Summary of Policy Proposals by Candidates for the 2024 Presidential Election

Sri Lanka’s presidential election is scheduled for Saturday, 21 September 2024. In anticipation of the election, many of the candidates have published manifestos detailing their visions for Sri Lanka. In the interest of comparing these visions for the country, the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has prepared this document which categorises the policy proposals of the candidates in their manifestos. It was practically impossible to include the policy proposals made by all Presidential candidates in this document; as such, CPA had to limit itself to the manifestos of Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe, Mr. Sajith Premadasa, Mr. Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Mr. Namal Rajapaksa.

CPA divided the candidates’ policy proposals into the categories of economic governance, constitutional reforms, rights and related issues, infrastructure and accountability, truth, and reconciliation. We present the candidates’ proposals across these categories in five tables below, relying only on the exact words used in each candidate’s manifesto.

The table on Economic Governance contains policy proposals made by candidates on the issues of Taxation, Procurement, Globalization, IMF and FDI and other economic issues.

The table on Constitutional Reform contains policy proposals made by candidates on the issues of abolition of the Executive Presidency, the 13th Amendment and devolution of power, and other constitutional amendments proposed by the candidates.

The table on Rights and Related Issues contains policy proposals made by the candidates on access to justice, access to health care and education, women and children’s rights, social safety nets and worker’s rights, delayed elections, environment and climate change, and cultural and media rights.

The table on Infrastructure contains policy proposals made by the candidates on infrastructure, transportation and energy and technological development.

The table on Accountability, Truth, and Reconciliation contains policy proposals made by the candidates on accountability for serious human rights violations, the implementation of a public prosecutor’s office, reconciliation, the support and protection of minority rights and national security.

The content of each column for candidates are direct quotations from their individual manifestos on specific issues. Though CPA recognises the intersectionality of issues of many of the policy proposals made by candidates, the quotations inserted have been categorised based on the strength of relevance to the issue and ease of reference for the reader. CPA hopes that this document will be a useful tool for all citizens interested in learning more about the candidates and for anyone who is interested in engaging in a deeper analysis of the key policy proposals put forward by the candidates.

The table containing the policy proposals on Economic Governance can be viewed here. 

The table containing the policy proposals on Constitutional Reform can be viewed here.

The table containing the policy proposals on Rights and Related Issues can be viewed here.

The table containing the policy proposals on Infrastructure can be viewed here.

The table containing the policy proposals on Accountability, Truth and Reconciliation can be viewed here.

Civil Society Appeal on the Abolition of the Executive Presidency

We the undersigned call upon all candidates contesting the forthcoming 2024 presidential election to firmly and publicly commit to the abolition of the executive presidential system within the first year of the next Parliament.

The experience of 46 years of the operation of the 1978 Constitution shows that the executive presidential system has not delivered on any of the aims for which it was introduced: accelerated and sustained economic growth and development; communal harmony; and political stability. Executive presidentialism has only had a negligible impact on development. It has worsened rather than improved peace and stability, by accelerating ethnic conflict and making our political system prone to frequent crises.

The executive presidential system produces these undesirable outcomes because, through its lack of accountability and responsiveness, it allows authoritarianism, corruption, and incompetence to trump the common good of Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans. We therefore strongly believe that this is the single most important reform that is essential for the meaningful and irreversible re-democratisation of Sri Lanka.

While recent experience since 2022 has only highlighted the autocratic potential of this system, we recall that in the history of presidential elections since 1988, there have been more popular mandates than not for the abolition of the executive presidency. Most recently, the people clearly made the connection between this system and the causes of bad governance and economic collapse when, during the Aragalaya of 2022, they called for ‘system change’. The only way ‘system change’ can even begin to be delivered is by abolishing the executive presidency.

