Last week, the Sri Lankan parliament passed the contentious 20th Amendment to its Constitution, allowing President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to fulfil his electoral promise of restoring a “strong government”. The Amendment expands Presidential powers that had previously been reined in by his predecessor Maithripala Sirisena through the 19th Amendment. Despite vehement resistance from opposition parties, activists, religious minorities, and students, the proposal secured the required parliamentary majority. The newly passed changes to the Constitution have, in essence, restructured the entire power dynamic of the Sri Lankan political system and threatened crucial checks and balances that were implemented to protect Sri Lankan democracy. Against this backdrop, while the Rajapaksa administration has pre-emptively rejected any criticisms by foreign entities, it is crucial to ask whether the international community has a vested interest in the impact of this monumental change to the Sri Lankan constitution, and whether it is motivated to act on it.
The recent developments are a product of the Rajapaksa brothers’ 2019 electoral campaign, in which they urged the Sri Lankan electorate to help them establish a mandate that will enable them to spearhead the required changes in the Parliament. With the passage of the 20th Amendment, power has now been centralised in the hands of the Rajapaksas and given them unprecedented powers. Moreover, by making changes such as permitting individuals with dual citizenship to hold positions in the parliament, it has also paved the way for Gotabaya Rajapaksa to bring in more members of his family. This has in turn allowed the Rajapaksas to revive the previous dynastic, corrupt and nepotistic ways of governance in Sri Lanka.
Although the amendment was introduced in accordance with the mandate and the will of the majority, the international community at large should be concerned by its passage. To begin with, it attacks the democratic roots of the Sri Lankan political structures by weakening committees and institutions that were established to deter the centralisation of power. For instance, the President can now hold any number of positions in the government’s ministries. He also has complete control over the appointment and removal of judges, ministers, and ministerial officials. This has raised concern amongst activists and minority communities over the increasingly authoritarian nature of the Sri Lankan political system.
Over several decades, the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) have emerged as self-appointed protectors of human rights and democratic principles. In fact, in 2015, the US, the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, and Germany, along with Sri Lanka, co-sponsored a Human Rights Council resolution that acknowledged the “serious violations and abuses of human rights” in Sri Lanka during the civil war, which stretched from 1983 to 2009. Accordingly, the preamble of the document highlights the importance of the 19th amendment to the “promotion of democratic governance”, as it increases the accountability and oversight of crucial institutions. Moreover, a 2020 report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights spoke of the “fundamental importance” of the amendment in providing “checks and balances against the executive.” The recently passed 20th amendment waters down the 19th amendment, and in doing so undermines the power and influence of Western states over Sri Lanka.
This disregard for Western-sponsored agreements was made evident in February 2020, when Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa formally withdrew from the UNHRC resolution, calling it a “historical betrayal.” This announcement was made shortly after the US decided to implement a travel ban against Shavendra Silva, a Sri Lankan army commander who was responsible for several atrocities committed during the civil war. The Rajapaksa duo criticised the resolution for allowing foreign powers to impose criminal responsibility and punish members of the Sri Lankan armed forces. While the resolution may not be legally binding, the Rajapaksa government’s actions reflect poorly on the SLPP government’s credibility and on its dedication to fulfilling its obligations under international documents entered into by the previous administrations. This also raises questions about the current administration’s commitment to acknowledging atrocities committed on its territory and its willingness to ensure the safety, social and political inclusion, and economic upliftment of minority communities, as promised under previous administrations.
Aside from Western powers, India, too, should be alarmed by the SLPP administration’s decision to restructure and centralise the Sri Lankan political structure. In July 1987, the two countries signed an accord that aimed to decentralise powers by allowing provincial councils to self-govern; this was aimed at promoting the political inclusion of the minority Tamil community. Consequently, in November 1987, to implement the recommended changes, the Sirisena-led government passed the 13th amendment to the Sri Lankan constitution. Additionally, following PM Mahinda’s visit to India in February 2020, the two sides released a joint statement reiterating their commitment to the complete implementation of the 13thamendment. However, to date, these promises have not been fulfilled. While it can be argued that the Indian side’s pledge to protecting the interests of the Tamil community is politically motivated and essentially superficial, the decision to further concentrate the powers in the hands of central authorities through the 20th amendment is an undeniable blow to Sri Lanka’s recurring commitment to India.
However, although the Rajapaksa brothers have openly flouted their obligations to the international community, the passage of the amendment has been met with an eery silence. This is primarily because, for countries like India and the US, maintaining a friendship with Sri Lanka is strategically crucial, especially in light of their elevated desire to counter Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific. With President Gotabaya announcing his aim of achieving a “China-style development model”, these concerns are only rising.
In fact, in preparation for his short visit to the island nation following a 2+2 ministerial dialogue with India, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has urged Sri Lanka to take difficult calls to protect its “economic independence” from being attacked by “predator” China. India, too, through its “Neighbourhood First” policy, is providing aid and assistance to Sri Lanka to expand its footprint in the Indo-Pacific region. Further, the German Minister of Foreign Affairs, Heiko Maas, recently released a 70-page document highlighting the country’s commitment to a “rules-based order” in the Indo-Pacific. Germany’s interests, like other members of the EU, are motivated by the importance of the Indo-Pacific in exploiting trade opportunities in Asia. Therefore, India, along with its Western allies, is likely to remain silent and refrain from interfering in the issue.
Recent events in Sri Lankan politics appear to be an escalation of measures taken under the previous Rajapaksa-led government, which was in power from 2010 to 2015, when there was a marked expansion of nepotism, corruption, and authoritarianism. However, due to Sri Lanka’s strategic importance to Western powers and India, the incumbent administration enjoys a degree of immunity from international criticism and pressure. This freedom is only enhanced by Sri Lanka’s burgeoning ties with China; the East Asian giant is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, enabling to deter any action against the Rajapaksa administration. Ultimately, the silence of the EU and the US lays bare hypocrisy of their self-appointed status as guarantors of democracy and human rights, especially when one considers their vocal criticism and sanctions against the Lukashenko administration in Belarus. It is clear that their commitment to taking the moral high ground as long as it doesn’t conflict with their geopolitical, security, and trade interests. This has come at the cost of the civil liberties of the minority communities in Sri Lanka, who are now at the mercy of a populist, majoritarian government.
Why the International Community Should be Concerned about Sri Lanka’s 20th Amendment
India and other international actors have a vested interest in preventing the implementation of the amendment. However, geopolitical and strategic interests have caused an eery silence on this front.
October 29, 2020
Source: AP