Dear Editor,
This is in reference to your editorial ‘Observers,’ (January 5) in which you took an undignified, uncalled for pot shot at former President Bharrat Jagdeo. (SN is too respected a paper being held as a paragon of excellent journalism for it to engage in unsavoury characterizations of the former Presi-dent.) You rightly stated that the Commonwealth election observer group is held in high esteem and people put credence on its pronouncement of results. All hopes are on the Commonwealth team for guaranteeing the holding of a free and fair election in Sri Lanka.
However, there is a Freudian slip in which you stated Prime Minister Rajapaksa faces a serious challenge. The election is for the position of the presidency and not for the prime ministership. Parlia-mentary elections are not being held (due by April 2016 when the prime minister is chosen or can be appointed at any time by the President with affirmation by a majority of the parliament).
Sri Lanka follows what can be described as the French model of constitutional governance somewhat similar to the Guyana model (Burnham constitution) in which it has an executive president and a prime minister (who is head of parliament and who performs largely ceremonial roles, but he can be brought down by a no-confidence motion separate from the president).
When it became independent and even some years after becoming a republic, Sri Lanka had a prime ministerial system of governance. But it was switched to the executive presidential system in 1978. The new constitution was promulgated democratically (not through the kind of farce perpetrated upon Guyanese by the PNC in its rigged referendum). It provided for a strong presidency. The Sri Lankan president, as in France, is directly elected for a six-year term (down from seven since 1995 for France), is head of state, head of government and commander of the armed forces – similar to Guyana except for a five-year term. Guyana and France have term limits, whereas Sri Lanka removed term limits a few years ago allowing for Rajapaksa to seek more terms of office.
On the election observers, the Commonwealth team led by Dr Jagdeo is one of several missions. Others include the Association of Asian Election Authorities chaired by former Chief Election Officer of India, SAARC observers, and The Private Campaign for Free and Fair Elections. The role of Jagdeo’s team, indeed of all the observers, is to pronounce the verdict on the election – whether conditions allowed for a free and fair election, and whether the official result reflects the will of the voters. The same principles applied in Guyana during several observer missions.
No concern has been expressed in Sri Lanka about Jagdeo’s professionalism, suitability or qualification to lead the team of observers. And no objections were made by any of the candidates on his presence in Sri Lanka or that he was leading the team; other observers have not complained about him either. There were also no concerns that would seem to suggest that Jagdeo or his Commonwealth team would not be professional in their undertaking, or not serve with integrity. In fact, Jagdeo’s colleagues in Sri Lanka found him eminently qualified and spoke highly of him and of all the observers. And among Guyanese nationals in New York and politicians in the Caribbean I spoke with, they expressed pride that a fellow Guyanese and a former Caribbean leader had been selected to head an election observer mission in another country, an important one in Asia. I believe it is a first for Guyana and the Caribbean – although I recall reading of PJ Patterson of Jamaica leading an election observer mission to Africa.
On the Commonwealth mission’s role in Sri Lanka, some concerns have been expressed to them by opposition politicians and Tamil community leaders about efforts being made to prevent minority Tamils from voting – they are expected to vote for the opposition (Sirisena) because of their extreme dislike for the incumbent Rajapaksa whom they accuse of failing to enforce promises. But in Sri Lanka, as indeed in all ethnically polarized societies, including Guyana, ethnic leaders cannot be seen to be pandering to or appeasing ‘enemies’ (another ethnic group). To do so would undermine their own standing and stature among their group as has been the case in so many ethnically polarized societies, including Trinidad, Suriname, Kenya, Nigeria, Kosovo, Belgium, Spain, etc.
The Commonwealth team of observers in all their missions have been outstanding. Theirs is a critical one in Sri Lanka. And I hope they will not fall short in their professionalism and that Guyana can count on a similar team when elections are held in Guyana this year.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