 


මීළග පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ පළමු වසර තුළදී ම විධායක ජනාධිපති ක්‍රමය අහෝසි කරන බවට ස්ථිරසාරව සහ විවෘතව පොරොන්දු වන ලෙස එළඹෙන 2024 ජනාධිපතිවරණයට ඉදිරිපත් වන සියලූ ම අපේක්ෂකයින්ගෙන් පහත අත්සන් කරන අපි ඉල්ලා සිටින්නෙමු:

විධායක ජනාධිපති ක්‍රමය හඳුන්වා දීම තුළින් අපේක්ෂා කළ ප‍්‍තිඵල කිසිවක්, එනම් කඩිනම් හා තිරසාර ආර්ථික දියුණුව සහ සංවර්ධනය, වාර්ගික සංහිඳියාව සහ දේශපාලන ස්ථාවරත්වය යන කිසිවක් අත්කර ගැනීමට ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට නොහැකි වී ඇති බව 1978 ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාව ක්‍රියාත්මක කර ගත වූ වසර 46 ක අත්දැකීම් වලින් පැහැදිලිව පෙන්වා දෙයි. විධායක ජනාධිපති ක්‍රමය මගින් සංවර්ධනය කෙරෙහි ඇතිකර තිබෙන්නේ ඉතා අල්ප බලපෑමක් පමණි. එම ක්‍රමය විසින් මෙතෙක් සිදුකර තිබෙන්නේ වාර්ගික ගැටුම් තවදුරටත් තීව‍්‍ර කර, අපගේ දේශපාලන ක්‍රමය නිරන්තර අර්බුදවලට ගොදුරු වන තත්ත්වයකට ඇද දමා, සාමය සහ ස්ථාවරත්වය වැඩි දියුණු කරනවා වෙනුවට එය වඩාත් පරිහානියකට ඇද දැමීමයි.

විධායක ජනාධිපති ක්‍රමය විසින් එවැනි අහිතකර ප්‍රතිඵල අත්කර දී තිබෙන්නේ එම ක‍්‍රමයෙහි වගවීමක් සහ ප්‍රතිචාරී බවක් නොමැතිකම හේතුවෙන් එය ඒකාධිපතිවාදයට, දූෂණයට සහ ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ සහ ශ්‍රී ලාංකිකයන්ගේ පොදු යහපත උදෙසා කටයුතු කිරීමට ඇති නොහැකියාවට ඉඩ සලසා දෙන බැවින් ය. එහෙයින්, ශ්‍රී ලංකාව අර්ථාන්විත සහ නැවත ආපසු හැරවිය නොහැකි ලෙස ප්‍රජාතාන්ත්‍රීකරණය කිරීම සඳහා අත්‍යවශ්‍ය වන සහ වැදගත් ම සෘජු ප්‍රතිසංස්කරණය මෙය වන බව අපි තරයේ විශ්වාස කරන්නෙමු.

2022 වසරේ පටන් මෑත කාලීන අත්දැකීම් වලින් අවධාරණය වී තිබෙන්නේ මෙම විධායක ජනාධිපති ක්‍රමය ඒකාධිපති ක්‍රමයක් කරා පරිවර්තනය වීමේ හැකියාවයි. 1988 ජනාධිපතිවරණයෙන් පසුව දිගටම ජනවරම ලැබී තිබෙන්නේ විධායක ජනාධිපති ක්‍රමය පවත්වාගෙන යාමට වඩා එය අහෝසි කිරීමට ය. ඉතා මෑතක දී, එනම් 2022 අරගලය කාලය තුළදී ”ක්‍රම වෙනසක්” (”සිස්ටම් චේන්ජ්” එකක්* සඳහා ජනතාව වෙතින් පැමිණි ඉල්ලීමෙන් පැහැදිලිව ම පෙනෙන්නේ මෙම විධායක ජනාධිපති ක‍්‍රමය සහ දූෂිත ආණ්ඩුකරණයත්, ආර්ථික කඩාවැටීමත් අතර තිබෙන සම්බන්ධය ඔවුන්ට පැහැදිලිව ම වැටහී තිබෙන බවයි. ”ක්‍රම වෙනසක්” පටන් ගැනීමට අවශ්‍ය මග පාදා ගැනීමට පවා හැකි වන්නේ විධායක ජනාධිපති ක්‍රමය අහෝසි කිරීමෙනි.


