We reject the narrative that the Aragalaya was responsible for the violence and that it has been transformed into a “fascist,” “anarchist,” “terrorist,” group, that has destroyed State and private property
The Aragalaya and its objectives of challenging bad governance, therefore, conform to the demands and vision of the Constitution on the responsibilities of Parliament and the Executive in governance
The Aragalaya activists gathered near Parliament but did not attempt to storm the Parliament building. They stated publicly that they would not gather near Parliament during and before the proceedings connected with the election of the new President
A group comprising academics, professionals, individuals from the corporate sector, activists, civil society organisations and clergy issuing a statement, has raised concerns over the country’s authoritarian governance. The full statement is as follows:
We the individuals from academia, the professions, the corporate sector, the clergy, and civil society organisations, join all those citizens and groups in condemning the abduction, arrest, detention without due process, and other acts of abusive Presidential and State authority committed against persons who participated in the Aragalaya Peoples’ Movement. We condemn the acts of violence that occurred during this time. However, we reject the narrative that the Aragalaya was responsible for the violence and that it has been transformed into a “fascist,” “anarchist,” “terrorist,” group, that has destroyed State and private property, and is determined to destabilise our country. We also reject the constant and dangerous media messages reinforcing this state rhetoric and aimed at discrediting the movement. Various peaceful struggles of the people as in the recent past in the North and the East have been discredited in a similar manner with similar rationales. A country which has been reduced to a failed state cannot afford any longer to tolerate this false and arrogant disregard of the voice of the People by the government.
The short history of the Aragalaya movement is part of our national history and we must reject the efforts of the President, the current Pohottuwa government with its ever-present Rajapaksa family, and even some sections of the media to represent the Aragalaya as a fascist, terrorist, movement and distort that reality.
The Aragalaya Movement has attempted to hold the Pohottuwa government in office responsible for the country’s bankruptcy and the denial of basic needs of the People, in an unprecedented context of economic and political instability and chaos. Our Constitution in its Preamble assures to all of us “freedom.... and fundamental rights as “the intangible heritage that guarantees the dignity and wellbeing of succeeding generations of the People”. The “freely elected Representatives of the People” in pursuance of that mandate are required to “humbly acknowledge (their) obligations to the People.” These foundational values are incorporated in the specific Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution and have been interpreted many times in our Supreme Court.
Sovereignty is therefore in the “People,” and Parliament and the Executive must exercise their powers in a manner that ensures that Sovereignty can be “exercised and enjoyed” by the People (Article 4). Fundamental rights must be “respected secured and advanced” by both these organs of government (Article 4(d) and CANNOT be restricted except when it is legal, proportionate and reasonable, in the manner defined in Article 15.
The Aragalaya and its objectives of challenging bad governance, therefore, conform to the demands and vision of the Constitution on the responsibilities of Parliament and the Executive in governance. The phrase “lost mandate” used in the Aragalaya, refers to the loss of the Pohottuwa President’s and government’s right to exercise their powers of governance as the legislature and executive on behalf of the Sovereign People. A government forfeits its mandate to govern by gross mismanagement, abuse of power and corruption, and by destroying social cohesion through its anti-minority rhetoric.
It is because the People related to this idea of the lost mandate, and a common national identity that the Aragalaya was able to mobilise broad-based support, especially among the youth of this country. We as citizens must recognise that we have a right to struggle for transformative change in governance. The right to freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of speech and information, freedom of protest are legitimate forms of democratic dissent and part of this right. The history of country’s shows it is the exercise of the right of dissent and the claiming of rights by broad-based People’s movements, that helps achieve political transformation including institutional reforms. We must therefore challenge President Wickremesinghe’s and the government’s attempts to say that there is a difference between an Aragalaya (struggle) and a “kerella” (rebellion).
We must remind ourselves that it was the Aragalaya protesters who handed over to the Police cash amounting to millions of rupees found in the President’s House. Any shortfall in the amount handed over by the protesters must surely be explained by the Police, who had custody of this cash for three weeks. The Aragalaya activists gathered near Parliament but did not attempt to storm the Parliament building. They stated publicly that they would not gather near Parliament during and before the proceedings connected with the election of the new President.
When the President states that the Aragalaya movement was meant to overthrow and undermine the institution of Parliament by force, he is denying these realities. Contrast the events of 2018 when Parliamentarians perpetrated acts of violence and destroyed property and denigrated the office of the Speaker of the House within the Chamber of Parliament. This was with complete impunity. Shockingly, Minister Bandula Gunawardana of this Pohottuwa government even said in Parliament recently that impunity was a part of Parliamentary privilege. This highlights that the narrative about extra-Constitutional and anarchist efforts to capture governance is flawed.
