SPOTLIGHT

Monks' battle with politics  

By Frederica Jansz  If ever Sri Lanka's political destiny is to be re-fashioned or refreshed it will be now. For the first time in Sri Lanka's political history and since its parliamentary independence in 1948, nine Buddhist monks created political history on April 22, when they took their seats when Sri Lanka's 13th parliament was convened.

Ven. Uduwe Dhammaloka Thero  and Ven. Dr. Omalpe Sobitha Thero

Having polled 552,724 votes or 5.97% of the total poll in the April 2nd general election, the Buddhist priests were convinced their saffron coloured robes would serve as an effective deterrent to previously witnessed abusive and disgraceful behaviour by their more seasoned lay brethren and fellow parliamentary members.

But of course what resulted on April 22nd, is now history and certainly worthy fodder for all those colourful and imaginative television advertisements at a future election.

Presently, the youngest political party in Sri Lanka, the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) is set to create waves. Albeit, at the displeasure of the newly elected United People's Freedom Alliance. The United National Front will remain on the fence until and unless the dhamma teaching clerics decide to practice some tit for tat policy on the UNF.

Having faced controversy after controversy ever since the JHU nominated some 260 Buddhist monks to contest the April 2nd general election, the monks were barely allowed space to burn oil, chant pirith and pay obeisance to some pahan poojas before the party became a target for political pirates.

To begin with, the JHU was accused of accepting "black money" from a rogue businessman and his family to help fund its pre-election campaign. This charge was later hotly denied by propaganda secretary of the JHU, Ven. Athuraliye Rathana Thera.

Deputy Leader of the JHU Ven. Omalpe Sobitha Thera insists that, "all contributions to the JHU have been made by Buddhist devotees. We have not accepted black money," he said, speaking with a stilted English accent and careful not to mince his words with political jargon.

Crisis situation

Later, the monks had another crisis situation on their hands when one of its candidates Ven. Aparekke Pannananda Thera, elected from the Gampaha District mysteriously disappeared. It takes two to fiddle they say and that is just what happened in this case. The dissident monk was soon followed by another rebel. This time it was Ven. Kathaluwe Rathanaseeha. All what happened thereafter is now part of Sri Lanka's very fractured and divided political sphere. (See box for breakdown of incidents)

An angry JHU General Secretary, Ven. Uduwe Dhammaloka Thera has said they will have to "think twice" about extending even conditional support to the new government given the latter's antagonistic conduct towards the JHU. This initial statement has been now followed with even more anger after individuals believed to be activists of the Freedom Alliance have begun a campaign of intimidation against the political monks.

A perception fuelled by none other than the President herself. In a telephone conversation with Udaya Gammanpila of the JHU on April 22, Chandrika Kumaratunga charged the JVP with having a hand in the staged disappearances of the two rebel monks while she also accused PA MP, C. B. Ratnayake of masterminding the operation.

Telephone conversation

On the strength of the President's own admission, the JHU has publicly accused the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna of instigating the subsequent incidents of threats and intimidation and daggers have since been drawn. The ground is certainly set for battle.

Clad in saffron coloured robes, bearing shaven crowns and clasping white sheets the monks however are no longer under the illusion that their attire or demeanour will in anyway influence their more rowdy and raucous members to behave in a manner promulgating a dharmarajya.

As Finance Minister Dr. Sarath Amunugama has been heard to quip, once the monks enter the portals of parliament, they are no longer religious dignitaries but reduced to being mere MPs.

At the core of political dispute and wheeler dealing, the newly elected Buddhist monks have yet not descended from the roller coaster ride. The Jathika Hela Urumaya had barely taken its first tentative steps before the wobbly new alliance made desperate overtures to the monks to help support its weak position of a mere 106 seats in a 225 strong parliament.

This from a government that is crowing it had a resounding verdict from the electorate to govern. It is said that there are 'lies, damned lies and statistics.' This then is the sum total of the UPFA boast. It claims a two-thirds electoral victory having won 106 of 163 polling divisions and 16 of 22 districts.

