.

Violence and democracy

by Prof. Carlo Fonseka
Let us come right out and admit it: incontrovertible evidence has accumulated that violence and anti-democratic practices besmirched and befouled the Wayamba Election. What cries for rational explanation is how and why such things came to pass. By way of preface it is useful to recall what Karl Marx wrote in "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte". "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves; but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past."

At the presidential election held in 1982 President J R Jayewardene polled 52.91% of the valid votes; in 1988 President Premadasa polled 50.43% of the valid votes; in 1994 President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga polled 62.28% of the valid votes. Given such an unprecedented popular public endorsement, if there is any politician in this country who should have no need or inclination to resort to organized rigging of elections to retain power, it is President CBK. However, rigging elections by violence if necessary had become a generic feature of the political system that had been transmitted to her from the past. Did what happened in Wayamba occur without her consent and against her will, even as periodic floods do? There is reason to believe that it did, because if Marx's dictum quoted above is valid, men - and I daresay, even women - do not make their history just as they please. They do so, under circumstances directly transmitted from the past.

What precisely were the circumstances transmitted from the past? My answer is partly political. But that does not necessarily make it false. And I should be delighted to challenge anyone to falsify the hypothesis I proposed way back in 1987 when JRJ was very much alive and kicking and was at the height of his temporal power. For the record, let me say that I have hitherto never criticized JRJ after his death; even as I never ceased to do so from 1977 until his death.

As it happened, in 1987 I was invited by the Centre for Society and Religion to speak at a seminar on the theme "Violence and Democracy". I spoke from a prepared text. Even the mainstream newspaper that has been almost unvaryingly friendly to me, flatly refused to publish the text of my talk. To set the context and theoretical basis of the explanation I am going to offer for the Wayamba fiasco, I will reproduce below an abbreviated and slightly edited version of my talk.

Text of 1987 Talk

" During the past decade or so violence has increased in our country and democracy has declined. Is there a relationship between these two phenomena? The thesis of this talk is that violence increased mainly because democracy declined; and democracy declined mainly because of one individual's love of power. More precisely and specifically, democracy declined and violence increased at the rate they did during the past decade mainly because in 1977, Junius Richard Jayewardene at the age of 71 became - as he loves to remind us - the 193rd King or Head of State of Sri Lanka. The decline of democracy in this country since 1977 is most simply explained in terms of JRJ's supreme ambition to live and die as the 193rd King or Head of State of Sri Lanka.

The attainment and retainment of power is the ambition of almost all politicians. So it has been with JRJ and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Indeed, judged by the criterion of convincing attainment and long retainment of power, JRJ must be reckoned the most successful Sri Lankan politician of our time. The price the country has had to pay for his success, however, has been a decline of democracy and an increase of violence. How did that come about? Let us see.

Decline of Democracy

Most people would agree that the decline of democracy in our country during the past decade was signalled above all by two events.

(1) The deprivation of the civic rights of Mrs. Bandaranaike in 1980

(2) The fraudulent referendum of 1982 which has now been officially exposed.

Both of these served only one main purpose; namely, to enable JRJ to continue as the 193rd King or Head of State. It was not to keep the Open Economy going. There was no reason to suppose that Mrs. B as President of Sri Lanka with the SLFP in power, would have radically altered the socioeconomic structure created by the UNP after 1977. In truth, that socio-economic structure was really a consolidation of a process that the SLFP itself embarked upon in 1976, after the break up of the United Front Government in 1975. By depriving Mrs. B of her civic rights JRJ eliminated his principal political opponent from the presidential election that was held in 1982. The manoeuvre worked even better than he probably expected because of Mrs B's aim of preventing anybody other than a member of her nuclear family from defeating JRJ. So by one and the same stroke, JRJ converted his principal political opponent into his principal political ally. But that is another story.

Referendum

Again, by replacing the general election that was scheduled for 1983 with the referendum held in 1982, JRJ ensured that he could rule until 5 August 1989 with a 5/6 majority in parliament. He ensured that he would continue as undisputed Head of State. Many perceptive commentators have observed that JRJ has acquired virtual dictatorship over the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. The technique of acquiring dictatorship over what has been a democracy has been known since Greek times.

As Bertrand Russell has documented in his book titled "Power", the technique has always involved three ingredients: 1. Bribery 2. Propaganda 3. Violence. No one will deny that each of these ingredients has been maximally exploited during the past decade by the ruling powers.

Increase of Violence

Having considered the decline of democracy in our country during the past decade, let us now focus on the increase of violence. No one will gainsay the fact that violence has increased by leaps and bounds in our country in the recent past. The most striking feature about much of the violence of the past decade is that it was systematically organized and perpetrated by the ruling party. In fact, violence became institutionalized. The principal instrument for the perpetration of institutionalized violence for political purposes was the Jathika Sevaka Sangamaya (JSS) - the trade union of the UNP. That is now an open secret.

Ethnic Violence

A large part of the violence seen during the past decade was ethnic in nature. Since 1983, thousands have died of ethnic violence, especially Tamils. All available evidence indicates that the principal mischief-maker in regard to the increase of ethnic violence in this country in the recent past has been the 193rd King or Head of State of Sri Lanka.

Most political observers seem to agree that the ethnic trouble since Independence began with the language issue. Indeed many believe that the Sinhala Only slogan was the beginning of the rot. As a matter of fact, it was JRJ who in 1944 introduced a motion proposing that Sinhala be made the sole official language of this country. However, in moving the motion, he amended his proposal to include Tamil also as an official language. Thus, it was he who started the process, which has generated an incredibly amount of violence in this country.

In 1956 when Sinhala became the only official language, the Tamil people through the Federal Party protested strongly. At that point, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike proposed Regional Councils in the North and East as part of the solution. This was included in the wellknown Bandaranaike - Chelvanayagam Pact. The Regional Councils were an exercise in the devolution of power, which is an essential part of democracy. At that stage, it was JRJ who did his diabolical best to prevent the devolution of power.

If the B-C Pact had been implemented in 1958, it is most unlikely that the ethnic violence of the past decade would have escalated. JRJ who is now apparently willing to concede much more in the way of devolution than was envisaged in the B-C Pact, opposed the BC Pact entirely in the pursuit of his political ambitions.

Even at present he appears to be loath to democratically devolve power and help end the violence in the country. He evidently fears that given his past history, such an exercise in democracy may pose a threat to his position as 193rd King or Head of State of Sri Lanka. So he permits violence to escalate and uses the pretext of violence as the excuse for imposing further restrictions on democracy.

Thus, the inference seems warranted: the principal cause of the decline of democracy and the consequent increase of violence in Sri Lanka during the past decade or so has been JRJ's love of power. He has given to the world of Sri Lankan politics a despicable and vicious principle: Power by right means if you can; if not by any means power !