கீழே கையொப்பமிட்டுள்ளவர்களாகிய நாம், அடுத்த பாராளுமன்றத்தின் முதலாவது வருடத்தினுள் நிறைவேற்று ஜனாதிபதி முறைமையை ஒழிப்பதற்கு அர்ப்பணிப்புடன் உறுதியாகவும் பகிரங்கமாகவும் செயற்படுமாறு எதிர்வரும் 2024 ஜனாதிபதித் தேர்தலில் போட்டியிடும் அனைத்து வேட்பாளர்களுக்கும் அழைப்பு விடுக்கின்றோம்.

1978 அரசியலமைப்பின் 46 வருட காலத் அனுபவமானது, நிறைவேற்று ஜனாதிபதி முறைமை அறிமுகப்படுத்தப்பட்டமைக்கான நோக்கங்களான துரிதப்படுத்தப்பட்ட மற்றும் நீடித்து நிலைத்த பொருளாதார வளர்ச்சி மற்றும் அபிவிருத்தி இன ஐக்கியம் மற்றும் அரசியல் ஸ்திரத்தன்மை ஆகிய இலக்குகளில் எதனையும் அது நிறைவேற்றவில்லை என்பதை வெளிப்படுத்துகின்றது. நிறைவேற்று ஜனாதிபதி முறைமை அபிவிருத்தியின் மீது மிகவும் குறைந்தளவான தாக்கத்தினையே ஏற்படுத்தியுள்ளது. இது இன மோதலை விரைவடையச் செய்து, எமது அரசியல் முறைமையை அடிக்கடி நெருக்கடிகளுக்கு உள்ளாக்கும் நிலைக்குள் இட்டுச் செல்வதன் மூலம் அமைதி மற்றும் ஸ்திரத்தன்மையை மேம்படுத்துவதற்கு மாறாக மேலும் மோசமடையச் செய்துள்ளது.

நிறைவேற்று ஜனாதிபதி முறைமையில் பொறுப்புக்கூறல் மற்றும் பதிற்செயற்பாடாற்றல் என்பவை காணப்படாததன் காரணமாக இலங்கையினதும் இலங்கையர்களினதும் பொது நன்மையை நசுக்குவதற்கு எதேச்சாதிகாரம், ஊழல் மற்றும் தகைமையின்மை ஆகியவற்றை அனுமதிப்பதன் ஊடாக இத்தகைய விரும்பத்தகாத விளைவுகளை இந்த முறைமை உருவாக்குகின்றது. ஆகவே, இலங்கையின் அர்த்தபூர்வமான மற்றும் மாற்றத்தகாத மீள்-ஜனநாயகமயமாக்கலுக்கு அவசியமான மிக முக்கியமனான ஒரே மறுசீரமைப்பு இதுவே என நாம் உறுதியாக நம்புகின்றோம்.

2022ஆம் ஆண்டிலிருந்தான அண்மைக்கால அனுபவங்கள் இந்த முறைமையின் சர்வாதிகார இயலுமையை மாத்திரமே எடுத்துக் காட்டியுள்ள அதேவேளை, 1988ஆம் ஆண்டிலிருந்தான ஜனாதிபதித் தேர்தல்களின் வரலாற்றில், நிறைவேற்று ஜனாதிபதி முறைமையின் ஒழிப்பிற்கான ஆணையை விடப் பிரபலமான ஆணைகள் எதுவும் வழங்கப்பட்டிருக்கவில்லை என்பதை நாம் நினைவுபடுத்துகின்றோம். மிக அண்மையில், 2022ஆம் ஆண்டின் மக்கள் போராட்டத்தின்போது (அரகலய) ‘முறைமை மாற்றம்’ ஒன்றிற்காக மக்கள் அழைப்பு விடுத்தபோது, இந்த முறைமைக்கும் மோசமான ஆட்சி மற்றும் பொருளாதார வீழ்ச்சியின் காரணிகளுக்கும் இடையேயான தொடர்பினை அவர்கள் தெளிவாக தெரியப்படுத்தியிருந்தனர். ‘முறைமை மாற்றத்தை’ ஏற்படுத்துவதற்கான ஆரம்பமாக அமையும் ஒரே வழி நிறைவேற்று ஜனாதிபதி முறைமையை ஒழிப்பதாகும்.