What it fails to say, is that only 45.6 % of the people voted for the UPFA. What is abundantly clear is that 54.4 % of the voters, voted against the UPFA.

In the 2001 election, the UNF obtained 110 polling divisions and 17 districts. Had the criteria claimed by the UPFA been applied, the JVP would not have had a single seat and it was possible that even the President may have been impeached. What was sauce for the goose does not seem to apply to the gander. No doubt the bahubootha constitution has had its uses.

PR system

The JVP must thank the PR system for its position in politics today. It was to prevent anomalies such as this and those of 1956, 1970 and 1977 that the PR system was introduced.

In the recent election, the UPFA obtained 4.2 million votes as against 3.5 for the UNF. That is a ratio of 6:5. The government got 105 seats and the UNF 82. If the ratio was strictly applied, the UNF should have got 87 seats. So even under the PR system the government received an advantage.

It is possible that a fairer system could be found, such as a single member constituency, where the member is elected by a single transferable vote, as in Australia, together with a PR system at a district level as at present. But that is a system obviously for the future.

As for the changes to the constitution, the Presidential Secretariat trots out the 'two thirds' theory. It is regrettable that a referendum on the issue was not held simultaneously with the last election. It could have been done very simply with an additional ballot paper. If the referendum was carried, the question of a 'mandate' would have been settled without doubt. For the government to claim a 'mandate' to change the constitution with only 45.6% of the total vote, is political claptrap.

There is a legal manner in which the present constitution can be amended. It has in fact been so amended 17 times. The process however requires consensus of all parties to obtain the necessary two thirds majority. What this government is attempting to do, is to do 'extra legally' what it cannot do legally - i.e. without a two thirds majority - because they cannot obtain the consensus of the other parties. It is indeed a dangerous precedent since any future simple majority government which for political reasons, wishes to change the constitution, has only to cite the 'doctrine of necessity' to further its own selfish political ends, by creating a 'constituent assembly,' and producing a new constitution. In future elections, the people will not only vote for changes of government, but also for changes in constitution. As a result the country may have a brand new constitution after each election.

It is quite clear that the country needs to change its constitution. It is abundantly clear that a new constitution will be required after there has been an agreement signed with the LTTE. The government has said it will deal with the "core issues" with the LTTE and produce results.

Once this takes place, nobody will object to a 'constituent assembly' formed of representatives from all political parties, civil society and professional bodies getting together and producing a constitution for a new future.

Why is it necessary - using the 'doctrine of necessity'- to change the constitution piecemeal, when a completely new one will be required in the near future? When the executive presidency was not abolished in 1995 as promised by the President, the excuse was that the constitution should not be changed 'piecemeal.' Cannot the same reason be applied today?

And caught in the flush of bright lights and heady media hype, for the monks, on this issue at least, saner counsel has prevailed. The JHU has made a public statement that it has decided to sit with the opposition until the United People's Freedom Alliance government accepts what they describe as "non-negotiable demands."

Party Secretary, Thilak Karunaratne explains that the alliance government must ; (1) Accept the "unitary" status of the country ; (2) De-merge the north and east ; (3) Openly reject the statement "LTTE is the sole representative of the Tamil people" ; (4) Introduce the proposed Unethical Conversions Bill, establish an Independent Media Commission, take steps to empower the Police Commission, Election Commission, and the Bribery Commission. And the JHU has very firmly maintained it will not lend support to a constituent assembly - one that will make piecemeal amendments to the present constitution.

Unethical Conversions

Dr. Omalpe Sobitha Thera maintains "it is this very constitution that is today our safeguard protecting the unitary status of Sri Lanka."

At first viewed with suspicion and fear by other minority groups that the JHU would serve as a virulent base to propagate racism and religious disharmony, the monks have already been described by certain quarters as Sri Lanka's future 'Taliban.'

