that this group's information connection is solely through mobile platforms. They watch the news, listen to the news and read newspapers from the mobile phone.

The next important point this survey presents is that one 7.7 million people in Sri Lanka have access to the Internet, which is about 34 percent of the country's total population. It has also mentioned that about 6.5 million of the mobile phone users in the country access the Internet from their phones, which is about 31% of the total mobile subscribers.

One important observation that can be made based on these data is that a drastic change is taking place in the political discourse and media practice of this country. I don’t mean to say that this change will build a society that is based on truth and reality. But I think there is nothing wrong in saying that digital space is the 'ground of struggle' between truth and false in future. One of the key points aroused in the 2015 presidential election was the profound difference between what the traditional media presented and the knowledge produced by social media, and the impact that difference caused on the society is decisive.  Particularly in the days leading up to the 2015 election, a friend of mine suggested that in a country where there is no influence of Prabhakaran, there is a huge potential for a drastic change in the electoral politics. In some sense, we have all faced this situation during 2015 presidential election. In addition, considering the struggle in the digital space that has been developing since 2015, one can say that an important chapter of the next political shift is intertwined with this emerging social media space. The next model of electoral politics will develop a generation who is heavily engaged in the digital space and who politically responds through the digital space, excluding the model of young people frequenting the night-time at their respective representative’s residence and those who rallying till midnight with the candidates. It is correct to mention that this situation has completely exacerbated some of the dividing lines in politics and the dominant politics. Finding out how to deal with this situation is the biggest challenge at the moment in the mainstream politics.

Dr Charitha Herath

Thursday, July 4, 2019

ජූලි ජූලි ජූලි 7යි

මේ සතියෙන් පටන් ගත්තේ ජූලි මාසයයි ‘ජූලි හතයි’ කියා සාමාන්‍යයෙන් අපේ ව්‍යවහාරයේ කියවෙන්නේ තේරුම් කීපයක් ලබා දෙන කියමනකි. එක පැත්තකින් මෙයින් කියැවෙන්නේ ‘යම් ආකාරයක බරපතළ ක්‍රියාවක් සංකීර්ණ ආකාරයෙන් හා අර්බුදජනක ආකාරයෙන් සිදුවීම’ යැයි නිර්වචනය කළ හැකිය.

තවත් පැත්තකින් සමහරුන් ජූලි හතයි යැයි කියන්නේ අප බලාපොරොත්තු නොවූ ආකාරයේ විසඳිය නොහැකි ආකාරයේ අර්බුදජනක තත්ත්වයක් උද්ගතව ඇති නිසාද තේරුම් ගත හැකි බව අපේ ප්‍රායෝගික දැනීමෙන් අප දන්නා කාරණයකි. මා මේ ලිපියෙන් සාකච්ජා කරන්නේ මේ රටේ දේශපාලනයේ මේ ජූලි මාසය වන විට මෝදු වෙමින් තිබෙන අර්බුදජනක තත්ත්ව කීපයක් (හතක්) පිළිබඳවය. වෙනත් ලෙසකින් කීවොතින් මා උත්සාහ ගන්නේ ජූලි මාසයට සම්බන්ධ දේශපාලන කාරණා කීපයක් පිළිබඳව සාකච්ජා කරන ගමන් මේ වසරේ ජූලිවලට අප පා තබද්දී මතුවෙමින් පවතින අර්බුද කීපයක් පිළිබඳව සාකච්ජා කිරීමය. මා ජූලි හත යැයි කියන්නේ මේ අර්බුදජනක කාරණා හතක් පිළිබඳව සිතාගෙනය.

පළමුවෙන්ම කිව යුතු කාරණය වන්නේ මේ රජය මේ දවස්වල කරගෙන යන ‘සුදු ජූලිය’ ප්‍රචාරක වැඩසටහනට පින් සිදුවෙන්නට එජාප රජයේ කාලයකම සිදුවූ බරපතළ කළු ජූලිය පිළිබඳව අපේ මතකය යළිත් උඩට පැමිණ ඇති බවයි. මේ රටේ ඉතිහාසයේ ‘කළු ජූලිය’ කියා කියවෙන 1983 ජූලි මාසයේ සිදූවූ වාර්ගික සංහාරය හරහා සිදුවූ ක්‍රියාදාමයයි.

Saturday, June 29, 2019

Beyond 19 Amendment?