 

List of Signatories

Individuals

        1. Geoffrey Alagaratnam, President’s Counsel
        2. Daniel Alphonsus
        3. Dr A.M. Navaratne Bandara
        4. Daneshan Casie Chetty
        5. Bishop Duleep de Chickera
        6. Anushaya Collure
        7. Anushya Coomaraswamy
        8. Dr Radhika Coomaraswamy
        9. Dr Tara de Mel
        10. Anoma De Silva
        11. Minoli de Soysa
        12. Visaka Dharmadasa
        13. Fr Noel Dias
        14. Rohan Edrisinha
        15. Nirmaleeni Eriyagama
        16. Priyanthi Fernando
        17. Suresh Fernando
        18. Rosanna Flamer-Caldera
        19. Bhavani Fonseka
        20. Dr Rajni Gamage
        21. Dr Mario Gomez
        22. Prof Savitri Goonesekera
        23. Prof Camena Gunaratne
        24. Sharmaine Gunaratne
        25. Melani Gunathilaka
        26. Dr Samanthi J. Gunawardana
        27. Dr Ruvaiz Haniffa
        28. Dr Sanjana Hattotuwa
        29. Tracy Holsinger
        30. Elijah Hoole
        31. Rajan Hoole
        32. Ameena Hussein
        33. K.W. Janaranjana, Attorney-at-law
        34. S.T. Jayanaga, President’s Counsel
        35. Chandra Jayaratne
        36. Prof T. Jayasingham
        37. Tissa Jayathilaka
        38. Dr Nihal Jayawickrama
        39. Sarah Kabir
        40. Dr Sakuntala Kadirgamar
        41. Prof Gamini Keerawella
        42. Dr Harshan Kumarasingham
        43. Jayanthi Kuru-Utumpala
        44. Danushka S. Medawatte
        45. Anura Meddegoda, President’s Counsel
        46. Buhary Mohamed
        47. Manoj Nanayakkara, Attorney-at-law
        48. Prof Arjuna Parakrama
        49. Prof H.R. Pasindu
        50. Dr Pradeep Peiris
        51. Binendri Perera
        52. Dr Jehan Perera
        53. Nadishani Perera
        54. Srinath Perera, Attorney-at-law
        55. Dinal Phillips, President’s Counsel
        56. Saliya Pieris, President’s Counsel
        57. Kalupahana Piyaratana
        58. Mirak Raheem
        59. Dr Ramesh Ramasamy
        60. Prof Ruvani Ranasinha
        61. Ravi Ratnasabapathy
        62. Roel Raymond
        63. Dr Kanchana Ruwanpura
        64. Athulasiri Kumara Samarakoon
        65. Jeanne Samuel
        66. Dr Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
        67. Dr Kalana Senaratne
        68. Prof Tudor Silva
        69. Vanie Simon
        70. M.A. Sumanthiran, President’s Counsel
        71. Ermiza Tegal, Attorney-at-law
        72. Prof Chandragupta Thenuwara
        73. Sandun Thudugala
        74. Prof Deepika Udagama
        75. Prof Jayadeva Uyangoda
        76. Gamini Viyangoda
        77. Dr Asanga Welikala
        78. Dr Shamara Wettimuny
        79. Dr Jayampathy Wickramaratne, President’s Counsel
        80. Anoma Wijewardene
        81. Dr Roshan de Silva Wijeyeratne
        82. Dr Joe William
        83. Godfrey Yogarajah

      Organisations

        1. Alliance Development
        2. Association of War Affected Women
        3. Centre for Policy Alternatives
        4. Eastern Social Development Foundation
        5. International Centre for Ethnic Studies
        6. Institute of Political Economy
        7. Law and Society Trust
        8. Transparency International Sri Lanka

The Intersectional Trends of Land Conflicts in Sri Lanka

15 years after the end of the Civil War, Sri Lanka continues to experience deep ethnic divisions and has failed to address the root causes of the conflict that halt moving to a post-conflict society. Unfortunately, the decades-long problem of land has continued in the post-war setting, and new mechanisms of State intervention are creating divisions that deter the reconciliation processes. Land has been used to create an asymmetry of power in the Northern and Eastern regions for over three decades, and there is a growing trend of intrusive methods being employed in these regions, triggering fear amongst local communities. Therefore, the report’s objective is to shed light on the multifaceted role of the State and non-state authorities in issues around land ownership, use, and access, and explore how local communities respond to this oppression. It highlights how the State co-opts legislature, Government agencies, the military, and private corporations, creating long-term consequences for communities and for the nation to achieve a successful post-conflict society. CPA recognises a series of key interrelated trends between the multitude of rights infringements, i.e. ethnonationalism, continued Government authority intervention, military expansion, and the profit-making objectives of private entities.