Postscript to the 1987 Talk

To argue the thesis that democracy in Sri Lanka declined at the rate it did during the decade after 1977 because of the chance occurrence of JRJ's coming to power at the age of 71 is not necessarily to profess belief in the omnipotence of chance in human history. Nor is it to subscribe to what is called Cleopatra's Nose theory of history. But at least in the short run the role of chance and the impact of the character of leaders on human history are undeniable. In the short run the application of the principle that JRJ bequeathed to politics has made the post - 1977 era very violent.

Appraisal

Let us face it: the majority of people in this country implicitly accepted JRJ's principle. Candidates endorsed by JRJ regained power in the presidential and parliamentary elections held in 1988/89. JRJ himself died in the fullness of years and honours as an elder statesman. One distinguished historian wrote an eulogistic political biography of him, when JRJ had not yet breathed his last. JRJ virtually spoon-fed his biographers not so much with information about what actually happened during his times, as with material he believed he could persuade them to believe. His biographers obliged and retailed the stuff. They had the historical art to dress up the stuff in a way calculated to impress the converted and the uncritical.

Even now, as then, there are many Sri Lankans of the highest respectability and ethical propriety who show a solid preference for politicians however depraved, provided the politicians pose no threat to the personal privileges and positions the respectables enjoy. No wonder then that JRJ became the role model for the younger generation of politicians in this country. They too yearn for power by right means if possible; if not by any means. What happened in Wayamba and will continue to happen to a greater or lesser degree in elections to come would be variations of application of the principle that JRJ bequeathed to politics.

Conclusion

When I was young the political revolutionary was the ideal of a hero. No longer does that seem to be so. Market forces seem to have effectively banished serious revolutionaries from the political scene, except perhaps in Cuba. Che Guevara was admired by thinking and sensitive people the world over, even though they rejected some of his methods. After Che was summarily executed by the Bolivian army in 1967, JeanPaul Satre called him "the most complete man of his age". Concerning Che's qualities as a man Fidel Castro voiced the common feeling when he said: "If we wish to express what we want the men of future generations to be we must say: Let them be like Che".

The above digression was a prelude to my conclusion. For some time to come most politicians in Sri Lanka will try to be like JRJ. To be like JRJ is to act on the principle that guided his political life. Those whose political philosophy is the philosophy of JRJ and his UNP, have no ethical right to complain when others act according to the principle JRJ and the UNP systematically practised in and after 1977. I believe that President CBK, for one, has no use for the principle that inspired JRJ's political behaviour. She has the power to urge her followers - as indeed she did after the parliamentary and presidential elections in 1994 - to act in the spirit of democracy. She has the moral stature to tell them: "Do unto your opponents, as they did not do unto you under JRJ" Easier said than done, admittedly! But then as Spinoza said, "all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare".

NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia
A slap in the face of the UN Security Council?

by Dr.Stanley Kalpage
In launching the first ever NATO attack against a sovereign country, President Clinton spelt out the operation's goals as threefold: to demonstrate the seriousness of NATO's opposition to Serb aggression against Kosovo; to deter Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic from continuing attacks against innocent Kosovars; and to damage Serbia's capacity to wage war against Kosovo in the future. After several rounds of continuous air attacks there is serious doubt as to whether Milosevic has been deflected from his goal of ethnically cleansing Kosovo of Kosovar Albanians.

From the beginning there was a risk that air strikes may backfire by spurring Yugoslavia to broaden the Kosovo conflict, either by launching artillery strikes against NATO peace-keepers in nearby Bosnia or by escalating an ethnic cleansing campaign in which the forced exodus of Kosovar Albanians could disrupt neighbouring Albania and Macedonia.

Further, by launching air attacks beyond their own territory against a sovereign state and without a clear UN mandate, the 19 NATO states stand accused of flouting the rules of international law and providing future justification for other countries to ignore the will of the UN Security Council.

A divided UN Security Council

President Clinton sought and obtained the approval of the US Senate for the NATO strikes. The Senate voted its approval 58 votes to 41. But neither Clinton nor any other NATO power thought it necessary to seek a mandate from the UN Security Council. The role assigned to the Security Council to settle international disputes has thus been marginalised still further.

Among the many reasons adduced for this omission, was that China held the rotating presidency of the Security Council in March. China's UN representative, Qin Huasun, said any military action against Yugoslavia without Security Council authorisation would violate the UN Charter and "will not be accepted by the international community." He called events in Kosovo "an internal matter of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."

After the NATO air attacks had begun, Russia, a traditional Serb ally, called for a UN Security Council meeting arguing that the use of force against Yugoslavia was "illegal". Russia and Serbia share common Slavic and Orthodox Christian roots. Clinton tried to repair relations with Russia, but Boris Yeltsin said he was "deeply shocked" that Yugoslavia had been attacked.

Yevgeny Primakov, Russia's prime minister, on his way to meet with IMF officials in Washington dramatised Russia's objections to the NATO strikes when he ordered his crew to turn the plane around in mid-flight over the Atlantic and returned to Moscow .Primakov later met with Milosevic in Belgrade but could not persuade the Yugoslav president to accede to NATO demands.

Disintegration of Yugoslavia

The disintegration of Yugoslavia began with the end of the Cold War. The Communist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under Marshal Josip Broz Tito, was once a respected leading nation in, and co-pioneer of, the Non-Aligned Movement. After Tito's death, Yugoslavia continued to remain united for some time under a collective leadership arrangement.

In 1990, however, with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of communism, the Yugoslav Republic broke apart with Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia declaring independence in rapid succession. That left Serbia and Montenegro to form a new republic in April 1992, dominated by Serbia's President Slobodan Milosevic whose ambition was to unite all Serbs in the former Yugoslav republics into a Greater Serbia. To that end he supported Serb rebellions in Croatia and Bosnia.

Kosovo - a province of Serbia

Kosovo is an impoverished, landlocked province of southern Serbia, the largest and most powerful of Yugoslavia's two remaining republics - Serbia and Montenegro. In a Kosovar population of 2 million, ethnic Albanians (pop 1.8m) outnumber Serbs in the province 9 to 1 and have been pressing for greater autonomy, if not outright independence. Serbs, however, claim the region as the cradle of their civilisation and the symbol of the glory of their medieval kingdom. They vow Kosovo will remain part of Serbia.

In actual fact, Kosovo enjoyed substantial autonomy until 1989, when Milosevic revoked it unilaterally. In 1992, when Kosovar Albanians elected a provincial assembly and a president, Serbia declared the referendum and elections illegal. In 1996, the clandestine Albanian separatist movement - called the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) - emerged, claiming responsibility for a series of bombings.

