It appears that no confidence motions these days are a dime a dozen. The Joint Opposition is (JO) spearheading one against the Minister of Industries and Commerce, Rishard Bathiudeen. Meanwhile, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) wants to bring one against the entire government for neglecting the country’s security, leading to the Easter Sunday attacks.
Politicians are, by nature, opportunistic. They have to be, to survive in the cut-throat world of politics. Therefore, the two opposition political groups cannot be blamed for wanting to have their say, even as the nation is trying desperately to forgive and forget, recover and reconcile.
The no confidence motion (NCM) against Minister Bathiudeen is on the basis that he is alleged to have had links to the associates of some of the suicide bombers involved in the Easter Sunday attacks. Bathiudeen has on more than one occasion vehemently denied these allegations and said he was prepared to face any inquiry on this issue.
The call for Bathiudeen to be held to account grew when Army Commander Mahesh Senanayake publicly revealed that the Minister had called him three times to inquire about a suspect detained in the ongoing investigations into the attacks. Bathiudeen maintains he only made inquiries and at no time did he interfere with the investigation, a claim not disputed by the Commander who reportedly told the Minister to call him again in “one and a half years.”
Already, the issue has become a headache for the Government because some United National Party (UNP) parliamentarians such as State Minister Niroshan Perera have indicated they would vote for the NCM against Bathiudeen. The UNP by itself is short of a simple majority in Parliament and if its MPs wish to vote against a Minister, it could spell trouble for the ruling party.
In addition, the headlines that this issue is generating don’t look pretty. Minister Navin Dissanayake, usually a measuredvoice in the cacophony of politics, took it upon himself to defend his colleague and assured that State Minister Perera probably made a ‘mistake’ when he said he would vote against Bathiudeen, only for Perera to promptly issue a rebuttal.
The issue at stake is not whether Minister Bathiudeen is guilty of any wrongdoing or not. He says he is not, and, until proven guilty we should not say otherwise. However, there is still the question of whether his remaining in the Government as a Cabinet Minister is fit and proper.
In almost any other institution be it in the government or the private sector, when an employee is accused of misconduct and an inquiry is being held, the employee is required to step down from his position until the investigation is completed. Like many other norms and rules, this convention does not apply to politicians in our country.
A good reason why this practice is not adopted by our politicians is because almost every one of them is accused of some offence. If they were all to be stood down while they are being investigated, hardly anyone would be left in office!
The question must also be asked whether investigating agencies have the freedom to carry out their inquiries when persons of interest are alleged to have links with a Cabinet Minister. The best example is the telephone call the Minister made to the Army Commander. He may claim that it was only an ‘inquiry’, but it is doubtful whether the Army Commander felt the same way.
Bathiudeen has enough precedents, even in this Government, to stay on in office. When Ravi Karunanayake was embroiled in the Central Bank bond scandal, he did not step down immediately. Instead, he played a game of musical chairs in the Cabinet, shifting from the Finance portfolio to the Foreign Affairs Ministry.
Asmore details of his links with those accused of the bond scam emerged, he did resign from the Cabinet. He was only jumping before being pushed and everyone knew that he was trying to make a virtue out of a necessity. Of course, since then, much has happened and Karunanayake is back in the Cabinet, this time with much ‘power and energy’. For the record, he has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing thus far.
Bathiudeen may feel the same way and want to stay put. However, what he must consider is not whether it is wrong for him to remain in the Cabinet but whether it would appear wrong to do so. Many would agree with the latter, even if they didn’t agree with the former.
To be fair, Bathiudeen has said that he would resign if the President and the Prime Minister requested him to quit. Still, he must surely realise that he has become an embarrassment if not an outright liability to the Government: those with alleged links to him are suspects, his own conduct is being questioned and the NCM against him is splitting the ruling party. In such circumstances, does he need an invitation to resign?
One does not envy the Government for the circumstances it finds itself in. Its lack of preparedness for the Easter Sunday attacks has boomeranged, hurting its political prospects. It is not in a position to call for Bathiudeen’s resignation even if it wanted to, because its survival depends on, among other things, the support of Bathiudeen’s party in Parliament.
Perhaps the Government’s most sensible response in the aftermath of the Easter attacks has been to request President Maithripala Sirsena to appoint Sarath Fonseka to the Cabinet and entrust him with a portfolio related to national security. Unfortunately for the Government, the response to that request has been a deafening silence.
With a government in such a quandary, it would be surprising if the opposition did not want a motion of no confidence. The Government may, in some way or the other prevail over these votes in Parliament. What matters most though is not whether it is able to stifle the votes of no confidence but whether the public retains their confidence in them. Only time will tell that.