Last week president himself declared 19th amendment is the root cause of the political chaos in the country. President further went on to say that both 18th and 19th amendments are politically incorrect as 18th    amendment paved way for pacifism while 19th amendment paved way for anarchy in the country.  If he is raising this point with the idea that he himself and others who were instrumental in bringing in this reforms made a mistake, then it can be accepted fact for all of us. However, in my point of view, the underlying idea in president’s statement demonstrates the fact of unskilled governance which has become the key issue in our political landscape.

Hence, my column today is focused on the so called complications created through the 19th amendment. The important point which we need to keep in mind is the fact that this so called “failed” project of 19th amendment commenced targeting the 2015 presidential election. The idea of unifying under one platform was presented to public with the concept of common candidate on one hand and with the proposal of 19th amendment on the other hand. In that sense one can argue fth amendment and current president are two components of a single project. Another significant point here is that both the above projects commenced as a result of serious foreign influence in domestic politics. Though the election was held on 8th January 2015, some foreign ambassadors and certain politicians have held “planning meetings” long before that. There were rumors saying that such planning meetings were mainly held in Singapore and even the first sketch of the 19th amendment was designed during such meetings. The idea what I am trying to point out here is that when we analyze all above facts we can come to the conclusion that “yahapalana” politics of 2015 January and 19th amendment are two sides of the same coin. Therefore, president’s claim that 19th amendment is the root cause for the political chaos which country is currently going through, is a half-truth.  In my understanding that statement needs to be amended as follows to make it a true statement; the current political turmoil is a direct consequent of the chaotic political change of 2015.
or the fact that 19
Due to the undemocratic nature in which 1978 reforms were carried-out during JR’s rule, there’s a common perception among countrymen that almost all the constitutional amendments following that were carried out in a similar manner. Several historical records such as the incident involving MP Sarath Muththettuwegama and MP Abeyrathna Pilapitiya of Kalawana electorate, indicates that during JR’s time there had been a tendency where he could amend the constitution as and when he wanted. Such incidents prove the fact that constitutional reforms or amendments under JR’s rule were not based on critical common political needs but they were mainly done on personal or party political requirements. Even though 19th amendment was not done under the reign of JR, as per my point of view 19th amendment was also proposed mainly to satisfy whims and fancies of certain political figures.
Though one of the objectives of the 19th amendment was to remove certain executive powers originally granted to the president, it is a common secret that 19th amendment was architectured in such a way that in fact it’s main objective was to create certain political limitations for Rajapaksh family members.   

The clause that a presidential candidate who has been elected for presidency for two times cannot contest for a third term was introduced in 19th amendment, directly restricting the possibility of former president Mahinda Rajapaksha contesting as a presidential candidate in future. A minimum age limit of 35 years was introduced with the idea of not allowing Rajapaksha’s children to contest for presidency in near future. It was none other than certain UNPers who blabbered that a special clause restraining any person holding dual citizenship contesting for parliament was introduced directly to avoid the possibility of Rajapaksha brothers (Gotabhaya and Basil) contesting. Ultimately with this personally motivated mandates being incorporated, 19th amendment has receded down to a mere written statement which in one hand has messed up the executive body in the governing hierarchy while strengthening the position of Prime Minister on the other hand.  President himself realizing the short-comings of 19th amendment, which he was instrumental in implementing, is in a way a positive move, yet the noteworthy fact here is that whether we like it or not now the procedure to remove the amendment is cumbersome.  Therefore, in my understanding best way forward would be to invent a new structure of governing which can help bridge the shortfalls of 19th amendment.
With the scenarios in the political arena It doesn’t seem likely that there would be an opportunity to abolish 19th amendment in near future. Also there’s a possibility of governing structures getting further messy following the next presidential election as a result of clashes created due to certain clauses of 19th amendment.  According to the 45th clause of 19th amendment only a MP can be appointed as a member of parliament which in other words would deprive the opportunity for a future president to hold any ministerial portfolio’s. As per the 19th amendment any cabinet in future will be limited to 30 ministers and also cabinet ministers can only be appointed with the recommendations of the Prime Minister. In addition, one major complication created by 19th is the procedural issues in relation to the commissions established. In my point of view, the verdict which will be served by court in relation to the case filed by former IGP on him being removed from the position will mark a mile stone with regard to formation of commissions.