Serbian repression in Kosovo

The current Kosovo crisis had been festering since Slobodan Milosevic crushed a student revolt in Kosovo in September 1997. The US and NATO Allies threatened air strikes but hesitated to use force. At the end of February 1998, ethnic Albanians protested peacefully for autonomy, and during the ensuing Serb crackdown, at least 25 Albanians and four Serb policemen were killed. Ethnic cleansing continued from time to time. The United States, anxious to avoid a repetition of the Bosnian conflict, retaliated by scrapping an offer to ease sanction against Yugoslavia.

On 13 October 1998, Milosevic and US envoy Richard Holbrooke agreed to a cease-fire that required partial withdrawal of government forces, and acceptance of 2,000 inspectors under the aegis of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to monitor the ceasefire and activities of both sides. The truce temporarily ended the eight-month offensive that killed more than 1,000 people and left over 125,000 homeless.

But the conflict dragged on and eventually, in the last-ditch talks between Milosevic and Holbrooke in March this year, the latter had asked Milosevic to agree to stop attacks on Kosovars and to accept at least 28,000 foreign peacekeeping troops into the region. The Yugoslav leader adamantly rejected any deployment of NATO peace-keepers.

A defiant Milosevic

Milosevic has a special political attachment of Kosovo. He rose to political primacy by delivering a stridently nationalistic speech there in 1989 at the site of a battlefield lost by Serbs to the Turks 600 years earlier. Shortly afterward - as president of Serbia - he stripped the province and its ethnic Albanian majority of autonomy, and ever since he has seemed to measure his political fortunes by the degree of control government security forces exercise over the lives of the citizens of Kosovo.

By inviting a Western military reprisal, Milosevic has once again cast his political future in Kosovo, which Serbs consider to be the cradle of the Serb nationalism with Milosevic has nurtured for 10 years to keep his grip on power.

It is clear that the majority of the Serbs support Milosevic. Serbs become emotional, even agitated, when speaking of what Kosovo means to them. It was in Kosovo, in 1389, that the Ottoman Turks defeated the Serbs. The Battle of Kosovo is an event entrenched in the Serbian consciousness, uniting all Serbs who treasure Kosovo as their Jerusalem, their holy land. Kosovo holds many Serbian Orthodox churches and is popularly regarded as the nation's wellspring even though 90 percent of its population is ethnic Albanian.

Reactions in Europe

Most West European governments supported the NATO action. But people with ethnic and religious affinity with the Serbs were not in favour. For example, Greece, a member of NATO, sharing the same Orthodox faith with the Serbs, who are traditional allies, is not taking part in the air assaults. Other NATO members - Iceland, Luxembourg, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic - are also staying away.

On the other hand, Catholic Croatia is overjoyed at the NATO action. Romania supports the air strikes. In Bulgaria and Hungary the reactions were mixed. Turkey thought that the NATO action would engulf the entire Balkans in a conflagration. Italy, though supportive of the air attacks, was apprehensive. Austria, a non-NATO member of the EU, opposed the action, ostensibly because their is no UN Security Council mandate.

Neighbouring Macedonia, where more than 10,000 NATO troops are stationed, and Albania, have been flooded with refugees and are seeking international assistance to cope with an unprecedented humanitarian problem.

Ethnic cleansing and refugee flows continue

After seven rounds of NATO air strikes, Milosevic was still not backing down. After crippling Yugoslavia's air defence system, NATO was expected to shift the emphasis to Yugoslav tank and troop concentrations, fuel supply depots, ammunition dumps and command and control centres.

But despite the intensity of the air attacks, Milosevic seems to have achieved his objective of cleansing Kosovo of much of its ethnic Albanian population. Several thousand refugees streamed into neighbouring Macedonia, Montenegro and even Albania. Kosovar leaders were being executed, villages burnt and destroyed and people forced out of their homes. Milosevic has caused what is probably the worst humanitarian disaster since World War II.

Clinton sized up the situation correctly. "Kosovo is a small place," he said, "but it sits on a major fault line between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, at the meeting place of Islam and both the Western and Orthodox branches of Christianity....Eventually, key US allies could be drawn into a wider conflict - a war we would be forced to confront later, only at far greater risk and greater cost."

L E G A L W A T C H
Acid test for electoral democracy

by Nayana
Provincial Councils will probably go down as one of the ironies of our recent history: Largely unwanted in the areas where they operate and non-functional in the part of the country they were chiefly designed to serve.

More than 10 years after these Councils were established many members of the public are still ignorant of precisely what functions they perform. Yet on April 6, the attention of the entire nation is likely to be concentrated on the poll that is due to take place to elect new Councils for the Western, Central, North-Central, Uva and Sabaragamuwa Provinces.

The temperature was first raised by the main political parties who seem, to have decided that winning this round of provincial polls is crucial to winning the next general and/or presidential elections. Thereafter, an attempt by the Government to postpone the polls by the use of Emergency Regulations led to an unprecedented piece of citizen's activism in which two voters successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to act the relevent Regulations declared invalid and the election re-fixed.

Meanwhile the Government went ahead with the election to the North-Western Provincial Council which had subsequently fallen due, where its 'win at all costs' approach left the entire nation shell-shocked. Election monitors, opposition parties, and religious dignitaries declared the election a sham, and even some prominent members of the People's Alliance called for a fresh poll.

Citizens' activism

In another act of citizens' activism, five voters of the Western Province then petitioned the Supreme Court claiming an imminent infringement of theirs and other voters' constitutional right to vote in the April 6 election unless suitable steps were taken by the Commissioner of Elections and the Inspector-General of Police to prevent a recurrence of the kind of incidents reported from the Wayamba.

The State, represented by Additional Solicitor-General Saleem Marsoof admitted that Wayamba had been an "eye-opener" and placed before Court a large number of written directions from the Commissioner and the IGP to their respective officers which were designed to ensure that there is no repeat of the NWP fiasco.

Documents

Two documents from the Commissioner of Elections make particularly interesting reading. By a circular dated March 18 from the Commissioner to all Returning Officers and Assistant Commissioners of the relevant Districts, four types of trouble that occurred at polling stations in the Wayamba have been described, with recommendations of how to avoid them this time round.

The types of incidents mentioned are: Unauthorized entry into polling stations by persons who obstructed the work of officials and polling agents; damage to materials used in the conduct of the poll; forcible taking of official ballot papers and stuffing them into ballot boxes; and the bringing in of ballot papers stolen from other polling stations, marking them and stuffing them into ballot boxes.

Ballot papers

The Returning Officers and Assistant Commissioners have been directed to see that all polls officials are properly instructed as to how they should deal with these situations, including the need to keep unutilized ballot papers under lock and key at all times. Officials are also directed that at the first sign of trouble they are required to use all the strength at their disposal to put a stop to it.