The report elaborates on how the ethno-majoritarian bent has violated basic rights that must be protected. Hostilities are further intensified by non-state actors, particularly by the growing involvement of Buddhist clergy. As noted in the present report, the clergy has entered lands belonging to minority religious communities, and have uprooted, renamed, and re-claimed land as ‘sacred areas’ or ‘Buddhist sites’, despite counterfactual evidence as was seen in Manikkamadu located in the Ampara District, the Chulipuram Paralai Murugan Temple located in Jaffna District, and the Kurunthumalai Aathi Shivan Iyanar Temple located in the Mullaitivu District which is elaborated on later in the report. The use of ‘national heritage’ to solely capture the majority views, demonstrates an ethnopolitical slant of such terminology that contains wide implications for how the nation perceives identity. The increasing involvement of the Buddhist clergy in land conflicts often suggests a level of collusion with State actors, who assist clergy in appropriating lands and providing physical protection through military and police personnel. The report argues that the State’s agenda to increase ethnonationalist sentiment is being supported by the Buddhist clergy in the North and East that have far more political leverage to appropriate land, compared to the minority religious communities. Additionally, the report highlights observations of increased ethnonationalist sentiment, specifically of increased Sinhala-Buddhisisation and Hindutva nationalist rhetoric. Thus, the consolidation of ethnonationalist sentiments is often done by instilling power in non-state actors whose agenda complements that of the State.

The report further notes the use and abuse of legislation, especially within the context of impending national elections and against the backdrop of land appropriation that has altered the ethnic and religious composition in areas historically dominated by minorities. There is evidence in the report of State intervention by agents such as the Department of Archaeology, Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka, and the Department of Forest Conservation, among others. These agencies often enter lands that have belonged to and been used by communities for centuries, frequently without notice, to prevent access to the land. Such action sparks fear and threats of violence in areas that have experienced decades of violence. Often, departments utilise the legal framework to extend their control over land, as is evident in cases such as Mullikulam village bordering South of Mannar and the Nilavarai Well in the Navagiri Village, which will be discussed further in the report. The arbitrary and unpredictable nature of State agents’ intervention sparks fear within and among communities as to their ability to live on their lands and continue with their livelihood. Tensions between local communities and State authorities are consequently on the rise.

Even though State interventionist measures have evolved significantly over time, with both historical and contemporary tactics contributing to ongoing conflicts; earlier tactics of expanding military occupation continue to be employed in order to obstruct locals’ access to their lands. CPA’s engagement with cases such as Sampur in the East of Sri Lanka illustrates the dimensions by which the military has attempted to obstruct locals from entering and using their lands for decades. The cases highlighted in the report display the impact of expanding military occupation which often leads to dispossession and displacement, and an inability to restart livelihood, including economic activity. Frequently, the effects of lacking access to land are immense, leading to increasing levels of poverty and alienation, drastically lowering the quality of life. The continued occupation of the military and State agents draws into question whether lands will be returned and validates the growing doubt amongst communities regarding State intentions behind such initiatives. Further, in the context of past colonisation schemes that have contributed to conflict, apprehension remains with new schemes such as the ‘Urumaya Programme’. The full effects of these newer programmes are complex and yet to be seen but require continuous scrutiny.

Additionally, recent collaborations between the State and private corporations, in projects such as sand mining in the North and East, exemplify the severe environmental and economic impacts residents face when development projects are conducted with poor oversight and limited regulatory provisions. The case of Adani Green Energy’s Wind Power Project, discussed later in the report, is one such example. In the backdrop of an economic and governance crisis, land issues capture the willingness to sacrifice the livelihoods of minority communities in the pursuit of foreign direct investment in the country. Furthermore, how State structures enable corporations to undermine land rights, degrade the environment, and extract resources disproportionately with significant implications for local communities will be highlighted.

