Could It Be Lust For Power?

By Easwaran Rutnam and Ashanthi Warunasuriya-Wednesday, July 08, 2015

Former President
Mahinda
Rajapaksas
attempt to return
to power and seek
a third term in
office, though not
as President, has
raised eyebrows
both here and
overseas.
Historically, no Sri
Lankan President
has attempted to
make a return to
politics after two
Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa at Medamulana, J R
terms in office,
Jayawardhana, R Premadasa, D B Wijetunga and Chandrika
especially as Prime
Bandaranaike Kumarathunga
Minister.
The unique nature of the current scenario is that Rajapaksa is trying to make a
comeback after being defeated on January eighth this year when he tried to secure a
mandate for a third term in office.
Many modern presidential republics employ term limits for their highest offices. The
United States placed a limit of two terms on its presidency by means of the 22nd
Amendment to the Constitution in 1951. There are no term limits for Vice Presidency,
Representatives and Senators, although there have been calls for term limits for those
offices.
The only president to serve more than two terms in the US was Franklin D. Roosevelt.
In 1940 he won the election for his third term. Four years later in 1944, he ran again.
He became the only president to be elected to a fourth term. However, he was
president for only a year into his fourth term before he suffered from a cerebral
hemorrhage and passed away.
According to Wikipedia, he was able to remain president for so long because his
country was in a state of turmoil, World War II and the post-depression era, and they
wanted a reliable figure to turn to and lead them during one of their weakened times.
Mahinda Rajapaksa, when seeking a second term in office, rode on his success in
defeating the LTTE after 30 years of war.
He also looked for a mandate to rebuild the country, a mandate the people gave him in
2010 when he sought a second term in office. However the LTTE factor was not taken

into account when he sought a third term in office as President and by then allegations
of corruption took center stage.
Unsuccessful attempts to stay in power
A few US presidents unsuccessfully tried to hold their position for more than eight
years. In 1880, after a three year break from the presidency, Ulysses S. Grant
attempted to run again. However, he did not win his partys nomination so he was not
even a choice in the final election. About two decades later, Theodore Roosevelt
became the president when William McKinley was assassinated. He then served as
president from 1901-1909. Three years later, he tried to become the president again;
however, he lost to Woodrow Wilson. (Courtesy yourdictionary.com)
The 22nd Amendment, enacted after Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected president for
the fourth time, imposes a two-term limit on presidential candidates and was
established to formalise a tradition George Washington started by refusing to run for a
third term in 1796.
The 22nd Amendment states that no person elected president and no person to hold
the office of president for more than two terms is allowed to be elected more than once
more. It makes no difference whether the two terms are consecutive.
Clinging onto the chair
There have been a few world leaders who have managed to hold onto power for several
years, either as Prime Minister or President.
In Russia, Vladimir Putin was appointed President in 2000, and he was re-elected in
2004. Due to term limits, Putin could not run for the presidency again in 2008. (That
same year, presidential terms in Russia were extended from four to six years.) When
his protg Dmitry Medvedev succeeded him as president in March 2008, Putin
secured the post of Russias prime minister, continuing his position among the top
Russian leadership after eight years at the helm.
In Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, as one of the leaders of the rebel groups against white
minority rule, was elected as Prime Minister, head of government, in 1980, and served
in that office until 1987, when he became the countrys first executive head of state. He
has led the Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANUPF) since
1975.
In 2008 Mugabe suffered a narrow defeat in the first round of a presidential election
but he subsequently won the run-off election in a landslide after his opponent Morgan
Tsvangirai withdrew; Mugabe then entered a power-sharing deal with Tsvangirai as
well as Arthur Mutambara of the MDC-T and MDC-M opposition party. In 2013, the
Election Commission said Mugabe won his seventh term as President, defeating
Tsvangirai with 61 percent of the vote in a disputed election in which there were
numerous accounts of electoral fraud.
Sri Lankas Presidential Term
The office of President in Sri Lanka was created in 1972, as more of a ceremonial
position. It was empowered with executive powers by the 1978 Constitution introduced
by J. R. Jayewardene.