In this context the most important strategy for any future government is to find creative ways escape through available loop-holes in 19th amendment to avoid possible governance crisis. If you carefully analyze and interpret the clauses one such possibility can be found in the section related to appointing cabinet ministers. Even though president is devoid of the authority to decide the number of ministers, complete authority to gazette relevant subjects and responsibilities is still in the hands of the president. Also there is no strict ruling saying that all institutions, departments and corporations should be gazetted under the purview of ministers.  Therefore, according to my personal analysis, the 19th amendment itself has created space for the existence of a separate set of government institutes which could be regulated and handled under a strong administrative structure. A system could be established where this set of public entities are headed by non-political appointees who are well qualified to hold the responsibility and these institutions are liable to report to the parliament via president secretary and are audited under the direct supervision of the cabinet secretary. Such a governance structure would definitely pave the way for an enhanced and efficient public service system in our country.
On the other hand, one major complication we had to face in the past was that executive powers were delegated to ministers from the president and then ministers become direct agents of the executive body neglecting the role of the legislature.  This is the main reason why we didn’t have MP’s who were ready to put their heart and soul in to the exercise of drafting laws and regulative acts with a substance.  If carefully handled there’s enough space to maneuver the 19th amendment to improve the parliamentary system in a way that role of the parliamentarian is made strong without letting the role of the cabinet minister override that.
In my opinion the only options left within the given context is to realize that pointing out to short comings of 19th amendment which in fact could have been addressed at the stage of implementation is a worthless effort and try to creatively formulate a new structure through which such short-comings could be managed in future.

Dr Charitha Herath

Thursday, June 27, 2019

දහනමයේ අපලය

මේ රටේ මේ මොහොතේ තිබෙන දේශපාලනමය වූ අවුල් සහගත තත්වයට හේතුව වන්නේ 19 වන ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනයෙන් මතුවූ තත්වයක් යැයි ජනාධිපති තුමා විසින්ම ප‍්‍රකාශ කළේ පසුගිය සතියේය. එතුමන්ගේ අදහස වන්නේ 18 වන ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය සහ 19 යන සංශෝධන යන දෙකම පළල් අර්ථයෙන් රටට නොගැලපෙන ඒවා බවය. ඔහු ප‍්‍රකාශ කරන ආකාරයට 18 වන ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෙෘ්ධනයෙන් රටේ ඒකාධිපතිත්වයක් නිර්මාණය කළ අතර 19 වන ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනයෙන් රට තුළ අරාජතක්වයක් ගොඩ නැගුවේය. මෙහිදි මුළින්ම කිව යුතු කාරණය වන්නේ මේ සංශෝධන දෙකින් පළමු එකට අත ඉස්සූ කෙනෙක් ලෙසින් සහ දෙවන එක ගෙන ඒම ට මුල්වූ අයෙක් ලෙසින් එතුමා කියන්නේ තමා ඇතුලූ අනෙක් කණ්ඩායමටම මේ ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධන දෙකේදිම වැරදුනු බව නම් එය අපි කාටත් පිළිගත හැකි කාරණයක්ය. එහෙත් මට නම් පේන්නේ මේ පසුවිපරම මගින් පෙන්නුම් කරන්නේ එතනින් එහාට ගිය කාරණයක් පිළිබදවය කියාය. එනම් මේ රටේ දේශපාලන ක්ෂේත‍්‍රයේ මතුවී තිබෙන රාජ්‍ය පාලනයේ නුපුහුණු බව පෙන්වීමේ තවත් එක් අවස්ථාවක් කියාය. 

