SJB-UNP to contest next election together

The SJB and the UNP are moving towards an electoral alliance, with the two parties preparing to contest at the next election together while retaining their separate political identities. SJB General Secretary, MP Ranjith Madduma Bandara said the two sides had already held discussions and reached a broad understanding on working together. In an interview with the Sunday Observer, he said an alliance was a more practical option than SJB members returning to the UNP, as they had been elected to Parliament on the SJB ticket. Madduma Bandara also spoke about the SJB's opposition to the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, rejected claims of divisions within the Party and criticised the Government's anti-corruption record. He said the SJB was prepared to work with other political groups that shared its policies and vision, while exercising caution over alliances with individuals or groups facing corruption allegations. Following are excerpts from the interview: Q: What is the latest update on the UNP and SJB joining hands? There is a broad understanding among the members of both parties that we should work together. There are no fundamental issues standing in the way of such an arrangement. When the time is right, we will take the necessary steps to come together in the interests of our common political objectives. Q: What do you mean by the 'right time'? By the 'right time', I mean the point at which such a political collaboration becomes necessary — and that will be the next election. That is when we intend to come together, form an alliance and contest the election jointly. We have already discussed the matter, and both sides are prepared to join hands. The groundwork for such an alliance has therefore already been laid. It is now a question of coming together at the appropriate time. Q: What are the prevailing practical issues? Practical issues can arise whenever two political parties come together. That is only natural. What matters is the willingness to discuss those issues openly, find workable solutions and ultimately reach an understanding. There may be differences on certain matters, but none of them are insurmountable. Through continued dialogue and discussion, we can resolve those issues and arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement. Q: Why can't you just return to the UNP and contest? We were elected to Parliament on the SJB ticket, so we cannot simply leave and become members of the UNP. There are also practical and political considerations involved in doing so. The more appropriate approach, in our view, is to bring the two parties together through an alliance while allowing each party to retain its own identity. There is no reason why the two parties must necessarily contest as a single political party. An alliance would allow all members to contest under a common arrangement while preserving their respective party identities and political structures. We believe that is a more practical and workable way forward. Q: What is the SJB's plan for the next Presidential Election? We will certainly work together with the UNP at the next Presidential Election. At the same time, we are prepared to work with any other political groups that share our policies, principles and vision for the country. However, we also need to be more discerning about whom we enter into political alliances with. We cannot simply join hands with individuals or groups facing serious allegations of corruption. Our alliances must be based on shared values, credibility and commitment to accountable governance. So far, no member of the SJB, including our leader Sajith Premadasa, has faced allegations of corruption. That is an important standard we intend to uphold as we consider future political partnerships. Q: Some SJB members seem to be discontented with the party's direction and leadership. Is there a rift within the party? There is no rift within the party. This is the nature of politics and political organisations. Some members are more active and vocal in party affairs, while others may choose to remain less visible or work quietly. That should not be interpreted as dissatisfaction or division within the party. The SJB remains united, and there are no fundamental issues affecting the party's leadership or direction. Differences of opinion may naturally arise within any political organisation, but that does not mean there is a rift. Q: Why is the SJB opposing the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution? Our primary concern is the protection of the independence of the judiciary. When the Mahanayake Theras, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and professionals, including doctors, have raised serious concerns about the proposed amendment, the Government must explain why it is pursuing this course and what necessity it seeks to address. We are concerned that the proposed changes could undermine the independence of the Judiciary and create greater scope for political influence over it. At a time when the Government itself is facing increasing political difficulties, we fear that there is an attempt to use the judiciary to serve the Government's political interests. That is the fundamental basis of our opposition. When concerns are being raised across political and professional circles, the Government should not respond in an authoritarian manner. It must remember that its two-thirds majority in Parliament does not give it unlimited authority to alter the constitutional framework without wider public consent. That is why we believe the matter should ultimately be put before the people through a Referendum, if the Supreme Court determines that a Referendum is constitutionally required. If that happens, I believe the Government will struggle to secure even the 42 percent vote base it received at the last election. The people will reject an attempt to undermine the independence of the Judiciary. We are also deeply concerned about the timing and implications of the proposed amendment. Questions have been raised about whether the changes could be intended to influence or provide an inducement to the Judiciary itself. These are serious concerns, and the Government must address them transparently. Q: You organised a protest against the 22nd Amendment last week in Colombo. Why couldn't you attract many people to support the protest? We organised a major protest in Colombo, and a large number of people came out to oppose the proposed 22nd Amendment. I am not sure whether those making such claims are simply unwilling to acknowledge what happened on the ground, particularly those with vested interests. Until now, the debate over this amendment has largely taken place within Parliament, professional organisations, legal circles and courtrooms. But for the first time, ordinary citizens came out onto the streets alongside the SJB to express their opposition. That is significant. Perhaps the Government is not listening, and perhaps some sections of the media are not willing to acknowledge the public sentiment that was visible on the streets. But we will continue to take this issue to the people. The protest demonstrated that opposition to the proposed amendment is not confined to politicians or professionals; there is growing public concern about its implications for the independence of the Judiciary. Q: MP Namal Rajapaksa was arrested by the CIABOC on Friday. What is your comment? We strongly believe that anyone, against whom there is credible evidence of corruption should be investigated, arrested where warranted and, if found guilty, punished according to the law. There should be no political protection for anyone accused of wrongdoing. At the same time, the Government must ensure that anti-corruption measures are not used selectively or as a means of suppressing the political opposition. Q: How do you compare the anti-corruption programme of the Good Governance Government with that of the present Government? I have a simple question for the present Government. What major corruption cases has it initiated since taking office? Many of the cases being heard and decided today stem from complaints made and investigations initiated during the Good Governance Government. The present Government claims to have made the fight against corruption a central priority, but it must demonstrate that commitment through concrete action. We are concerned that its ability to act against corruption is compromised when allegations also exist against individuals within or close to the Government itself. We therefore urge the Government to investigate all such allegations impartially, regardless of who is involved. No one should be above the law. There have even been allegations requiring an inquiry involving the Speaker of Parliament. If the Government is genuinely committed to fighting corruption, it must ensure that every such allegation is investigated transparently and without political interference. Q: The Government has already taken steps to address allegations against it. Do you see this as a positive trend? The Good Governance Government that we represented also took action when allegations of wrongdoing arose against individuals within the Government itself. We did not believe that holding office should place anyone beyond scrutiny. As for the present Government, if these investigations are being conducted independently, impartially and without political interference, then I would consider that a positive development. What matters is that the same standards are applied to everyone, regardless of their position or political affiliation. However, I have to say that public dissatisfaction with this Government is growing rapidly. People are increasingly angry and disappointed with its performance. If this trend continues, I do not believe the Government will be able to secure even the three per cent support it once had at the next election.