Former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, who served two terms in

office from November 1994 to November 2005, was replaced by Mahinda Rajapaksa as
President in 2005.
After being elected to office for a second term, Rajapaksa introduced the 18th
Amendment to the Constitution that was termed by many as an undemocratic piece of
legislation that removed the two term limit of holding office by an elected President.
However, Rajapaksa who faced a Presidential election on January eight this year after
holding office for a period of two terms was defeated by the people.
The Sunday Leader spoke to a broad section of society, both here and overseas to
gather their views on a Sri Lankan President seeking more than two terms in office or
attempting to return to power as a Prime Minister.

Ousted President seeks a comeback

By Amantha Perera
Six months ago, Maithripala Sirisena pulled off a stunning electoral upset in Sri Lanka,
defying expectations to defeat incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa in a national
election. Sirisena, a former Health Minister for Rajapaksa, rode to victory supported
by a diverse political coalition united, above all, in its desire to displace the Sri Lankan
strongman accused of increasingly autocratic rule.
Rajapaksa, who in 2009 ended a three-decade-long civil war with separatist Tamil
guerrillas seeking an independent homeland in the north of the country, depended on
the countrys Sinhala Buddhist majority to stay in power. Sirisena, himself a Sinhala
Buddhist, was backed by minority Muslims and ethnic Tamils sidelined under
Rajapaksa, along with many Sinhala Buddhists tired of the heavy-handed former
leader. The Mahinda Rajapaksa era is over, Sirisena told TIME after his victory
earlier this year.
His former boss, however, refuses to go away. With characteristic theatricality, he
summoned the media to his ancestral home in southern Sri Lanka on Wednesday to
outline his ambitions for a comeback. Standing at a podium installed near a tree that
formed the backdrop for his late fathers addresses to his supporters Don Alvin
Rajapaksa was a prominent politician from the region the former President said he
would contest a seat in parliamentary elections set for August after Sirisena dissolved
the Sri Lankan legislature on Friday. His goal: to become Prime Minister (and thorn in
his former allys side).
For the sake of the country we will contest the upcoming election, he said. I ask
all patriotic forces from all parties to join us in this struggle to regain the integrity of
our motherland.
But although the setting was rich with political imagery before making his way to the
podium, and with the media at hand, he listened to a Buddhist sermon at his family
home Rajapaksa was more subdued than usual as he made the much anticipated
announcement. And he failed to answer a critical question: Under which political
banner will he seek a parliamentary seat?
Both Rajapaksa and Sirisena belong to the Sri Lankan Freedom Party (SLFP), a section
of which remains loyal to the former Sri Lankan leader. But Sirisena, who became the
head of the party when he was elected President, has thus far resisted allowing