Dr. Omalpe Sobitha Thera hotly denied the JHU harbours such intentions but reiterated strongly that one of the priorities of the monks when in parliament will be to push through a bill banning unethical conversions.

His statement cracks like a whip in the backdrop of religious disharmony, which flared up in the country recently when angry Buddhists spurred on by groups with vested interests attacked Christian denomination churches. The charge being, that large numbers of Buddhist born poor, were being lured into Christian churches on the promise of free food, clothing and education. The issue caused widespread violence and though condemned by all quarters, was not quelled until the conclusion of the general election.

Dr. Omalpe Sobitha Thera insists the Buddhist monks have long enjoyed harmonious relationships with their Christian brethren but he insists "unethical conversions" cannot be condoned and must be banned. He asserts the JHU will use its new leverage in parliament to do just this.

On the issue of bribery and corruption, a matter that has long stifled and strangled Sri Lankan politics, Omalpe Sobitha Thera is convinced the elected Buddhist monks are fully empowered to be able to stay clear of falling prey to such manipulations.

He spoke too soon. Hardly were the words out of his mouth before the JHU had a mini rebellion on its hands with two out of the nine elected monks for various reasons abandoning their cause to the JHU and running with the Freedom Alliance.

But even this does not appear to greatly deter Dr. Omalpe Sobitha Thera. Referring to parliament as a "holy place" (we have now certainly heard it all) Omalpe Sobitha Thera is still optimistic that the Buddhist monks will play a major role in instilling a sense of decency, integrity and honesty amongst the other 216 lay parliamentarians.

Describing Sri Lanka's political sphere as being a "cesspit" of vice and corruption, Omalpe Sobitha Thera says this was the basis for the monks having decided enough was enough; and that it is time Sri Lanka's political gaming ground is lifted from its present depths to form a dharmarajya. Explaining, Omalpe Sobitha Thera said a dharmarajya will be based on the teachings of Buddhism and will aim primarily to carry Sri Lanka out of her present fractured and bruised political hopelessness to an era of hope, unity, integrity and prosperity.

Military debacle

Of course Omalpe Sobitha Thera never foresaw that his entry into active politics together with nearly 300 other monks would precipitate unprecedented attacks on the Buddhist clergy and temples around the country by none other than self-professed devotees themselves.

Parented by the Sihala Urumaya which was formed in April 2000 to safeguard the Sinhala nation, the Jathika Hela Urumaya was born four years later in the run up to the April 2004 general election.

After the military debacle at Elephant Pass and Wanni, the Sihala Urumaya claimed that nationally conscious Sinhalese demanded a true Sinhala political organisation to govern the country.

General Secretary, Sihala Urumaya, Tilak Karunaratne maintains that patriotic Sinhalese began to organise themselves into non-political organisations such as Jathika Sangha Sabha, National Movement Against Terrorism, Sinhala Veera Vidahana etc., from 1995, to safeguard the rights of the Sinhalese. He recounts how a few years of continuous struggle led these dedicated groups to realise the need of a political party to achieve the desired goal and so the Sihala Urumaya was born.

There are two schools of thought for the meaning of Sihala. One group says it derives from Siv Hela (the four ethno groups - namely Yaksha, Naga, Raksha and Deva). Others believe that Sihala derives from lineage of race called Sinha (Lion). Hence Sihala Urumaya means "national heritage."

The Jathika Hela Urumaya articulating the identical objectives of its parent party reiterates its main objectives are to safeguard the motherland, its territorial integrity, unitary form of governance and identity for the benefit of the people of Sri Lanka.

Asked how the JHU plans to achieve its mandate Omalpe Sobitha Thera puts it like this, "our weapon is the use of non-violence and democracy to achieve our goals."

What can we say, but merely hope with all sincerity that the Ven. Dr. Omalpe Sobitha Thera will not have to gnash his teeth, chew his words and spit them out.