While large-scale thuggery of the kind photographed at Wayamba will have to be dealt with by the Police - hopefully before it reaches any polling station - the Commissioner's directive is nevertheless a timely warning that mere passivity on the part of officials is not acceptable. The need for keeping a record of every incident and the identities of the perpetrators has also been stressed, and a standard form provided for that purpose.

In a circular dated one day earlier, namely March 17, the Commissioner has stated that a Senior Presiding Officer should "guarantee" the freedom of the voter to cast his vote; equality in the treatment of all contestants; and the avoidance of discrimination or privileges in respect of any party or group.

By this circular the SPO is reminded that he is the sole authority at the polling station and that he and his staff are accountable only to the Returning Officer, the Commissioner and the Courts of Law for the conduct of the election.

Another important provision contained in the same circular is that suspected impersonators should not be allowed to go away "in search of their identity card" but should be apprehended and handed over to Police mobile patrols as soon as possible for conveyance to the nearest police station.

One polling agent from each contesting party is entitled to a vehicle pass to follow the ballot box to the counting centre. However the effectiveness of this provision, and also those relating to impersonation, depends on the polling agents of the parties being able to reach their respective polling stations and remain there for the duration of the poll - something that reportedly did not happen at many places in the Wayamba election.

Security outside the precincts of the polling station is essentially the job of the Police, while they are also required to assist election staff to keep order within the station. According to the released documents, arrangements have been made for static guards, mobile patrols, extra manpower at identified sensitive spots, and road blocks. However the crucial test will be to see whether on polling day these arrangements are put into effect or whether outside authorities intervene to neutralize the police.

In this context it would have been reassuring if the IGP had issued a circular similar to that of the Commissioner reminding his officers that in the carrying out of their duties they are responsible to no one but their superior officers and the law courts. A legal opinion submitted by Additional Solicitor-General C. R De Silva to O. K. Hemachandra, D.I.G. Elections, last February serves to emphasize this position, but it is not clear from the face of the document to what extent it has been brought to the attention of the rank and file.

C. R. De Silva's letter was apparently written in answer to a query from the D.I.G. regarding Section 33(3) of the Provincial Councils Elections Act which enables a Presiding Officer to call on the police to remove unauthorized persons from the polling station. The A.S.G. has emphasized that this section merely imposes an additional duty on the Police who are already under a general duty to keep the peace. The relevant paragraphs of the letter read as follows:

"This [section 33] does not mean that a police officer on duty at a polling station has no existence apart from an order issued by the presiding officer which activates him. On the contrary he retains all the statutory powers conferred on him as a police officer in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979 and other statutes. More specifically he has every right and is duty bound to arrest without warrant any person who commits any breach of the peace in his presence in terms of Section 32(1) (a) of the Code...

Absence of direction

"The mere absence of a direction from the Presiding Officer is no excuse for an officer on duty to remain passive in the face of any flagrant breach of the peace committed in his presence in or outside the polling station. Indeed to remain silent in such a situation would be a gross dereliction of his duties in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act."

The day after tomorrow the country will know whether all this has made a difference. Campaign violence - not to mention the illegal display of posters and cut-outs - has continued unabated despite pledges and directives to the contrary. According to Police figures, the Central Province has consistently been the most violent, with the NCP having overtaken the Western Province for second place as of last week.

For anyone not blinded by political ambition, it should be clear that the manner in which next Tuesday's polls are conducted will have a more important impact on the future of this country than who wins or loses.

April 6 - judgement day on Wayamba violence - Karu

By Niresh Eliatamby
Q: How confident are you of winning, with the election only a few days away?

A: I am confident of the decision of the people. The country needs a new political culture, a new atmosphere, and new thinking. Everywhere we went campaigning, people wanted non-confrontational politics. They want elections to be decent and respectable.

I refrained from attacking or criticizing those who hold opposing views. I didn't speak ill of anyone.

I have refrained from talking about the past, especially the 17 years that the present government harps on. Some of our supporters ask why I don't respond by talking of the 25,0QO youth killed in 1971. The simple answer is that I want to talk about the future, not the past. The country needs it. We owe it to the next generation. We have wasted enough time speaking of the past, and each others' errors and shortcomings.

At independence, Sri Lanka had one of the finest economies in the east, second only to Japan. We were ahead of Singapore, Korea, Taiwan and Malaysia: But today, we are one of the poorest countries in the world. That is the burning issue which all parties must address. I believe in a new political culture and thinking. I have no doubt that voters in the Western Province will back that doctrine.

Q: How important do you consider the Provincial Council elections?

A: This is the first test of public opinion on the government's performance over the past 4 1/2 years. Voters will tell us what they think of the government's promises, its work program, what's been done, and where they've failed. It's also a test of whether the opposition has performed to the satisfaction of the people.

Most importantly, this will stand as a trial on the attempt to destroy democracy at Wayamba: The incidents there by those in power have never before been seen in history, and shouldn't happen in the civilized world. The people of the five provinces will give their judgment on the crimes committed at Wayamba:

Q: In your opinion, has the level of violence decreased since the Wayamba fiasco?

A: Even now we see violence in several areas. Although the level of violence still is not up to Wayamba proportions, there have been serious disruptions. Offices of political parties have been bombed, and inter-party rivalry resulted in a few deaths. This shouldn't happen. Voters are intelligent enough to understand good and bad. They are politically mature, and should have the freedom to make a choice.

But I can predict one thing for certain. Civil society will not forgive anyone trying to rob the franchise which is supreme for humanity. In other countries, people sacrifice their lives or withstand years of imprisonment for democracy.

We are hoping and praying that the elections will be free and fair. It is up to the government to ensure that people are given the freedom to exercise their conscience vote. Free means that any party should be able to carry out legitimate activities without obstruction from those in power and from state agencies like the police. We have seen election meetings disrupted, platforms smashed, and opposition politicians harassed by police on orders of local politicians.

Fair, means the use of state machinery in a reasonable manner. This is not happening today. Government vehicles are used under various pretexts. Complaints are made but no concrete steps are taken. The state television, radio and Lake House newspapers mercilessly attack the opposition, especially the Leader of the Opposition and myself. This includes character assassination. The opposition is not given TV time.

Although it is an election offence to publish news on candidates in a biased manner, Lake House newspapers abuse this, and are going on a spree to assassinate the characters of opposition politicians. We don't resort to countering this. There should be a level playing field, and we leave it to the people to decide. We will also take redress through the legal system.

Q: You have been credited with running a high quality campaign. Is this going to be a new trend? Are the days of public walls being plastered with posters finally ending?

A: With the blessings of the Leader of the Opposition, I wanted to try out a new political culture. After the last local government election, I decided against using posters, if ever I were to run for office again. I obeyed my conscience.

