STATEMENT ON THE POSTER ATTACKS AGAINST CPA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
16 
October 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy 
Alternatives (CPA) views with very serious concern the appearance of posters in 
Sinhala on Monday, 15th October 2012 in the environs of Colombo, the English 
translation of the text of which states: “Let us save the pro-people Divineguma 
Act that builds the lives of fifteen lakhs of low income families from the 
Paikiasothy gang that aids and abets the separation of the country.” Photographs 
of the poster are attached. The chilling import of the reference to CPA 
Executive Director, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, requires no emphasis in the 
current political climate of violence against critics of the government and the 
culture of impunity for perpetrators. This is the most recent attack against CPA 
and its Executive Director. It must be unreservedly condemned. 
The 
context of the reference in the poster to the Divineguma Bill, which is 
currently in the enactment process, and CPA’s legal challenge to its 
constitutionality, is as follows. When the Bill was placed on the Order Paper of 
Parliament on 10 August 2012, both CPA and Dr. Saravanamuttu in his capacity as 
Executive Director, filed petitions challenging the Bill in the Supreme Court, 
bringing to the Court’s attention a number of substantive and procedural grounds 
on which the Bill was potentially inconsistent with the Constitution. There are 
several substantive areas of constitutional concern in what is envisaged in the 
Bill, including the doctrine of the separation of powers, the possible reversal 
of certain subjects devolved to Provincial Councils, Parliament’s control over 
public finance and its general oversight over the executive, and public access 
to information held by government. We will make no further comment at this stage 
on these issues as the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. 
On 
the procedural issues, however, the Supreme Court agreed with the averment in 
our initial petitions that the substance of the Bill impacts on a number of 
devolved subjects in such a way as to require it to be passed in terms of the 
special procedure laid down in the Constitution, which involves the consent of 
the Provincial Councils. Pursuant to this determination by the Supreme Court, 
the government sent the Bill to the Provincial Councils where consent has been 
forthcoming, except in the case of the Northern Province, where there is no 
elected Provincial Council. There is currently a legal challenge by a Member of 
Parliament for the Jaffna District to the consent provided on behalf of that 
Province by the Governor. Regardless of the matter being referred to the Supreme 
Court on the question of the role of the Governor, the Bill was tabled for the 
second time in Parliament on 9 September 2012. CPA and Dr. Saravanamuttu have 
challenged the Bill yet again, with the matter to be taken up in the Supreme 
Court this week. 
Aside 
from these attacks, CPA also wishes to disclose that the military visited CPA 
 on the morning of Monday 15th October, the same day the posters appeared. The 
military personnel informed CPA security that they in turn had been told by the 
Postal Department that the CPA address was one that had a connection to the 
Elections Department, which they were checking. Whether there is some causality 
between the appearance of the poster and the visit by the military, or whether 
it is mere coincidence, we are at a loss to understand how the military has a 
role in the conduct of such inquiries in terms of the law of the land.
Beyond 
the vilification and incitement of public hatred against an individual, we are 
concerned that these developments signify deeper changes that seem to be 
occurring in our post-war political culture. The government seems increasingly 
to regard not only critique and dissent from civil society, but also any 
constitutional restraints on its power as unacceptable to its agenda, and its 
stock response to any form of democratic dissent is to accuse opponents of a 
lack of patriotism. It seems to regard populism and majoritarianism as the only 
legitimate elements and forms of democracy, and needless to reiterate, CPA is 
founded on a set of beliefs, which are directly contrary to such perspectives on 
democracy. 
We 
believe that forms of electoral democracy that are unrestrained by 
constitutional controls, checks and balances, the rule of law and the 
independence of the judiciary, fundamental rights and minority protections, 
devolution, and a vibrant and sceptical electorate, media and civil society, 
constitute no democracy at all. The emasculation of these fundamental principles 
in the purported interests of economic development is not only a false 
dichotomy, but also serves to corrode the traditions of choice and change we 
have enjoyed as part of the democratic way of life since 1931.  
As 
the history of many countries which have had the unfortunate experience of 
populist authoritarianism has shown, the attenuation of legal and political 
restraints on political power that is exercised, at first instance, in the form 
of purportedly ‘pro-people’ policies have an alarming tendency to turn 
anti-people before long, when governments get used to centralisation and an 
absence of controls. In the light of recent manipulations of the Constitution, 
the strengthening of the executive at the expense of both Parliament and 
democracy, the undermining of established arrangements for ensuring good 
governance, the treatment of political opponents, violence against protestors, 
activists and journalists, enforced disappearances, attacks on the independence 
of the judiciary, the militarisation of civic life, and the pervasive culture of 
impunity, we wish to state categorically that we see a process taking place in 
Sri Lanka today which is aimed at dismantling surviving liberal democratic 
institutions and norms, including through the demonisation of critical 
voices.
These developments are taken lightly at the peril of our democratic future.
These developments are taken lightly at the peril of our democratic future.
 