Rajapaksa to run as an SLFP candidate. Rajapaksa didnt specify whether he would

continue to seek an SLFP ticket or if he would try to run as part of the broader United
Peoples Freedom Alliance, a political coalition led by the SLFP and chaired by
Sirisena.
It will be an uphill task for [Rajapaksa] to become a real force because right now there
is no clear sign whether he has a party machinery to back him, Jehan Perera, a
political analyst and executive director of the Colombo-based National Peace Council,
told TIME.
The elections will help determine the fate of Sirisenas reform drive. In January he won
with promises to, among other things, dismantle the executive presidency and devolve
more power to the legislature by strengthening the Prime Ministers office. His rise
also brought hopes of reconciliation in a country marred by a deep ethnic divide. As
President, Rajapaksa brazenly rejected international calls for a thorough and impartial
investigation into allegations of human-rights abuses by the Sri Lankan army in the
final months of the civil war. Sirisena campaigned with a promise to hold an
independent domestic probe into the claims. The international community was
supportive after he came to power, with the U.N. deferring the release of its own report
into the matter until later this year to give Sirisena time to put together a domestic
process.
To implement his promises, Sirisena appointed Ranil Wickremesinghe, a veteran of Sri
Lankas fractious political scene and leader of the United National Party, as Prime
Minister to head a minority coalition government. With Wickremesinghe at his side,
he succeeded in introducing some checks on the power of the presidency, including
bringing back a two-term limit for incumbents that had been scrapped under
Rajapaksa. But with the Rajapaksa faction in Parliament acting as a roadblock, he had
to discard his ambition to abolish its executive powers altogether. Lacking a two-thirds
majority in the legislature, he also had to shelve a planned overhaul of the voting
system and a right-to-information law to make government more transparent.
Sirisena now needs a Parliament that will be sympathetic to their cause, with enough
MPs allied with the President to push through reforms. Rajapaksas candidacy means
that the final outcome could hinge on the countrys minorities, says Perera.
The minority parties could hold the key to gaining a majority in Parliament, explains
Perera. I dont think any [single] party will gain a majority in Parliament. We will
have a situation where the major parties will be jockeying for support from the smaller
parties.
(TIME magazine July 1, 2015)
Ravindra Wijerathne Veteran Tele Drama Director
I am of the view that political leaders who have ruled
two terms should retire after his second tenure in office.
Thereafter they ought to offer their experience and
political maturity for the development of the country.
They can do such services by being in the comfort of
their retirement. It is respectful.
At present, the quality of Sri Lankan politics is declining

rapidly. No one knows what might happen next. One decision makes so
many differences. It is futile to predict the future of Sri Lankan politics. All
Sri Lankans are looking agape at the events happening in the country today.
We cannot decide the future based on what happened in the recent past. We
need a leader who has a vision that is capable of providing solutions for the
problems of unprivileged people, unemployment etc.
Dr. Rukshan Bellana President, Government Medical Officers Association
(GMOA)
I like if a political leader is given only two terms for
ruling. Even ten years is too much. We can understand
whether our leaders have ruled fairly in the past when
they were elected two terms for the office by looking at
their achievements towards the betterment of people
and the country as a whole. Recently a certain positive
political change happened in Sri Lanka. A leader who
commits to good governance is a must for a country but there should be a
age limit for a leader as well for ruling. If Sri Lankan parliament has such
persons, they must be removed. Politicians must have educational
qualifications as well as other humane qualities. We do not need over-aged
politicians. Political constitutions must be changed. We need real changes.
Those who talk about racism should have talked about it in the past. Every
day when the Election Day nears, they talk. That is not fruitful. We have to
build a talk only at the relevant time.

Father Rev. Benedict Joseph Director of the Aquinas Higher Educational

Institute
We witness the cream of democracy only in countries
like the UK, the USA and Australia. Apart from the
countries that controlled by Marxist governments,
others have democratic governments that change after a
constitutionally defined periods of time that have been
defined by the people of these countries. Those countries
also enforce check and balances for their governments
and leaders.
We have seen many a time that being in the power for long time have
resulted in disrespect of governmental bodies for law and order and neglect
of their services towards the citizenry and so on. When a governance of a
country changing after a constitutionally demarcated period of time, the

citizens of that country have an opportunity to bring into the power another
government or person that they like and to decide whether the present
governance is suitable for ruling anymore.
Most suitable system is to allow political leaders to rule only two terms. Only
those leaders who look back and understand their faults and positive aspects
of their ruling should be given another chance.
We have gone through many inconveniences due to unfair governance of the
former regime. We witnessed that by offering many items and briberies that
people have been bought in order to receive their votes for the governing
party. We have to ch

Prof. Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri Colombo University

When being in a certain position for a long time, an
individual and the relevant position become immoral.
Such person can use their position wrongly for
instance, a president in a country. Longer duration in
power may provide someone immense power in
changing minds of the people to his or her advantage.
Therefore, limiting the duration in the power is vital.
Likewise, whoever who in the power should fulfill promises the relevant
government gives to the people within the said duration. Allowing two terms
in the power for a president can be acceptable to a country like ours, but
during this tenure whatever promises given should be fulfilled.

