brand logo

SLFP internal conflict: SLFP should be part of an all-party govt.: Duminda Dissanayake

11 Sep 2022

  • SLFP was the first to propose an all-party govt.
  • No merit for SLFP in not joining all-party govt.
  • Don’t understand rationale behind party’s new changes
  • Several SLFPers opposed changes to party Constitution
  • Space for diversity of opinions within the party a must
  • There’s no split in the party but differences of opinion
  • All political parties are unstable at present amidst crisis
  • SLFP is not pursuing early elections, focus on crisis first
By Asiri Fernando   The Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) as a democratic institution should not constrain space for diverse views within the party and instead move to support an all-party government with the aim of finding solutions for the economic crisis, says SLFP National Organiser MP Duminda Dissanayake.   According to Dissanayake, the recent changes to the SLFP Constitution have raised concerns about the concentration of power which needed to be rolled back, with the matter addressed within the party mechanism.  In an interview with The Sunday Morning, Dissanayake claimed that although there were diverse views within the SLFP, the party was neither at risk of fracturing nor was a new party formed by old party loyalists a threat.  The former State Minister for Renewable Energy also said that the SLFP did not seek an early election and would, as a policy, support restructuring measures that the Government had agreed to with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). However, he said further details of the terms of the agreement should be studied before deciding on the nature of the support extended. Following are excerpts of the interview:     What is your view of the current political and economic climate?   My view is that all political parties are unstable at present. On the economic front, we are truly facing an unprecedented crisis. There are many challenges we need to overcome and progress slowly through.   Is the SLFP planning to join the Government? Or are there SLFP members who will join the all-party government?   The fact is that it was the SLFP that first proposed the concept of an all-party government. We firmly believe that all parties need to leave party politics behind, because they have the responsibility of coming up with solutions to the crisis this country is facing. The public is looking to us for solutions. This is why the SLFP recommended that an all-party government be formed, perhaps through a national council. The SLFP believes that we need a united approach to overcome this crisis at this stage. The recommendation for an all-party government has been made to the existing Government. We made it to then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and to current President Ranil Wickremesinghe. The responsibility of forming an all-party government lies with the Government. Regarding whether the SLFP will join the all-party government – since the party proposed this concept and promoted it, I don’t see why we shouldn’t be part of it. It was our idea. Whether other parties join an all-party government is up to them. The SLFP shouldn’t be swayed by who will join or not join the all-party government to decide if we are joining our own initiative. I don’t see any merit in not joining an all-party government and helping this interim Government to bring solutions to the problems at hand.     The SLFP amended its Constitution at its 76th anniversary celebrations, empowering the party’s chairman to remove any officer or member at their discretion. What is the rationale for such concentration of power?   I don’t know the rationale behind it. I don’t understand why we need to centralise power under the leadership position in a democratic party like the SLFP. This is why several members of the party and I objected to the changes at the Central Working Committee and the Executive Committee stages. Many of us in the SLFP don’t see the need for such a move. We see it as unnecessary. I don’t think the new powers that allow the leader of the SLFP to be able to remove any member from any position without an inquiry or giving cause suit the constitution of a democratic party. Today, all of Sri Lanka is talking about reducing Executive power and strengthening institutions, not that of persons or positions. If the country is talking about advancing democracy and that is the same ethos followed by the SLFP, then why are we as a party trying to reinforce executive power within the party? Having diverse views and the space to express them, to be heard, and debated is integral for the growth of any political party. If the chairman is empowered to remove any member arbitrarily, then there will be no space for diverse views to be expressed. We can say that the current Chairman will not act using such powers, but what about the one who will take up the post next? What of the future? If someone uses these new powers and abuses them, then as a political party, the SLFP will become weak. I think we have seen enough examples of how such powers have led to bad choices.      What is your stance on the changes to the party Constitution?   I have clearly expressed my stance during the Central Committee meeting. I asked that it be recorded in the minutes of the meeting, because in the future, when party members look back at our history, they should know that when such a wrong decision was made, others and I stood against it.   The move to change the SLFP Constitution was resisted by several SLFP members. Have the changes that were enacted last week caused a split within the SLFP?   No, there is no split. However, there is a difference of opinion. When we feel that something is wrong, or when we feel it will have a detrimental effect on the party, we make ourselves heard. What we are asking for is the right to have diverse views as a democratic party. If we are forced to say yes to whatever decision made by the chairman or the secretary, then that won’t be successful nor democratic. There were several MPs who objected to the change in the SLFP Constitution and we didn’t vote for this move.   The SLFP Leader has appointed his son, Daham Sirisena, as a Party Organiser. This comes after criticising the nepotism of the Rajapaksas and stating that he will not engage in it. Why has he gone against his promise?   There is some merit to asking such a question. Several days prior to that appointment, SLFP Leader Sirisena, when asked about this on national television, responded by saying that if his son wanted to enter politics, being a young gentleman, he had enough time to do so. However, I don’t see an issue with his son entering politics. As a member of a political family, I understand how children of such families are well placed to serve as policymakers, so I don’t see why Daham Sirisena entering politics should be challenged.   I think anyone who is keen to enter politics and serve their constituents should be allowed to do so. Furthermore, if there is public support for such an entry, how can it be denied? I don’t think who someone’s father is or what family they come from should shape anyone’s desire to be involved in politics.        