Some of my campaign managers felt that it would be a setback, particularly towards popularizing my number, but I stood by my decision not to use banners, posters and cutouts. There have been a few instances of other candidates using my picture without my knowledge, but I have requested them not to do so.

The other part of changing the present culture is that I have not stooped to insulting those holding opposition views, once I get on to the stage at rallies. I have never done it and I won't in the future either.

I will be the proudest man if this new thinking is blessed by the people affirmatively. We can build a better Sri Lanka if political parties just give their plans and policies, and let the people decide what's best. These are the fundamentals of democracy, which are seen in highly developed democracies. Let's give it to our people in the next century

Q: The UNP team has a lot of professionally qualified people. Are we seeing more gentlemen turning to politics?

A: I am very happy with the selection of UNP candidates. The party wanted candidates from all segments of society, from the grass roots, professionals, and trade union leaders. We selected people who can be presented at any forum. Not a single one has been found guilty of anything in a court of law. They are very respectable people with good character. Respect doesn't mean immense wealth.

Q: What are your plans for the Western Province, if you are elected Chief Minister?

A: The Western Province is extremely important in all respects. A quarter of the country's population lives here, and it contributes 47% of gross national product. So if we develop the Western Province, much of the country will be developed. We are placing the highest emphasis on this.

The UNP will give management and governance. We will streamline administration, cut red tape, depoliticize institutions and move away from confrontational politics. We will appoint an ombudsman. We will also completely revitalize agriculture, minor irrigation, health services, education, transport, infrastructure and other related areas.

One of our first efforts will be a 100-day program by which the most essential needs of the people will be attended to.

The week that was
Board of cricket control elections
Is cricket in Sri Lanka getting politicised?

by Shan Wijetunga
Elections to the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka was the main topic of discussion in political circles last week. Though cricket and politics are two different topics, the elections of the Cricket Control Board appeared more political than one of sports.

The contestants for the Presidency of the Cricket Board were Clifford Ratwatte, an uncle of the President and Thilanga Sumathipala, the former President of the Cricket Board.

Both these contestants were supported by two factions of the People's Alliance. That was why the President commenting on the Cricket Board elections said "Even if we win we are defeated and even defeated we are defeated".

The main supporters of Clifford Ratwatte were Presidential Media Consultant Sanath Gunatilake, Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera and People's Alliance stalwart Kamal Ratwatte.

Thilanga Sumathipala was supported by Sports Minister S. B. Dissanayake, Ministers Mahinda Rajapakse, Jeyaraj Fernandopulle, Nandimithra Ekanayake, Berty Dissanayake and Captain, Gampaha district cricket team, Prasanna Ranatunga.

It was earlier anticipated that a former President of the Cricket Board, Upali Dharmadasa would contest the presidency of the Cricket Board. But at the last moment the group against Thilanga Sumathipala decided to float a candidate who supported the government as a more competent person to contest Sumathipala. Accordingly Clifford Ratwatte submitted his nominations to contest the presidency backed by Upali Dharmadasa and Ana Punchihewa.

It was only a few days later after nominations were handed over that the President was aware of her uncle, Clifford Ratwatte contesting the presidency. She was not happy over her uncle contesting the presidency.

Several ministers inclusive of Prof. G. L. Peiris, Jeyaraj Fernandopulle, Kingsley Wickramaratne, Nimal Siripala de Silva were having a friendly chat with the President after the cabinet meeting last week, where the subject of Cricket Board elections was discussed.

The President said "It was later I came to know of Clifford uncle contesting the Cricket Board presidency".

Then Prof. Peiris quipped in "Yes, Clifford called me up and asked for my support".

Minister Fernandopulle also stated that Clifford Ratwatte had approached him for his support but he was in two minds as Thilanga Sumathipala had done much for developing cricket in the Gampaha district.

The President then said "I don't like the whole setup. I definitely detest politician interfering in cricket and I don't appreciate Thilanga much".

Then one minister said "Several of our ministers hold votes for this Cricket Board elections. Minister Mangala said that he is going to exercise his vote". The President then said "No! No! tell Mangala not to attend the elections. Not to vote for anybody".

She further stated "I have asked my uncle several times not to contest this election. I am asking you all also, if possible not to participate in this elections".

Knowing the attitude of the President towards Cricket Board elections, the ministers were shying away from the elections. This attitude of the ministers had a direct impact on the votes for Ratwatte.

Despite ministers shying away from the Cricket Board elections supporters of Ratwatte made several attempts to canvass their support especially of ministers Berty Dissanayake, Anuruddha Ratwatte, Mahinda Rajapakse, S. B. Dissanayake and Jeyaraj Fernandopulle but without any success.

Clifford Ratwatte conducted his election campaign from the residence of Upali Dharmadasa while Thilanga did so from his residence at Borella.

By Tuesday, most district cricket boards affiliated to the Cricket Control Board of Sri Lanka had decided on whom to vote for.

According to the regulations of the Cricket Control Board each district cricket board was entitled to two votes.

The president and the secretary of each district cricket board was entitled to exercise one vote each or any other official nominated by them on their behalf.

The total number of votes for this election is 127 and a candidate should obtain at least 65 votes to win the election.

Thilanga was confident of obtaining at least 75 votes while Clifford also was optimistic of winning the election.

Though Minister Mangala Samaraweera had earlier stated that he would personally participate at the elections at the last moment he had nominated Assistant Superintendent of Police, Adikari Sahabandu to represent him.

Clifford Ratwatte who contacted the Inspector General of Police Lucky Kodituwakku, the day before the elections prevailed upon him to provide police security at the site of the elections as information was available regarding trouble being created during elections.

Similarly, Thilanga Sumathipala too had requested Deputy Inspector General of Police, Colombo, T. N. de Silva to provide police security on the day of elections as there was the possibility of violence.

Accordingly, police security was provided at the site of elections from the night before.

The registration of voters was fixed to commence at 8.00 a.m. on Sunday, the day of elections. But Thilanga Sumathipala's supporters were present at the site before 8.00 a.m. as such registration of voters commenced earlier.

Clifford Ratwatte and his supporters arrived after 8.00 a.m.

A large number of supporters of Clifford Ratwatte were present at the entrance to the Cricket Board headquarters. There was also President's security personnel there.

Many voters from Badulla, Moneragala, Ambalangoda, Kalutara etc. Supporters of Clifford were not allowed to enter the headquarters.

Jayantha Paranathala a leader of Clifford Ratwatte's party then questioned Dhammika Ranatunga, an executive of the Board of Cricket Control, who was manning the entrance to the headquarters as to why the official voters were not allowed inside. Dhammika replied that official voters of those respective districts who had been registered had been allowed inside. In order to prove his stand he showed Paranathala, the documents in the file in his hands. An argument ensued between those who were prevented from entering the premises and the Cricket Board official. The former accused that unlawful persons had entered the headquarters to vote.