Given these appalling realities, we as citizens ask the President and the Opposition Parties to address the following important matters.
For the President:
1.Recognise that in our Constitution Article 4, the Executive President holds office as the person “ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.” The Constitution provides for a transfer of power to a President ELECTED BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT due to a vacancy in the Presidency. This should not be interpreted to mean that a President who takes office after a discredited ex-President has vacated post can claim to hold office for the balance term of that ex-President, and his government. The loss of legitimacy of the predecessor President and government surely affects the idea of continuity. President Wickremesinghe should, therefore, in keeping with foundational democratic values not seek to hold office for the full BALANCE TERM of the former President.
2.Clarify what he means by the mandate given to him to “introduce systemic change in governance on behalf of the silent majority.” All we see is that he has engaged in various measures which entrench dictatorial governance. Even more dangerously he is justifying authoritarianism in governance on the myth of threats to national security. He is also framing the need for national unity and an all-party consensus at this time, as the essential need for cooperation from the opposition parties, with the discredited Pohottuwa government. This is in fact encouraging the public and these parties to disregard the flagrant corruption and abuse of power that caused this dreadful man-made disaster in our country and the very rationale for Gotabaya Rajapaksa being forced to run away. We are encouraged to forget why all his family members were forced out of office. After all, it was the Aragalaya initiative that helped the nation to recognise the responsibilities and accountability of the Rajapaksa-led Pohottuwa government for abysmal governance and abuse of power.
3.We call upon him to act on the clearly articulated demands of the Aragalaya. Their concept of systemic change is a corruption-free government that is not engaged in reckless abuse of powers. They want an abolition of the Executive Presidency and strong institutions that respect the rights and needs of the People. Therefore, fulfilling his oath of office, the President must WITHDRAW THE STATE OF EMERGENCY which has NO RATIONALE OR JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER at this time. He must respect, protect and implement the fundamental rights of the People, including the right to protest and dissent. Such action must be accompanied by the release of all those participants in the Aragalaya held in custody under orders of arrest and detention and restoration of their right to freedom of movement and overseas travel.
4.Recognising himself as an INTERIM PRESIDENT he must act under the Constitutional provisions and hold a General Election as soon as he is empowered to dissolve Parliament. This will enable the country to decide on the next government. In the interim period, he should implement the general demand in the country today for a government representative of all parties, without reinstating the discredited Pohottuwa government. He clearly made a promise to the nation on July 13 that he would resign as PM and only hold office till an all-party interim government was appointed. The huge trust deficit that he acknowledged then must be recognised now by President Wickremesinghe, if he is to lead an all-party interim government.
5.President Wickremesinghe should not waste time on ad hoc Constitutional reforms such as the 22nd Amendment. Even the much-publicised 19th Amendment had serious problems in achieving a balance of powers between the President and the Prime Minister. It had many other shortcomings as evidenced in the constitutional crisis of 2018. The President should immediately take steps to ensure the abolition of the Executive Presidency before Parliamentary elections are held. The 21st Amendment that went before the courts, addressed this critical demand for constitutional reform and an early abolition of the Executive Presidency. This can be enacted without delay with a time frame for transfer of power.
For the Opposition Parties:
Respond to the current situation in the interests of the nation but not in such a manner as to ensure the continuation of the Pohottuwa Cabinet and government. We expect them to also respect and advance the fundamental rights of the People. They must take a stand on repealing the Emergency and in particular in supporting an interim All-Party government that does not seek to deny or restrict the right of dissent and protest of the People. This must be their contribution to helping the All-Party Interim government this country needs at this time. Co-operation with a discredited government is not a solution to the current economic and political crisis though it is advocated by some religious leaders and some media.
In conclusion, if President Ranil Wickremesinghe takes the above course of action he will be recognised by the country as a person who lived up to his declared commitment to a system of Parliamentary democracy, and respect for the Rule of Law, in such a system. He should not acquire the mantle of “strong man” leadership and authoritarian governance, that yoke of corrupt and selfish Rajapaksa family rule of decades, that has burdened this country and almost destroyed it. If he does so, he will not lead Sri Lanka to an era of economic recovery, and political stability (including resolution of the national question), but rather throw us all into an abyss of continuing unaccountable and undemocratic governance.