Nadeeka Guruge Music maestro

I cannot answer this briefly. It has to be discussed
thoroughly. If my respond is brief, there may be
communicative faults. It is utterly harmful. However, I
say that being in the power by any one party or leader
more than two terms is wrong. I never give my assent to
such a system of governance.

Jagath Premalal Veteran Actor

I think if the people in a country think that their ruler

should be in power a longer duration, they must have
freedom to do so. If a ruler can provide what the citizens
of his/her country want, there must not be time limit for
that governance. However, being in the power for an
unlimited duration is wrong. But I do not think it is
wrong to be in the power more than two terms. Likewise,
I do not blame those who vote for such a leader.
Ven. Ranmalketiya Siridamma Thero Religious Zonal Educational Director
Being in the power by someone who has capability and
qualification is not wrong. But that person should
respect and obey our culture and system. Some say that
being in the power for a long time is the beginning of an
aristocracy. At present we do not think it is wrong. We
need governance where everyone can live in harmony.
Again we need a system of governance that give priority
to Buddhism and also that protects other religions as well. With all these
qualities and responsibilities, I do not think that it is wrong a leader who has
already been in the power once or twice having another term to rule.
Senior Attorney at Law Sagara Kariyawasam Sri Lanka Law College
lecturer
The system of executive presidency is practiced in more
than 100 countries out of 196 countries of the world.
Thus one would say that more than 50% of the countries
have opted to have executive presidential system with
necessary changes best suited for their countries. In Sri
Lanka we also have introduced executive presidential
system after coming in to operation of 1978 Constitution
of the Republic.
It can be observed that some countries with the executive presidential
system have opted to have different types of limitations on the number of
terms one person could be elected as the executive president where certain
other countries have not imposed such limitations. For an example in South
Korea the executive president can be elected for only one term of five years
where in US and France number of terms one person could be elected as the
executive president has been limited to two terms. It can be observed that in
Germany and Russia even though such limitation on number of terms an
individual could be appointed as the executive president has not been

imposed there is a limitation where any person cannot be appointed as the

executive president for more than two consecutive terms but if the terms are
not consecutive an individual can be elected as the executive president for
any number of terms. It is also observed that most of the developing
countries have not imposed such restriction on the number of terms one
person can be appointed as the executive president.
The present Sri Lankan Constitution initially had a restriction on number of
terms one person could be appointed as the executive president and this
restriction was removed by the 18th amendment to the Constitution and
after the said removal opposition parties were successful in convincing the
public that such removal is detrimental to good governance principles
(which I do not agree) and accordingly by 19th Amendment to the
Constitution said restrictions were brought back.
My personal opinion on this matter is that in a country where there is a
democratic system where the franchise of the people can be exercised
through a free and fair election no such restriction is necessary since the
people of the country can decide whether they are willing to allow another
term to the incumbent president or not by exercising their franchise.
In my opinion there is no harm in allowing the executive president to serve
for more than two terms when the system allows the people to exercise their
franchise freely and fairly. This was proven at the last Presidential election
held on January eighth, 2015.

Dr. Silverine de Silva Asst. Professor (Mass Communication) American

International University-Bangladesh
We talk of politics, we talk of government. Have we
really analysed the meaning of these two words? We
start with the government. What is it? A Wikipedia
definition states that a government is the system by
which a state or community is controlled. The
Commonwealth of Nations refers to government as a
collectivegroup of people that exercises executive
authority in a state. In American English it is called administrationand the
concepts of the state and the government may be used synonymously to refer
to the person or group of people exercising authority over a politically
organised territory.
Speaking of a politically organised territory, the word politics plays a
significant role. What does it mean? Once again the Wikipedia defines the
word as the practice and theory of influencing other people andrefers to
achieving and exercising positions of governance organizsd control over a
human community.
Furthermore, politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and