Thilanga Sumathipala who was in the chair then ordered the security personnel to check the identity of those present.

Suddenly there was an upheaval at the entrance to the headquarters.

Inspite of this upheaval election of officials to the Cricket Control Board commenced at 9.30 a.m.

At the same time there was confusion at the gate. Though board officials manning the gate tried to keep it shut, crowds jumped over the gate and pandemonium reigned thereafter. Some were assaulted. There were also persons carrying firearms but they were disarmed by some in civils.

Before the polling Thilanga and Clifford agreed to issue a joint declaration condemning the upheaval that occurred at the entrance to the headquarters.

Superintendent of Police, Lawrence Amarasena was elected the pro tem chairman to conduct the elections.

Thilanga Sumathipala was elected President on receipt of 79 votes. Saliya Ahangama was elected the secretary with a similar number of votes.

Anuruddha Polonnovita and Prasanna Ranatunga were elected Vice-presidents.

Clifford Ratwatte who held a press interview the same evening condemned the elections and made several accusations against Thilanga Sumathipala. But he rejected the accusations.

Clifford Ratwatte in the meantime is preparing to go before courts and to make representations to the International Cricket Council against the Cricket Control Board elections.

Ranil meets party members

UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe met some party members at Cambridge Place to review the election propaganda work of the party. The Cricket Control Board elections also was discussed and Ranil said: "Those persons carrying firearms though they make a big fuss will never use the firearms. The Board of Control members knew that and stood their guns. Never fear the gun, stand up and face it without running away.

He requested the members to educate other parties on this point.

The Judiciary

A felicitation ceremony was held at Bishop's College to honour Upali A. Gunaratne, who was elected President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka.

Prof. G. L. Peiris was a distinguished guest there. He urged the Bar Association to assist attorneys in the rural areas by re-printing the book on law authored by the new president in Sinhala and distributing it among them.

Major problem of the judges was the non allocation of building blocks allotted to them in Beddagana, Mirihana. A certain high official in the government is reported to be interested in these allotments and therefore is creating unnecessary problems.

On a request to Minister Gen. Anuruddha Ratwatte by the judges to remove the high voltage electricity wires running over the allotments, the minister had directed the officials concerned to take action but the particular high official is reported to be interfering with this work, too.

Though the President had instructed the alienation of their lands due to the interference by this official work on the alienation had been withheld.

If this is the treatment, meted out to the judiciary of this country what would be the position of the ordinary citizen of this country questions the judges.

Provincial elections

The main topic of discussion in the country is the forthcoming provincial elections. Would these elections be the same as the north-western provincial elections is the question in the minds of the citizens of this country.

Though the establishment of the Election Monitoring Committee brought some relief to the people the confidence on the committee is waning, following the decision of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna to abstain from attending the next monitoring committee meeting.

The high-powered monitoring bluff

by Dr. Mervyn D. de Silva
No sooner the setting up of the monitoring committee to be chaired by the President was announced, I remember expressing the view that if the President with all the powers constitutionally vested in that office cannot guarantee the people a free and fair election, it would be absolutely foolhardy to expect a monitoring committee which is not an instrument of government to ensure one. Besides, knowing the past record of the performance of the President's own secretariat only a party supporter blinded with misplaced loyalty would have expected it to spearhead the committee into achieving any results.

I understand that about three meetings have been so far held and that various proposals that can be implemented right away to ensure a free and fair election, within the framework of the existing laws had been made. But apart from the decision to prohibit banners and cut-outs which is observed more in the break, the front liners of the two major political parties continue to violate the law with impunity. This raises the question of inequality in the treatment of the less powerful members even within the parties, or in other words doubles standards which have become the national "virtue" in the political ethics of the country.

In the outstations where the so-called people's representatives have arrogated unto themselves the right to all national and state resources, the entire administrative machinery, the law enforcing authorities, and even the denial of the people's right to cast their votes, the situation is worse. They operate like the knights of feudal Europe and what is seen there is no democracy but actually masked feudalism supported by the money changers!

Leave banners and cut-outs alone, the most important crucial issues that the committee should have concentrated on are:

(1) Preventing anyone from obstructing any person from casting his or her vote by providing full security to the voters.

(2) Providing a cordon of security, one each from the combined security forces, around each polling booth with orders to fire on intruders.

(3) Arranging for counting to take place at the polling booth itself as in the past, for most of the tampering takes place during transit.

As for the details of well thought out system, are we admitting to the world that our bureaucracy and public service is so bankrupt that we cannot device a full proof system with the assistance of the police? Most of the public servants and police officers do not approve of all that is happening so telling told by one who said that when the thugs and goons of the ruling party arrived between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. to do the stuffing, he was tempted to shoot them all and, then, shoot himself, but for a flash of his wife and child which came to his mind.

Democracy has been buried. Can we resurrect it?

(The writer is a former SLFP MP)

p
'I worked against JR'

by Kingsley Heendeniya
This is slightly revised version of an article I wrote with the above heading published on 17th September 1986 in a Lake House supplement to felicitate J. R. Jayewardene for an event in his political career that I now forget. Persons of my age will recall and relish those good old days and young people may realize that any entertainment of elections is perhaps gone for good. The narrative tells the story of how I worked against JR and what happened in the end, more than 40 years ago, in my third year at medical school.

As I remember, it was a Friday. The lunch hour 'cut' was in full swing. Rau Sinna as usual was on a hit round. Betting was furious. Each of us had our own card. Mine was the Queen. Those days we had "visiting cutters" in the common room from other places against whom we ganged up. Some of them took our money but we generally won. Suddenly, Soysa from the Law College came to the common room and we closed in. But he was on a special mission: to recruit volunteers to work against JR! This was the election when R. G. Senanayake contested both Dambadeniya and JR at Kelaniya. RG was a hero for daring and several of us readily agreed. A good booze was guaranteed and as I now recollect, Mahinda, Sinna and Susil were the others who got into Soysa's car with me. And away we went to Kelaniya.

Soysa took us to an old Waluwwa-type house in the Kelaniya electorate. We were introduced to the Jayakody brothers. There were three. Narada took over. Soysa promptly disappeared -Êand I haven't seen him since! We got into a car and were taken to the house of Percy Jayakody, a rambling spacious home in a large garden. It was now evening and the place was thronging with people. Cars were coming and going. There were all sorts of characters in loud good humour. Percy was giving the orders. He was cool. Cars would start, people hopped in and away they go as if their life depended on it. Before long Percy got tired of it, called us into the house and we retired to his room. He shut the door firmly and pulled out bottles of black arrack.

