Sri Lanka’s fragmented opposition (1947-64) and its first Leader of the Opposition

The office of the Leader of the Opposition is today regarded as one of the indispensable institutions of parliamentary democracy. As the principal critic of the Government and the head of the alternative administration, the office occupies a central place in the Westminster tradition adopted by many Commonwealth countries. Yet in Sri Lanka, this institution did not emerge with independence. For nearly three years after the first parliamentary elections of 1947, the country functioned without a recognised Leader of the Opposition. While Parliament debated citizenship, independence and nation-building, no single person officially led the Government’s opponents. This remarkable parliamentary gap, now largely forgotten, shaped the country’s early parliamentary democracy. No opposition by design When the State Council was established in 1931 following the Donoughmore constitutional reforms, it lacked what we today call an Opposition. Thus, there was no Leader of the Opposition. There was no party system and candidates contested in their individual capacity. After distributing the Members – elected and appointed – into committees, a Board of Ministers, was set up, the leader of each committee being elected as a Minister. As every member belonged to a committee, there was no chance for one to officially be a member of the opposition. In this semi-parliamentary method, among the very few who agitated against the Colonial regime and local Board of Ministers was E. W. Perera, who came to be known as the “Unofficial Leader of the Opposition.” Perera, also dubbed the “Lion of Kotte,” was effectively defeated by an unknown in the next State Council in 1936, and for the next 11 years there existed no “unofficial” or “official” opposition leader. In the meantime, D. S. Senanayake climbed the ladder and successfully negotiated a deal of Dominion Independence with Whitehall and Lord Soulbury. Soulbury reforms and the 1947 election The Soulbury reforms abolished the State Council and established the “House of Representatives” or what we popularly call the “Parliament (Lower House)” as well as the Senate (Upper House). Sri Lanka, like most Commonwealth countries, continued the Westminster System of Parliament. After the UNP created a coalition with a few Independents and minority parties in the first election in 1947, it became the Government and its leader D. S. Senanayake became Ceylon’s first Prime Minister. All the other parties and Independents not in the Government were identified as the “Opposition.” Everyone outside that coalition was, by definition, “the Opposition”. The LSSP (10 seats, the largest single bloc), G. G. Ponnambalam’s All Ceylon Tamil Congress (seven), the Ceylon Indian Congress (six), Colvin R. de Silva’s Bolshevik Samasamaja Party (five), the Communist Party (three), and a scattering of independents. Accordingly, the LSSP Leader, Dr. N. M. Perera was expected to be Leader of the Opposition in 1947. However, this did not happen as expected until 1950. In his monumental work The Constitution of Ceylon, Sir Ivor Jennings stated: “The Opposition will almost certainly be amorphous for some time, for it consists merely of those Members who, for diverse and often contradictory reasons, have no confidence in the Government. Accordingly, it is not yet true that the Opposition is ‘His Majesty’s Alternative Government’, and the tradition of the House of Commons, which assumes that one Government is ‘in’ and the other ‘out’, is not capable of application. It is nevertheless necessary for somebody to take the lead against the Government, though instead of a formal Leader of the Opposition he may be one Member on one issue and another on a separate issue.” (1949, p. 69) However, there was no provision of the appointment and role of the Leader of the Opposition in the 1948 constitution of Ceylon drafted by Jennings himself. This absence is continued both in the 1972 and 1978 Constitutions. This omission was not accidental. Like the British constitution upon which it was modeled, the Soulbury Constitution assumed that many essential institutions of parliamentary government would evolve through convention rather than statutory enactment. The office thus emerged not because the Constitution required it, but because Parliament itself recognized its practical necessity. However, it may be worthwile for future lawmakers to consider including such provision either when the constitution is amended or when a constitution is implemented. Why the delay? Unlike in Britain, where the Government and Opposition had evolved within a relatively mature two-party system, Sri Lanka’s first Parliament consisted of numerous parties and independents whose ideological differences prevented the emergence of a coherent alternative government. Consequently, the absence of an Opposition Leader was not simply a constitutional omission but a reflection of the fragmented nature of early post-independence politics. With the delay of electing an Opposition Leader, The Ceylon Daily News wrote the following in its editorial on October 3, 1947: “Political circles are now discussing the selection of a Leader of the Opposition, an office which is seemingly as difficult to fill as an episcopal see… Now the idea of an Opposition is an integral part of parliamentary government and is reflected in the very architectural design of the British House of Commons, which has afforded the model for the House of Representatives in our Parliament. The Government and its supporters sit to the right of the Speaker, the Opposition is ranged against them on his left. A gangway divides the two, and the whole set-up imposes the necessity and encourages the emergence of what is essentially a two-party system of government; that is to