These various trends are examined through cases illustrated in the report. Overall, the report lays out how land is a trigger for conflict and highlights the urgent attention required from all stakeholders to curb the increased tensions that are developing in the North and East.

 

Click Here to Download the Report

Click Here to Download the Report in Tamil

Click Here to Download the Report in Sinhala

The Confidence in Democratic Governance Index- 6

This report is prepared by Social Indicator (SI), the survey research arm of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), on the findings of the ‘Confidence in Democratic Governance Index’ survey (Wave 6). This island-wide survey captures the public perception/opinion on the current situation of the country, in terms of the legitimacy and accountability of the government’s conduct, and initiations related to economic reforms, reconciliation, good governance, and democracy. The objective of this survey is to inform the current political debate on the views of the silent majority of the country that underpin Sri Lanka’s democratic culture. Thereby, SI-CPA envisages this survey report would contribute to a rich political debate, in the run-up to the presidential election, that is vital for people to make an informed decision at this crucial election. Fieldwork for the survey was carried out from the 1st to the 12th of July 2024 with 1352 sample respondents.

The Sinhala and Tamil versions of the report will be published in due course.

Download the Topline Report Here

Download the Report in Sinhala

Download the Report in Tamil

Public Opinion on Reconciliation in Sri Lanka

This report presents the findings of the survey on reconciliation conducted by Social Indicator (SI), the survey research arm of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA). Given the background, the year 2024 marks the 15th anniversary of the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka, the poll was designed to capture the current public opinion on matters related to themes of democracy and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. The survey findings on economic and educational growth prospects, safety and security, political interactions, as well as views on political and religious leadership are discussed in this topline report. The fieldwork was conducted between 19th February and 13th March 2024, with 1372 sample respondents

 

Download the Report in English

Download the Report in Sinhala

Download the Report in Tamil

 

Reimagining National Security for Sri Lanka: Emphasising both Territorial Integrity and Individual Welfare

A reimagination of what national security means and, thereby, encompasses for Sri Lanka is vital to better encapsulate and understand the contemporary security concerns that it faces. This Brief calls for a reimagination of national security that necessitates securing the territorial sovereignty of the state whilst simultaneously securing its constituents as well, thereby defining national security as ‘a low probability of damage to the acquired values of the state and its constituents, and the absence of fear that such values will be attacked’. This is a synthesis between the traditional and human security approaches, the former entailing the security of the territorially sovereign state with the latter prioritising the individual welfare of the constituents of the state with respect to the seven core values of economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community, and political security.

The value here is two-fold. Firstly, it is recognised that securing the territorial sovereignty of the state does not necessarily secure its people, though it is a prerequisite for doing so as ensuring the protection of any of the seven core values of the human security approach would not be possible if the territorial sovereignty of the state was compromised. Secondly, the human security approach allows for addressing many contemporary security concerns that fall outside the scope of the traditional security approach.

Such an approach in Sri Lanka’s present context translates to several key areas of consideration, namely: terrorism; extremism and conflict resurgence; defence expenditure and the armed forces; cyberspace; climate change; the economy and regional geopolitics. In order to counter terrorism effectively the National Security Council, as the apex national security decision-making body, must be given statutory basis and its own secretariat that is led by a National Security Advisor. Additionally, a legal framework, alongside a judicial or quasi-judicial enforcing body, providing for surveillance powers under certain conditions should be established. It is also imperative that the Prevention of Terrorism Act be repealed in favour of counter-terrorism legislation in line with international best practices and Sri Lanka’s obligations under international human rights law. Lastly, the need for a Public Prosecutor’s office that is separate and independent of the government having the sole responsibility to indict and prosecute gained further currency in the wake of culpability in the Easter Sunday Attacks of 2019.

