Some observations on Sirisena-led good governance after year one

-By Dr. Salithamby Abdul Rauff-
   
    Maithripala Sirisena-led good governance has completed its first year in office today. Given his predecessor Rajapaksa’s reign, Sirisena’s good governance has made several differences relatively since assuming powerin January 2015. It was his good governance to have confined the power of the executive president of the country with certain areas by an amendment in the constitution. This power reduction seemed an important development in the political history of modern Sri Lanka because it was first time a president of the country who had infested executive power since the current constitution came into force in 1978 has become one with less power for the first time.  

    The good governance of Sirisena has a parliament in the country in which its’ formal responsibilities have been distributed to different parties advocating a diverse political ideals and values. The opposition leader post in parliament has been given to the Tamil National Alliance (TNA). The post of opposition chief whip of parliament has been delegated to the janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP). The TNA led by R. Sambanthan highly believes in federalism as the only vehicle to rule the country. The JVP of Anura Kumara Dissanayaka strongly promotes socialist principles as a suitable political system to Sri Lanka.  This sharing of parliament responsibilities among political parties driven by different political thoughts is an inclusive politics.   This inclusive politics constitutes a notable breakthrough Srisena-led good governance brought us. 

    The good governance of Srisena has a government formed jointly by both principal but rival political parties of the country, United National Party (UNP) and Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP).  In political history of recent times in Sri Lanka, it was first time two main oldest political rivals had cohabitated to rule the country jointly beyond their sharp differences. This political partnership had produced a climate in which country’s two major political parties that could seize the power interchangeably are stakeholders of the same government, and both are equally held accountable to whatever they do. This political cohabitation and thus collective accountability in the rule is another positive development of Srisena’s good governance. Currently, the Srisena-led good governance seems to be in a move of bringing a new constitution to this ethnically deeply polarised   country. It would certainly be a historic political achievement should such constitution treats people of the country equally and recognises their rights and freedoms irrespective of people’s ethnic, religious, linguistic and political differences.    

    Although Srisena’s good governance had brought these positive aspects to the country, his good governance is also known with many political demerits. His good governance by a national list had simply given room in the government to many of those rejected by people in election for their corruption, vested interest, role in human right violations and political impotence.  The questions being posed here are: how one known well to be corrupted, selfish and human right violator can be a part of good governance? And how one purged by people with ballot for their negative reputation and apparent incapacity can be delivering good governance to people?

    In good governance chaired by President Srisena, some of legislators from government rank are accused of intimidating and attempting to kidnap people. They reportedly used state resources (vehicles) allocated for their official use to carry out these anti-human rights activities. These lawmakers today simply forgot the fact that they were so steadfast until more recently to fight whatever human rights violation when their family member was tragically killed and that their steadfastness against human right violation incubated by this killing brought them to politics and gave them popular political identity.  This phenomenon prompts us ask if those making good governance for the country today are the lovers of human right violation. 

    In the Rajapaksa regime, Muslim minority community of the country was being vulnerably targeted by ultra Buddhist nationalist elements. These extremists advanced a fatal violence against innocent Muslims in their areas with governments’ tacit blessing. In Muslim towns of Aluthgama and Beruwela, Muslims were killed, their businesses destroyed and their houses burned. The affected Muslim community was still waiting for justice against injustice done against them. The good governance of Sirisena has done nothing for this even a year after it came to power. Even in his good governance, Muslims are living in fear that they may be deadly targeted further in future also because the find a re-emergence of such Sinhala-Buddhist sinister forces in different forms such as “Sinha- Le.”  These identified disadvantages are all prompting people to ask whether Sirisena’s good governance is really good governance or repletion of what his predecessor had done.
The author teaches at Dhofar University, Sultanate of Oman