මේ සටහනින් මා සාකච්ජා කරන්නේ 19 වන ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනයේ ඇතැයි කියන අර්බුද ජනක තත්වය පිලිබදවය. මෙහිදි අපගේ මතකයට නගා ගත යුතු වැදගත් කාරණයක් වන්නේ මේ වැරදුනා යැයි කියන 19 වන සංශෝධන ව්‍යාපෘතියම පටන් ගත්තේ 2015 ජනාධිපතිවරණය ඉලක්ක කරගනිමින් බවයි. ඒ ජනාධිපතිවරණය සදහා පොදු අපේක්ෂකයෙකු මගින් පොදු වැඩ සටහනක් හරහා තරග කළ යුතුයැයි තර්කයක් මතු කළේම 19 ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය එක් පැත්තකිනුත් මෛත‍්‍රීපාල සිරිසේන මහතා ජනාධිපති ලෙසින් අනෙක් පැත්තතෙනුත් ඉදිරියට දමමින් බව අපි හැමෝම දන්නා කාරණයක්ය. ඒ අර්ථයෙන් බලන විට 19 සංශෝධනය හා වර්තමාන ජනාධිපතිතුමා යනු එකම ව්‍යාපෘතියේ කොටස් දෙකක් යැයි සිතීමේ වැරුද්දක් නැත. මේ ව්‍යාපෘති දෙකම පටන් ගත්තේ මේ රටේ දේශපාලනයට බරපතල ආකාරයෙන් විදේශීය කණ්ඩායම්වල මැදිහත්වීම එක්වීමේ ප‍්‍රතිඵලයක් ලෙසින් බවද අපේ මකනයට නගා ගැනීම වැදගත්ය. 2015 ජනවාරි 8 වෙනි දින ජනාධිපතිවරණය පැවැත්වූවාට ඒ වෙනුවෙන් සමහර විදේශීය තානාපති නිලධාරින් සහ අපේ රටේ සමහර දේශපාලඥයින්ගේ ‘ෆැලෑනින් මීටීන්ස්’ පැවැත්වූයේ ඊට සෑහෙන කාලයකට පෙර සිටන්ය” ඒ සමහර රුස්වීම් සංවිධානය වූයේ සිංගප්පුරූවේ යැයි ආරංචියක්ද ඒ දවස්වල තිබුනු අතර මේ කියන 19 වන සංශෝධනයේ මුලික කෙටුම්පත පවා සාකච්ජා කෙරුවේ ඒ රුස්වීම් වලදි යැයි පිළිගැනීමක්ද තිබේ. ඒ අනුව පෙන්නුම් කරන්නේ 2015 ජනවාරි දේශපාලනයත් 19 වන ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනයත් යනු එකම කාසියේ පැති දෙකක් බවයි. මේ රටේ අද තිබෙන දේශපාලන වියවුලට 19 වන සංශෝධනය සම්බන්ධ යැයි ජනාධිපතිතුමා කියන විට එය අර්ධ සත්‍යයක් වන අතර ඒ කථාව සම්පුර්ණ සත්‍යයක් වන්නට නම් කිව යුත්තේ මේ රටේ අද තිබෙන අවුල් සහගත තත්වය යනු ‘2015 ජනවාරිවරුන්ගේ’ අවුල් සහගත දේශපාලනයේ ප‍්‍රතිඵලයක් ලෙසින් ගොඩ නැගුනු දෙයක් බවයි.

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

225 ම එපාද?

අපේ රටේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ සිටින මන්ත‍්‍රීවරුන් හැම දෙනාමට පාහේ ජනතාවගේ විරෝධතාවක් තිබෙන පරිද්දෙන් මතුවෙමින් තිබෙන ‘225 ම එපා’ යැයි කියවෙන ප‍්‍රකාශය මේ දවස්වල සමාජ මාධ්‍ය අවකාශයේ සාකච්ජා වෙන එක් ජනප‍්‍රිය සටන් පාඨයකි. මේ කාරණයෙ මගින් මතුකර තිබෙන්නේ මේ රටේ සමාජය රටේ දේශපාලනය පිළිබදව මෙතෙක් කාලයක් බැලූ ආකාරයට වඩා යම් විචාරාත්මක හා විරෝධාත්මක බවක් බව බැලූ බැල්මට පෙනී යයි. ඇත්තටම අපේ සමාජයේ තිබූ දේශපාලන සාක්ෂරතාවයෙහි බරපතල වෙනසක් 2015 ජනවාරි ජනාධිපතිවරණයත් සමගින් සිදුවෙමින් පවතින බව ඉතාමත් පැහැදිලි කාරණයක් වන අතර ඒ වෙනස් තත්වයෙහි එක් කැපී පෙනෙන දෙයක් වන්නේ තමා දෙන ජන්දය සහ රටේ අනාගතය අතර සම්බන්ධයක් තිබෙන බව සමාජයේ එක් තීරුවක් තදින්ම විශ්වාස කිරිමට පටන් ගැනීමයි. මේ කියන 225 ම එපා කථාව එන්නේ මේ අලූත් තත්වයෙහි ප‍්‍රතිඵලයක් ලෙසින් බව පිලිගැනීමේ වැරුද්දක් නැත. ජනතාවගේ පැත්තෙන් මතුවෙන විරෝධතාවක් සටහන් කරන්නට 225 ම එපා යැයි කීවත් මේ සංවාදය නිවැරිදිව නොගියහොත් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව හා ඒ ආයතනයේ අනාගත පැවැත්ම සම්බන්ධයෙන් මතු කර ගත යුතු වැදගත් කරුණු ගනනාවක් මග හැරී යන ආකාරයේ අනතුරක් මේ සටන් පාඨයේ තිබෙන බව මගේ අදහසය. මේ සටහනින් කථා කරන්නේ ඒ සම්බන්ධයෙන් වැදගත් වන කරණු කීපයක් පිළිබදවය.