I don't remember very much of that night except that we had a thundering booze. Percy was a master raconteur. Marvellous, hilarious stories were told, mostly about conquests of the other sex. As the drinks flowed, we asked for more and he gave it to us in double dose. Not to be out done, we spun our own cock and bull stuff embellished to match his yarns. Throughout all this, not one word was told why we were there or what we were expected to do in the morning, election day. Dinner was served on a big table. I do not remember where I slept but I do know that Percy kept us going till almost morning!

I got up with a severe hangover. Sinna and Susil were fast asleep. Mahinda had gone off somewhere. There was no sign of Percy. Breakfast was on the table. People were rushing around. There was excitement in the air. A fellow told me that I was appointed as an election agent of RG and asked me to come with him in a car. I didn't know who or what was an election agent. But I readily accepted and the car took me a long way from Percy's house and dropped me off at a polling booth - a village school. The place was like at a festival. There were hordes of loafers. Cars, red flags, blue flags, green flags. Ribbons of paper dancing in the wind. Decorations everywhere. Horns tooting. Gangs of youth walking up and down shouting slogans. Jayawewa! It was fun and merry. Elections were like that then.

I introduced myself to the Presiding Officer. He was Dr. Gunawardene of the Education Department. Along with me, there were four other election agents. They were in national dress - Sinhala only folk, nondescript and obsequious. I was immediately selected as the chief agent and leader of the opposition. I had by now gathered that our job was to challenge persons on suspicion and keep and eye on the ballot box. I took my seat at the head of the table.

The election began sharp on time. Voters came in rapidly. My fellow agents got agitated, checking their lists. I instructed them to be extremely vigilant because of inside info I had been given in the night. I told them that there were lots and lot of crooks sent to cast hora votes for JR. That kept the blokes from noticing that I was falling asleep. Soon the queue began to trickle and died almost to nothing. It was lunch time and someone gave me a packet of rice and curry. I had a long chat with Dr. Gunawardene and told him frankly how I came to be there and about the thundering booze last night. So I stretched out on a bench and went to sleep.

When I woke, the election was over. The ballot box was being wrapped and sealed. My subordinate agents insisted that we too should whack our own seals on the box. It was not allowed and I made that out to be highly suspicious. By this time, I had realized that I was stranded in some god forsaken place and that I had to find my own transport home. I proposed therefore that I must get hold of a car immediately and follow the ballot box to Colombo!

A huge Chervolot was quickly commandeered. In the front seat with the driver was a fellow about my age. He was in charge. In the back seat beside me were two sarong comrades, one in a heavy beard who introduced himself as a Marx-vadiya. He was harbour worker. Dr. Gunawardene sped off with the ballot box and we went after him. The Marx-vadiya assured me that he had come only on "principle" and explained his sacred commitment to the politics of the time. The young man in the front seat, now addressed as Hamumahattaya endorsed and underlined everything the man said. He threw in a couple of weird stories to illustrate his "principles" such as how he got several fellows thrashed and even killed on occasions as his "principles" demanded. It was all done for the welfare of the suffering masses. The driver, greatly impressed with the authority and importance of Hamumahattaya stepped on the gas. I began to get nervous.,

About two miles out, the car suddenly stopped and Hamumahattaya went into a house. He came back with a bottle of arrack. A glass was brought out from the cubby hole. I was offered the honour of the first drink. I said it was against my principles and firmly refused. They respected. But we must hurry, I said. Dr. G. and the ballot box car had long ago vanished from sight. The driver was in a jolly mood. He drove like the devil. Soon we came to the main road to Colombo. There was heavy traffic, all going to Colombo. Peopled lined both sides of the highway cheering the procession of cars. We rushed headlong. Hamu was keeping the bottle moving back and forth. The driver weaved in and out, looking for Dr. G and the ballot box. And suddenly, there was a sickening thump. He had knocked someone down.

Hamumahattaya froze, Marx-vadiya shut up. The other fellow was asleep. I was scared. The driver did not stop. He just drove into the night. All bravado had ceased. The car got in a traffic jam at the old Kelaniya bridge. A traffic cop on a motor bike caught up with us. He asked the driver to reverse the car and come to the Peliyagoda police station. Marx-vadiya got down to push the car and promptly vanished into the crowd. Hamumahattaya got into a huddle with the driver. I saw a double decker bus pulling out of the chaos and down pretending to help to push it. I then ran and jumped on the footboard. In two hours I was in the hostel and sound asleep.

To this day I do not know that what happened when I went to work against JR, except that he lost!

Unethical election ads of certain lawyers

by Buddhika Kurukularatne
During the earliest times 'Advocates' performed honorary legal functions. They offered their knowledge wisdom and expertise coated by legal training to the state and the people 'Pro-Deo' (on behalf of God) without charging any fees. They were not supposed to have any direct contacts with the clients; hence the tradition that an Advocate (before the advent of the Administration of Justice Law 44 of 1973 commonly referred to as the AJL) always appeared 'instructed' by a 'proctor'. The British counterpart of a Proctor is a 'Solicitor'.

As the term 'Solicit' itself conveys, it is a Solicitor who obtains instructions from clients and instructs or 'briefs' Counsel, be he an Advocate (prior to 1973) or a Barrister in the UK.

It is to signify the 'honorary' nature of the Advocate, that his cloak or 'gown' has a pocket on the back. Clients were expected to put money in the pocket 'behind the back' as they were not supposed to deal direct with the clients.

Until the AJL we had two branches of the legal Profession in Sri Lanka. Advocates and Proctors. Before these two branches were 'fused' by Act No. 44 of 1973 we had 'Advocates' and 'Proctors'. Originally there were Proctors of the District Court as opposed to Proctors of the Supreme Court.

This distinction was done away by S:40 of the Admission Rules which stated thus:

S:40 'After the coming into operation of these rules there shall be admitted only one class of Proctors, namely the Proctors of the Supreme Court. But any person who has been admitted as a Proctor of the District Court 'May be' (emphasis is mine) enrolled as a Proctor of the Supreme Court....

This follows therefore that if any Proctor of the District Court did not exercise this option remained a Proctor of the District Court.

The Term Advocate of the Supreme Court and Proctor of the Supreme Court presupposes the existence of other categories of lawyers besides the Supreme Court practitioners.

S: 36 (1) of the Administration of Justice Law, 44 of 1973 decreed that 'Every person who on the day preceding the appointed date was an Advocate or Proctor of the Supreme Court shall be 'deemed to have been' (emphasis is mine) admitted and enrolled as an Attorney-at-Law of the Supreme Court under this Law.

Similarly as in the case of the Proctor of the District Court who did not exercise the option to become a Proctor of the Supreme Court, an Advocate of the Supreme Court calls himself an Advocate of the Supreme Court and with permission of Court could mark his appearance as such.

The phrase 'deemed to have been' is discretionary and not Mandatory.