Sri Lanka is no stranger to extremism and conflict, and so shrinking the space for extremism and conflict resurgence is crucial. Therefore, addressing the push and pull factors for extremism is a must. This entails ensuring: the independent and impartial functioning of the public service, law enforcement, and the judiciary; equality of opportunity in recruitment and nominations to government bodies and institutions regardless of religious, ethnic, linguistic, and/or cultural background; government bodies and institutions having some representation of the stakeholders affected by its objectives. Moreover, civic, cross-cultural, and cross-religious education in primary and secondary educational institutions is an imperative to create a citizenry that is respectful of human rights, democracy, and Sri Lanka’s religious, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural diversity. Furthermore, the spread of misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech must be mitigated and those responsible for it and other acts of extremism must be held accountable. Lastly, an effective system of provincial devolution would be valuable in addressing a continuing ethnoreligious grievance that was at the heart of Sri Lanka’s protracted and brutal civil war.

The excessive and wasteful expenditure on defence must be reduced and optimised. This involves reducing the number of active-duty troops and increasing the number of reserves by curtailing recruitment and a voluntary retirement scheme where those that do retire but need alternative employment are aided in that transition. Additionally, the lion’s share of resources must be redirected from the army to the navy as the sea is the frontier of defence for Sri Lanka. This has spillover benefits for addressing maritime piracy and terrorism, human and drug trafficking, and IUU fishing as the navy would be better resourced. Relatedly, addressing the challenges of cyberspace requires improving the cybersecurity capabilities of the military, in addition to the government needing to enhance its cybersecurity capabilities to protect its digital infrastructure, as the increased incorporation of digital development into conventional military hardware brings with it vulnerabilities that can be the target of a cyberattack. The military should also establish a branch dedicated to threats emanating from cyberspace. Moreover, the government must also develop new and/or update national policy and legislation on subjects pertaining to cyberspace.

The threat that climate change poses to national security cannot be exaggerated. It is an issue that necessitates greater pragmatism in policy formulation and, as it is a cross-cutting issue across government, extensive coordination in policy implementation. Furthermore, given Sri Lanka’s heightened vulnerability to the impacts of climate change there is a need to prioritise conservation and climate change adaptation over mitigation. Both conservation and adaptation efforts would benefit from decentralised governance through the devolution of powers to the provinces as the provincial level is closer to the people and better situated to understand the unique challenges each province faces. Relatedly, in order to pursue sustainable development whilst aiding Sri Lanka’s recovery from national insolvency, green finance and the blue economy represent engines of growth for the Sri Lankan economy.

Finally, in navigating the geopolitics of the Indian Ocean Sri Lanka must tread carefully to ensure that it is not dependent on a single state or bloc for its economic recovery and development to prevent undue external influence over the country. Additionally, a Parliamentary Select Committee for foreign policy formulation and revision should be established for a more bipartisan and consistent Sri Lankan foreign policy alongside an effective foreign service that has the capacity to expand and build on Sri Lanka’s relationships with other countries. The latter requires the foreign service to be depoliticised, and better staffed and resourced. Lastly, legislation on political financing must be strengthened to limit the role of foreign powers financing election campaigns in Sri Lanka with state intelligence services having the capacity to enforce such legislation.

By no means is this an exhaustive list of what should be taken into consideration nor do the recommendations wholly address what should be done in any of these areas. However, they do demonstrate the scope of issues that are relevant to the reimagined conception of national security asserted in this Brief, the similarities and differences in how these issues affect the Sri Lankan state and the Sri Lankan people respectively, and how these issues interact and relate to each other.

 

Download the Policy Brief Here

CPA Statement on the Wilful disregard for the Constitution by the President

29th July 2024

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) notes with grave concern the actions of the President and the Government in response to the Supreme Court’s interim order last week restraining Mr Deshabandu Thennakoon from exercising the powers, functions, and responsibilities of the office of the Inspector General of Police (IGP). This interim order has been met with statements by the Government, including a formal statement in Parliament by the Prime Minister on 26th July explicitly rejecting it, that raises alarm as to whether Sri Lanka is heading towards a constitutional crisis. CPA urges the President to desist from any or all action that raises that prospect. This is against the backdrop of the Election Commission issuing a gazette setting the date of the Presidential Election to be held on 21st September 2024, and it is incumbent on the Government and all stakeholders to adhere to the Constitution and respect the integrity of the election. Any attempt to subvert elections and the rule of law will have significant implications on governance and democracy and setback Sri Lanka’s path towards economic recovery and stability. 