Also last week, a longstanding SLFP member, Kumara Welgama formed the Nawa (New) Lanka Freedom Party with the support of former SLFP Leader and President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. What are your thoughts on the new party and will it cause SLFP ranks to break away?   No, I don’t think this new party will pose a challenge to the SLFP. Anyone can form political parties. I have not heard of any members breaking away from the SLFP to join this new party or other parties. However, the SLFP as a democratic party should strive to ensure that there is space for diverse views within the party and not allow individuals to take arbitrary actions as leaders.   Several petitions filed against the changes to the SLFP Constitution were rejected by the courts. Does the SLFP have a review process to hear the grievances of its members about such changes?   No, there is no such mechanism to review. I feel that this matter should be dealt with within the party. I don’t think going to court or launching protests will help the party on this matter. As a democratic party, I feel we need to address this matter internally.  I don’t know if we will be able to change the decisions taken, but we will stand by our view that such changes are detrimental to the party. We think [him and others who objected] that the changes should be rolled back. We do not believe that our party chairman’s position requires that degree of power. This has nothing to do with the Chairman, but it is only to ensure that a future leader may not abuse it. This change is dangerous as it will allow a party leader to remove anyone he or she is not happy with, even if they have been elected by the vote of the people. Some people may think that such changes are brought in to ensure discipline within the ranks and to maintain party policies – and such thinking may be valid for today – but what about the future? We need to ensure the Constitution is fit for its purpose not only for today but also for the future and make sure there are no provisions that can be abused.   Will the changes to the SLFP Constitution and the rift it has caused affect the party’s plans to prepare for an election?   No, I don’t think there will be an effect. The fact that this decision was taken will not affect the reforms and restructuring of the party. That process will continue.   Does the SLFP want early elections, or does it plan on letting the interim Government complete the term of this Parliament?   The SLFP is not pursuing early elections. We believe that the five-year term of this Parliament should be allowed to be completed. We are of the view that the unprecedented economic crisis needs our collective effort to resolve. I personally don’t think that an early election will help contribute to solving the crisis at hand. An election will not see our dollar earnings increase or our exports grow or our expenditure reduce.  The only people who are asking for early elections are those who want to exploit the crisis situation to gain power. That will not solve the economic crisis. I feel that an election at this stage will complicate matters. Our public doesn’t need elections at this stage, they need a recovery plan and relief. We should focus on addressing the issue at hand. Unfortunately, we see a number of political parties still playing party politics and not rising to do their duty of national politics, which is the need of the hour. I think this is letting the public down, especially when they are suffering. The public has, over the years, placed their trust in many parties and coalitions, and we need to work together to help them, not further party interests. The priority should be to offer relief to the suffering masses and to do so first. We saw the Aragalaya protest movement. The non-violent and peaceful side of it wanted a system change. Why did they call for a system change? Because we need reforms in the public service, education, and many sectors, including the current political culture. So, without discarding the message that the peaceful Aragalaya protest brought about, we as parties should work together.   Sri Lanka has committed to a four-year $ 2.9 billion financial assistance programme with the IMF. How does the SLFP view this agreement? Is the SLFP confident that Sri Lanka can abide by the terms of the agreement?   When we are bankrupt, we have little choice in how to recover but agree to the terms given by those who assist us. When seeking assistance, we sometimes have to agree to terms that we are not comfortable with. We have gone to the IMF for help over a dozen times before. If we are to learn from those, then we need to reform and rebuild so that Sri Lanka will not be in a position to need such assistance again.  So, when seeking assistance, we may have to agree to terms that we are not comfortable with personally or on party policy lines. If Sri Lanka was an economic success story and had a strong economy, we may not have agreed to some of the terms put forward, but we are not in such a place now.  The SLFP understands that we need to endure significant changes based on these terms to ensure that Sri Lanka recovers to a stronger position instead of simply getting by to a weak position.     Does the SLFP have any concerns about the commitments made by the Government in relation to the IMF agreement – particularly on how the Government plans to cut expenditure according to the agreement?   As a policy, we support the need for restructuring and expenditure reduction. However, we need to study the agreement and get a better understanding of what it entails in specific areas. There are State-Owned Enterprises and State sector agencies which need reforms.  Recently I was speaking to a trade union representative of the Department of Posts, who was complaining about the Government getting ready to privatise it. When asked, he said he was only two years away from retirement and that the Department of Posts was making losses of around Rs. 75 million each month. So I asked him how long the State should sustain incurring losses, which would burden our future generations, simply because he wanted his pension ensured. The Government needs to explain the gravity of the situation to State sector employees. Many of them already understand that their organisations are a drain on the Treasury. For example, if we look at the Ceylon Electricity Board, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and the Sri Lanka Ports Authority, every three years they get a pay increment of 25%, so in one decade, they have got a 100% pay increase, while the organisation has been running at a loss. How can that be justified? These are benefits and perks that these institutions have secured for themselves because they are monopolies and by exploiting policymakers through the threat of trade union action, strikes, etc. Such action cannot be tolerated. These decisions, among others, have landed Sri Lanka in this crisis. Therefore, correcting these misdeeds is the responsibility of every citizen of Sri Lanka.  


More News..