This was the reason that eminent Advocates and President's Counsels, (who save for one perhaps are all Advocates) formed themselves into a College of Advocates with Daya Perera PC as the President and Eardley Perera PC as the Patron.

However the Supreme Court shall not enrol any person as an Advocate and an Advocate who has been enrolled as such prior to the AJL continues, if he or she so desires to be called an 'Advocate'.

The 'Old' Proctors of the District Court are now extinct. After the last Advocate 'kicks the bucket' the term Advocate in the context of Sri Lanka's legal system would be history.

Before Queen Elizabeth ascended eminent Legal luminaries were made King's counsel (K.C.). We had Sir Lalitha and S. Nadesan amongst others who had been bestowed this Honour. After Elizabeth the 2nd (and before her Queen Victoria) became Queen, the term King's Counsel became known as Queen's Counsel (Q.C.)

After the social and Political Revolution of 1956, as with many other things the Queen's Counselships ceased to be awarded. The only serviving Queen's Counsel today is Mr. Vernon Wijetunga QC. May he live for many years to come!

Just because the Government did away with QCships Vernon Wijetunga did not cease to be a QC. Like a Kingship, it is an honour for life.

'Advocates' were pleaders who engaged in counselling. They did not perform Notiarial functions which were the domain of 'Proctors'.

It is interesting to note that although a person who had been enrolled as an Advocate could under S: 36 (2) apply for a Notarial licence in terms of S:3 of the Notaries Ordinance supported by a certificate from a Judge of the Supreme Court, High Court or District Court to the effect that the applicant had experience of practice in cases relating to, land for a period of at least 8 years, a 'Proctor cannot call himself an Advocate'.

Even the Rules governing Admission to Law College were then different for Advocate and Proctor students.

The entrance requirements of 'Advocate students' were more stringent than those of 'Proctor students'. To seek admission as an Advocate student one had to have at least 3 subjects in the GCE 'A' levels from amongst subjects approved by the Council of Legal Education whilst for a Proctor student, the minimum admission requirement was 5 credit passes in the subjects approved by the Council obtained in one and the same sitting.

This requirement did not vary even after the introduction of an Admission Test which was common for both categories of students.

Having gained admission to Law College, most lectures were followed jointly by both the Proctor and Advocate students. However Advocate students read International Law, conflict of laws and 'Lex Acquilia' for their examinations whilst the Proctor students had to sit papers on Notarial practices, Trust Accounts and Book-keeping etc. The course for Advocates was 3 1/2 years including the period of apprenticeship of 6 months under a senior with 10 or more years at the Bar recognised by the Council. The Proctor students had to do their 'Articles' after the Intermediate Examination for 2 years before they could sit the final Examination for the Admission of Proctors. The Advocate, students had to 'do' their apprenticing after the Final Examination for the Admission of Advocates.

The questions set for Advocates Examination were often tougher than those set for Proctor students whose questions were simple and straightforward generally speaking.

To give an example, a Proctor student may be asked 'what is Rape' (S: 363 of the Penal Code) whilst on the same subject an Advocate student may be asked 'Discuss the Defences to a charge under S: 363 of the Penal Code with reference to recently decided cases.'

Prof. G. L. Peiris is one of the most eminent Law Professors in this part of the world. He has a Double Doctorate, was a Professor of Law besides being a Vice Chancellor and an erudite author on highly, recognised Legal Texts. Though Prof. Peiris has 'produced' literally hundreds of Advocates he will never and indeed he cannot call himself an Advocate for the reasons best known to him making the Bar the loser did not opt to seek Admission either as an Advocate prior to 1973 or as An Attorney after 1973.

The only category of lawyers who can still be officially called as counsel is State Counsel whose Sinhala Term is ' '. This distinction seems to exist because of another category of lawyers in the Attorney General's Department who are known as 'State-Attorneys' performing the type of work earlier performed by 'Crown Proctors'. The 'State Counsel' performs the role of Counsel (or Advocate) rendering legal advice as well as being a 'pleader' on behalf of the state.

It is therefore manifestly, clear that there cannot be any 'Advocates' after the AJL was ascended on 14th Nov. 1973.

Why then are hoards of black coated fraternity standing for elections calling themselves or allow to be called themselves Advocates?.

Perhaps the Sinhala Term' ' ' gives a little more pep and status to the term ' '. It is only persons suffering from an Inferiority complex who pretend to be in a station of professional standing whilst they are clearly not.

Is this not a case of Professional Misconduct?.

The Supreme Court, the watch dog of the profession jealously guards the reputation and prestige of all Attorneys-at-Law.

It will admit to the Profession Under S: 33 of the AJL only persons with a 'good reputation' amongst other ingredients outlined there in.

What reputation does these imposters possess. If this bluffing and hoodwinking of the voters is exercised by them before the elections, what felonies would they not commit once (if) elected.

In this context hats off to Joseph Charles, a Senior Proctor, who is contesting the Western Provincial Council Elections. He has always indicated that he was a ' ' inspite of having been 'called' over 3 decades ago.

There are many 'Advocate' pretenders contesting the PC elections from almost all the parties.

People like Donald (DQM) Sirimanne the one and only Proctor to 'rise' to the Supreme Court may not be merely turning in his grave but somersaulting in his grave at the antics of these great pretenders who bring a Noble Profession into disrepute and disgrace!

If those Attorneys who wish to be called Advocates join hands with others with similar inferiority complexes and bring a Bill in Parliament the provisions of which say 'All Attorneys at Law SHALL henceforth be known as Advocates' this craving of the imposters may be satisfied.

But would the Supreme Court sanction such usurpation by a pack of imposters?

Be that as it may, if the Government 'Advocates' and opposition 'Advocates' join hands on this issue although they have been at loggerheads on Important National Issues, the people can see their true colours be they be Blue, Green or Red.

On a different note, but still on elections, it is against the law to 'display' banners, flags, symbols, hand-bills, placards, numbers etc., promoting the candidature of a candidate.

How on earth does a candidate 'advertise' himself if he is denied this facility. Specially under the District system, you have to be a Multi-millionaire to run a successful campaign. This system sans posters banners etc. will only help the better known candidates and the 'haves' who have recourse and resources to 'tap' the print and electronic Media.

'Is not law an Ass' then.

But an 'Advocate' (I mean a 'unposter' not one who has been properly enrolled and admitted as one by the Supreme Court in the pre 1973 era) who indulges in so advertising himself from the city walls and lampposts would not only be in breach of professional etiquette but also be violating a law of the land.

Would such a person then not run the risk of being struck off the Roll by 3 Judges of the Supreme Court sitting together in terms of S: 35 of the AJL?

  | NEWS | PROVINCIAL | EDITORIAL | DEFENCE | FEATURES | LEISURE | BUSINESS | SPORTS | ADS |