say, the Government party, forming the majority of the House, on the one hand, and on the other hand a block of groups opposed to the Government for debating purposes and for the ordinary business of legislation… His [Leader of the Opposition] function is ornamental, and his very existence is the spontaneous growth of the needs of an individual legislature. But what about this first legislature in Ceylon? Has there emerged from the Opposition benches one among the Opposition members who has proved his ability and naturally emerges as the best spearhead of attack in the criticism of the Government which it is the function of the Opposition to undertake?” The Opposition of 1947 was a very weak one partly because there were so many Leftist parties who could not agree with each other. Similarly, the left-wing parties remained divided over the office of Leader of the Opposition. AJ Wilson said in October 1969 in (“Oppositional Politics in Ceylon 1947-1968” Government and Opposition, Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 56) While the LSSP, as the largest opposition party, supported its recognition, the BSP opposed it and the Communist Party dismissed it as a “reactionary British convention.” (The Ceylon Daily News, October 13, 1947) For three years after the parliament gathered in 1947, there was no recognised Leader of the Opposition. No one in the Opposition or the Government seemed to have been concerned over this matter. Independence was received in February 1948 and the approval of the Ceylon Citizenship Act No. 18 occurred while there was no Opposition Leader in Sri Lanka. Sir Francis Molamure repeatedly drew attention to the absence of a recognised Leader of the Opposition. In early 1950, he warned that unless the Opposition elected one, he would appoint a leader himself to ensure the orderly and efficient conduct of parliamentary business. N. M. Perera breaks the deadlock It was only after the LSSP and BSP merged in June 1950 that there was agreement to elect a Leader of the Opposition although the Communist Party continued to object. At the meeting on July 5, 1950, C. Suntheralingam (MP for Vavuniya) successfully moved that the office be created, with only Pieter Keuneman, the Communist Party whip, voting against the motion before walking out in protest. Suntheralingam then proposed Dr. N. M. Perera for the post and was seconded by Wilmot Perera (MP for Horana), leader of the Maha Jana Peramuna. The motion was carried unanimously by the remaining members, including Florence Senanayake and Kusuma Gunawardene, formally recognising Dr. N. M. Perera as the first Leader of the Opposition. This was the first time that Sri Lanka had an Opposition Leader. The office of the Leader of the Opposition, though today regarded as an essential institution of parliamentary democracy, is a comparatively recent development in many countries. Even in the United Kingdom–the birthplace of the Westminster system–the office received formal statutory recognition only in 1937 through the Ministers of the Crown Act, despite having existed by convention for decades. Other Commonwealth democracies followed gradually. However, Australia recognized the office in the 1920s, New Zealand in 1936. What is less known and discussed is that Sri Lanka was the first Asian country to have a formal office of the Leader of the Opposition and that Dr. N. M. Perera was Asia’s first Opposition Leader. Ironically, India recognised the Office of Leader of the Opposition (in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha) only in 1969. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Singapore, Maldives adopted the office much later. Countries such as Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Indonesia have never had an Opposition Leader. In this context, Sri Lanka occupies a notable position in democracy. Sri Lanka was the first country in Asia and among the earlier Commonwealth nations to provide formal recognition to the Leader of the Opposition. An estranged Government and Opposition However, the Communist Party continued to make statements opposing the office of Leader of the Opposition. Pieter Keuneman opposed the post stating that it was “based on the convenient theory for the ruling class that the opposition should be part and parcel of the Government, fundamentally accepting the continuance of the existing social order but only disagreeing about the best method of continuing it.” (The Ceylon Daily News, June 22, 1950). The Communist Party’s reluctance to recognise Parliament as the supreme forum for determining the nation’s affairs prompted the UNP to adopt a firm stance towards its parliamentary representatives. This position was clearly articulated by Sir John Kotelawala, then Minister of Transport and Works, during a parliamentary speech on June 9, 1950. “Our Opposition today is an Opposition which does not believe in the democratic system. That is why the Government finds its task so difficult. We have to fight the Opposition not as an Opposition but as enemies of the State…once they got in they would not get out. There is no guarantee you would ever have a chance to go to the ballot again.” (The Ceylon Daily News, June 12, 1950). Accordingly, since the 1947 general election, a deeply strained relationship existed between the UNP Government and the left-wing opposition. Viewing the Marxist parties with suspicion, the Government was often reluctant to consult them on parliamentary affairs, while the Left frequently responded with boycotts and public protests. At the same time, the Left sought to unite its fragmented forces in the hope of presenting a credible alternative government. The merger of the Bolshevik Samasamaja Party and the Lanka Sama Samaja Party in June 1950 was a significant step, although it was soon weakened by Philip Gunawardena’s breakaway