resources within a givencommunity (a usually hierarchically organised

population) as well as the interrelationship(s) betweencommunities.
We can combine the two and apply it to the political situation and
government of Sri Lanka. After achieving freedom from the British, the
United National Party was formed and after sometime was broken up and
the SLFP was formed. These are current main political parties in Sri Lanka
of course not forgetting the minor parties that are in existence and combine
with one or other of the major political partiesto form analliance.
Governments are formed when one or the other party wins an election. Is
this real? Do those who join political parties have any idea of politics? Where
do they get knowledge from?
Here another question arises. What do we really know about politics? Are the
members of a politicallyelected governing body aware of what politics is? We
have heard and witnessed how politicians come into being. It is kind of
ancestral. The father supports or is involved with a particular party, the son
follows, then the grandchildren and the great grandchildren and the chain
continues. Lay people or even sometimesthose in power do not understand
the meaningof politicsand what values it holds towards the country and the
countrymen. So whats lacking? Education, awareness. How many of us have
been made aware of what politics is? How many of our political leaders have
studied the scienceof politics? Wealth plays a major role in politics today. If
you have the money to spend during your campaigns, and making promises
(whichalmost never sees the light of day), you could become a politician.
This is very visible in the South Asian region. Is this fair?
Sri Lanka gives a great deal of importance to education and literacy. Isnt it
then the responsibility of thiseducation system to educate those entering
politics? Politics is not individualism. It is communitarianism.
It is the togetherness of a community that brings strength to the system and
makes it possible to strike a balance. Once the balance is struck and a wellbalanced political party comes into power, it will know how to choose its
leader and governing body. Then comes the importance of the leader or the
President to hold the reigns and carry forth promises of the party made
during election campaigns and hold high the hopes of thosewho work behind
the scenes to elect the governing party to power. Lets take Singapore as an
example. At the time Singapore was being built, it held Sri Lanka as an
example to prosperity. Where does stand SriLanka in comparison to
Singapore? The party has to choose persons who will be undoubtedly be
good torch bearers with solid backgrounds; firm and capable. We have to
understand that once in power; the government needs to draw up long
standing strategies and executable development projects that will be
beneficial for the people and the country for generations to come. A lead
time must be given to any work undertaken. Time is required for planning
and implementation and without this essential or crucial planning stages no

development work can beimplemented.

Ideas could be called to inform other parties and/or the general public as
well (if required).Could there be a manner in which expatriates (some a
chosen handful, if not all) are also involved inmaking suggestions and giving
opinions to the government or governing bodies? Expatriates look at
SriLanka from a different perspective than those living in the country itself.
We see the development workdone, we could sense drawbacks; we could let
our voicesbeheard.
We are proud of our motherland, and we wish Sri Lankato be the most
developed in the South Asian region.
Asela Fernando Sri Lankan residing in Bangladesh for the past 12 years.
We have seen governments come and governments go,
Governments with great strong leaders and others who
just flow with the tide.
If a government is led by a leader a president with
great visions and plans for the betterment of the
country, how long does s/he have to be at the top to
continue the execution of the plans?
In Sri Lanka a presidents term (a term of government) lasts six years. Now
the question is are six years sufficient to embark on new development plans
and execute it to the benefit of his/her countrymen?
In my view, I do not think so. Each person needs time and space. Space to
conceive all that has been going on before, to digest if the work introduced
and planned by the previous government would reap benefits? If they, need
to be continued? Should they be stopped or turned round? Should they be
diverted?
Could a new president along with the new team of ministers and fellowmen
be able to show positive results within a short span of six years? No, it is not
possible, especially if development projects are long term ones. Yes maybe
two terms might bring out some of the expected results. After all, its the
people who decide whether they accept the same president for the third term
or so forth.
It must be clearly understood that politics or ruling a country does not
depend on just an individual, but on the strategy adopted by the leader and
his/her team. If we assume that the political system is dependent on a
particular individual, it is a wrong concept.
Let us now look at what usually happens at the end of a term of one ruling

party especially in the South Asian region, which we belong to. The new
ruling party once in power looks for the loop holes, mistakes, delays and
whatever it can find to make the on-going development work come to a
standstill. New projects are started and carried on while the current
government is in power and at the end of its term, a new government trails
in, the old projects come to a halt, new projects are started and the cycle
continues. ange this system and regulate the voting system of the country
this time.