මුළින්ම කිව යුත්තේ මන්ත‍්‍රිවරයෙකුගේ කාර්යභාර්ය පිළිබදව සමාජයක් දේශපාලන වශයෙන් යම් මුහුකුරායාමකට පත්වීම ඉතාමත් හොද දෙයක් බවය. 1930 දශකයේ සිටම ජන්ද අයිතිය පිළිබද යම් ආකාරයක දැනීමක්  මේ රටේ  ගොඩ නැගෙමින් තිබූ බව සත්‍යයක්ය. ඒ කියන්නේ අපේ රටේ සමාජයට  ස්වකීය පාලකයින් තෝරා ගැනීමට ඉඩක් ඒ කාලයේ සිටම තිබූ බවය.  එහෙත් ඒ ඉඩ සහ ඒ ප‍්‍රජාතන්ත‍්‍රවාදි අවකාශය ශක්තිමත් දේශපාලන තෝරාගැනීමක් බවට පත් වුනේ නැති තරම්ය. සර්වජන ජන්ද බලයේ මුල් ඉතිහාසය මගින් කියන්නේම මේ ගොඩ නැගෙමින් තිබූ ප‍්‍රජාතන්ත‍්‍රවාදි අවකාශය ඉහලට මතුවුනේ නැති ආකාරයක්ය.  ඇත්තටම සිදුවුනේ  පැරනි වැඩවසම් සමාජ ක‍්‍රමයේ මිය යමින් තිබූ සමාජ ආකෘතින් වූ කුළය හා පරවේනි උරුමය වැනි විකාර සමග මිශ‍්‍ර වූ අලූත් තත්වයක් පාර්ලිමේන්තු ප‍්‍රජාතන්ත‍්‍රවාදයට ඇතුල් වීමය. 1977 දක්වාම සංබ්‍යා ලේඛණවලින් පෙන්වන්නේ මේ තත්වය හරහා පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ඇතුලූවුවන් බහුතරක් මේ ගනයට අදළ බවය.  එහෙත් ඒ කාලයේ දේශපාලනයට ආවේ එවැනි වැඩවසම් ආකෘතියක සිටින සම්පත් වැඩි කාණ්ඩයේ පවුල්වල අය වුවත් සහ ඒ බොහෝ අයගේ බුද්ධිභාවය ඉතාමත් ප‍්‍රාථමික තත්වය තිබුණත් ඒ කාලයේ සිටි  නායකයෝ  මේ රටට එරෙහිව දේශපාලනයේ යෙදෙන්නෝ නොවූ බව අපි තේරුම් ගත යුතු කාරණයක්ය. මේ රටේ පාර්ලිමේන්තු දේශපාලනය  පටන් ගත්තේම ඒ ආකාරයේ වැරදි පාරකට දමමින් වූ නිසාම  ඒ පාරෙන් ආපු බොහෝ අය ස්වකීය ‘මහන්තත්කම රුක ගැනීම වැනි හිස් අවකාශයක් නඩත්තු කිරීමට’ තමන්ගේ තමන්ගේ දේපොල විකුණමින් දේශපාලනයේ රුදි සිටියා මිස පාර්ලිමේන්තුවාදයෙන් රටට ලබා ගත යුතු ධනාත්මක ජයග‍්‍රහන එතරම් සැලකිල්ලකට ගත්තේ නැති තරම්ය. ඒ වගේම දේශපාලනය පාවිච්චි කරමින් හොරකම් කරන්නටත් ඒ කියු කාණ්ඩයේ අය පෙළඹුනේ නැති තරම්ය.  ජෙ ආර් ජයවර්ධන හා ඇන් ඇම් පෙරෙරා වැනි මේ කාණ්ඩයේ සිටි අවසන් නායකියින් මිය ගියේ තමන්ගේ වියදමින් හද ගත් කොළඹ පිහිටි ගෙවල් දෙරවල් පවා රජයට හෝ පක්ෂයට පරිත්‍යාග කරමින්ය.