to form the Viplavakari Lanka Sama Samaja Party. Despite periodic attempts at cooperation, ideological differences prevented lasting unity among the Marxist parties. Subsequently G. G. Ponnambalam and C. Suntheralingam defected to the Government and were made Ministers in the Cabinet of D. S. Senanayake. Those of the Ceylon Tamil Congress Party who were against Ponnambalam’s move formed the Federal Party and remained in the Opposition. A decisive shift occurred in July 1951 when S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, Minister of Health and Local Government, resigned from the UNP Government and crossed the floor. His dissatisfaction with the Government’s approach to language, religion, and social policy culminated in the formation of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party in September 1951. Presenting itself as a moderate alternative between the UNP and the Marxist Left, the SLFP quickly attracted support from those dissatisfied with both camps. The Left, recognizing Bandaranaike’s growing appeal, signalled its willingness to cooperate electorally, while simultaneously attempting to preserve its own identity by advocating a united left front and pursuing parliamentary means to achieve political power. The office comes of age, yet weak opposition These developments fundamentally altered the character of the Opposition and laid the foundations for a more organised challenge to the UNP in the years ahead. None of the opposition parties were a match for new UNP leader, Dudley Senanayake, who gained public sympathy with the death of D. S. Senanayake. However, even if Senanayake had lived, none of the Left parties or the SLFP were planning to win the election. The SLFP fielded just 48 candidates for the 95 constituencies in 1952. Even had the SLFP won all 48 constituencies, it would have been a hung parliament. Ultimately, the UNP won 54 seats and the SLFP and LSSP won nine seats each. The other parties including the CP and ACTC won under five seats. Therefore, just as 1947, the Opposition was a weak one. As the SLFP had just over 55,000 votes more than the LSSP, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike was elected Opposition Leader without much delay. N. M. Perera, Pieter Keneuman, and Philip Gunawardena served in the Opposition, while Colvin R. de Silva lost his seat. With the UNP regime both under Dudley Senanayake and later Sir John Kotelawala losing public support and the creation of the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna by S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, a strong opposition out of parliament was created for the first time. In 1956, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike’s Mahajana Eksath Peramuna comprehensively defeated the UNP at an election where the MEP and the left parties had a no contest pact. The UNP regime was completely out of touch with the demands and needs of the grassroots. Bandaranaike’s MEP rose to the front with its pro-Sinhala nationalist stance and swept the polls, winning 51 seats. The UNP had fewer seats (eight) than the LSSP (14 seats) and Federal Party (10 seats). Thus, N. M. Perera was elected Opposition Leader again. On this occasion, he did not have to wait for three years! Just as in 1947, the Opposition under N. M. Perera was a weak one. Divided with the other Leftist parties, the UNP, ACTC, Federal party, etc., it bore little challenge to the government. However, the UNP led by J. R. Jayewardene, later joined by Dudley Senanayake from 1957 onward, started campaigning to rebuild the UNP. By mid-1959, the Bandaranaike regime despite having a majority was disintegrating within. At the height of all the turmoil, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike was assassinated. W. Dahanayake, who succeeded him, was perhaps aiding the opposition and not his government, when he repeatedly sacked most of his ministers and later resigned from the SLFP forming his own party with the government about to be oust, Dahanayake dissolved the parliament in late 1959. In the March 1960 election, the UNP was both satisfied and disappointed. Despite winning 50 seats, it had no majority. Dudley Senanayake, who became Prime Minister again realized his regime was short lived. The specialty of this election was that for the first time a single Opposition Party had more than 15 seats. The SLFP led by C. P. de Silva had no fewer than 46 seats. Thus, the UNP lost the throne speech and a new election was called in July. By then, Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike had emerged as the SLFP leader. A wave of sympathy plus a no contest pact with the left aided her to win 75 of 151 seats (the electorates were increased significantly in 1960). Though the UNP won a plurality of the overall vote, it retained just 30 seats. Mrs. Bandaranaike managed to secure support of some minority parties and later the LSSP, making three of its members including N. M. Perera, Cabinet Ministers. This period, 1960-64, was the first time in Sri Lanka since independence that an opposition that could rightfully call itself an “alternative government” was formed. Dudley Senanayake was elected Leader of the Opposition. The UNP, both in and out of parliament, played a major role in policy matters and successfully created among voters the perception of an alternative through them. By late 1964, the Government was weak with a string of manipulative and shrewd strategies led by J. R. Jayewardene, the Government lost its mandate by just one parliamentary vote. It was the first time in independent Sri Lanka that a Government was ousted by an Opposition coalition. Thereafter, each government other than the UNP regime of 1977, did have a strong Opposition within the chambers of the parliament. By Avishka Mario Senewiratne, Editor, The Ceylon Journal