The following briefly sets out some of the recent events and their implications. 

The Supreme Court’s Interim Order on the IGP

The Supreme Court’s interim order this week was in response to several cases filed challenging the appointment of Mr Thennakoon as IGP. One of the petitions was filed by CPA’s Executive Director. After hearing lengthy submissions, the Court found that the Petitioners’ case could proceed to the next stage and in light of the strong case made out, the Court also granted an interim order. 

CPA welcomes the interim order which upholds the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution. CPA’s position is that, on the documents produced by the Respondents in court, including the minutes of the Constitutional Council meeting, it is clear that the President could not have appointed Mr Thennakoon as IGP on 26th February 2024, as the required support of at least five members of the Constitutional Council was not met.

CPA notes that the President is duty bound to uphold the Constitution. Nothing in the order would prevent the President from making an acting appointment after following the appropriate procedure set out in the Constitution. If the President does not make an acting appointment, that is a choice he makes and he would be fully responsible for the consequences of that choice. Wilful violation of the Constitution, including by refusing to do what the Constitution requires him to do, is a ground on which a President can be impeached. As seen in several recent cases, a person holding the office of President can also be held liable in his individual capacity even after the conclusion of his term of office for such violations. In such a context, any action to subvert and/or undermine the Constitution by the individual holding the office must be monitored and necessary legal action pursued. 

Misinformation on the Supreme Court’s Interim Order

CPA also notes that there has been significant misinformation on the validity and the impact of the Supreme Court’s order, including in the Prime Minister’s statement to the House on 27th July. The Supreme Court’s interim order was not against Parliament, nor was it against the Constitutional Council. The Constitutional Council, moreover, is not a committee of Parliament and thus is not protected by the parliamentary privilege of exclusive cognisance. A judicial decision that the President disagrees with is not sufficient basis to claim a judicial attack on the powers and privileges Parliament.  The order of the Supreme Court restrains Mr Thennakoon personally from functioning in the office of IGP. Any suggestion that the order is an order against the functions of Parliament is without merit and lacks any basis in terms of the Constitution and the law. Having misinformed itself on these matters, the Government has in its irresponsible response to the Supreme Court acted in breach of several constitutional conventions that are central to the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the independence of the judiciary. These include the conventions that the Government: obeys the orders of a court even and especially when it does not agree with the reasoning of a judicial pronouncement; does not attack the judiciary in Parliament or elsewhere; and observes the sub judice principle.    

CPA also notes the misinformation campaign to indicate that the President cannot make an acting appointment to cover the functions of the office of IGP. This claim is patently false. The Constitution makes specific provision for acting appointments (Article 41C(2)). The only requirement is that when such an appointment is for a period of more than two weeks, the President needs to get the approval of the Constitutional Council. Furthermore, recent examples dispel these false claims. Firstly, in the aftermath of the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, the then President appointed Mr. C.D. Wickramarathne as acting IGP whilst Mr. Pujith Jayasundara (who was the IGP) was suspended pending investigations in to his conduct. More recently, an acting appointment to the office of IGP was made when Mr Thennakoon was first appointed as acting IGP in November 2023. 

As such, there is no impediment for the President to make an acting appointment to the office of IGP. In fact, the Constitution requires the President to respect the order of Court and his own responsibilities in terms of the Constitution to make a suitable acting appointment. It is unfortunate that the President seems to be acting in a manner intended to frustrate the order of Court and subvert the Constitution. 

The Supreme Court’s Interim Order and the Presidential Election 

CPA notes the attempts to imply that the interim order may have a bearing on the holding of the presidential election. The interim order has no impact on the conduct of elections. The order leaves it open to the President to make a suitable acting appointment in terms of the Constitution. Even if the President does not make such an appointment, the Election Commission has provision in the Constitution to give necessary orders to the hierarchy of the Sri Lanka Police to perform functions relating to the election (Article 104G and 104GG). 

Click here to Download the Statement

Click here to Download the statement in Tamil