A Sri-Lankan-Sized Case of Political Drama: Comparing and Contrasting Sirisena’s New Government to the Old

Comparing and Contrasting Sirisena’s new Government to the Old

      Maithripala Sirisena’s new administration has made some shaky steps towards improving international relations and a creating better country for its citizens, especially when compared to Rajapaksa’s sudo-dictatorship. Although their first moves have been well-intentioned, they have had trouble fully executing their plans without external help or fighting for a foothold in parliament. This is in direct contrast to the previous government’s war crimes and attempts at enabling a authoritarian dictatorship without the people’s input.
Firstly, comparing the actions and words (or lack thereof) of the previous president, Rajapaksa, to the new president Sirisena shows how the current government has tried to improve Sri Lanka while the previous hurt it. To begin, under Rajapaksa, the military killed civilians indiscriminately to root out the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) without condemnation from the president. In contrast, Sirisena has run and lead under the promise of aiding justice for war crimes and helped create a UN resolution against the war crimes and publicly derided Rajapaksa's weak resolve against breaking international law. Next, Rajapaksa removed term limits for presidents and moved power to the executive branch, seemingly attempting to set himself to grab power as a dictator. On other other hand, Sirisena has created the fourteenth Amendment of Sri Lanka, which limits the president to two terms and reinstates some of the checks and balances present in the old system. Finally, in the pre-2015 government, being related to the president was often directly correlated with employability, at least in the eyes of the corrupt hiring officers who seeked promotions and paydays. Take a look at the newly reformed government and although there have been some accusations of not doing enough, there has been multiple charges of corruption brought against the former members of government. In conclusion, in comparison to the old government, underneath Sirisena they have made many promising first steps at reform.
       Next, although Sirisena has done his best to appeal to the Western powers and improve his country's standing internationally, his newly born government is starting to stall in forward progress because of lack of support internationally and domestically (Goodhand 132). To begin, although within six months he was able to pass a resolution in support of Reconciliation, peace, and justice in post-war Sri Lanka, it is considered highly unlikely that without United States support, the resolutions could have passed. Undoubtedly, the Obama administration has made it clear of the United States strong support for Sirisena and has pitched his coming as a rebirth for the previously war-torn country. Furthermore, under the new president despite many calls by his campaign to increase peace with the Tamil north, there has still been very real problem with ethnic tensions and political prisoners (Dibbert 4). But with a high degree of chance, if Sri Lanka was called upon by a superpower to release their Tamil rebellion prisoners and remove the tense demilitarized zones, they would do so. And finally, back in 2015 when Sirisena was first beginning to try and reign in the parliament, almost all of his future power would be decided by a parliamentary election regarding the new prime minister (Maithripala Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapaksa: The Key Players in Sri Lanka's Election 1). If the former president, Rajapaksa had been elected to prime minister it would have been even more difficult for Sirisena to conduct his plans. Even though his pick was elected, Rajapaksa gained some ground in the parliament and has done his best to limit the changes made. Overall, without external support and internal cooperation from the opposing party, Sirisena has had trouble fulfilling his lofty promises.
        In conclusion, although Sirisena has made immense promises and gained Western support for his progressive thoughts, it is undisputed he has had a difficult time following through because of internal strife and dependence on external factors.

Works Cited 

Dibbert, Taylor. “After the Shake up.” World Affairs, vol. 178, no. 4, Winter 2016, pp. 78-84.
       EBSCO, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=113962687. Accessed 15.
       May 2017. This source looks at the international reaction to the civil war in Sri Lanka as well as
       the domestic actions taken directly after the election of the new government. I believe that this
       source is reputable because it was written by a well-versed and educated writer who doesn’t
       appear to express his political view within his writings. Furthermore, the academic journal that
       published this article is well-known and has been in publication since 1837. I believe this ties
       into my thesis because it allows for the comparison between the old and new administrations.

Goodhand, Jonathon, and Oliver Walton. “The Tangled Politics of Postwar Justice in Sri Lanka.”
       Current History, vol. 116, no. 789, Apr. 2017, pp. 130-35. This source analyzes the unexpected.
       election of Maithripala Sirisena over the incumbent Mahinda Rajapaksa and the promises of his
       campaign in comparison to the reality. I believe that this source leans towards a cynical bias, with
       some mistrust of the ability of the govenrment to fulfill it’s promises. However, I believe the
       information is correct and presented in fair way written by knowledgable and trustworthy authors
       in an reputable publication. All in all, this source is worthy of citing in a research project.

“Maithripala Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapaksa: The Key Players in Sri Lanka’s Election.” The
        Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 17 Aug. 2015,  
        www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/srilanka/11806840/Maithripala-Sirisena-and-
        Mahinda-Rajapaksa-The-key-players-in-Sri-Lankas-election.html. Accessed 19 May 2017. I
        believe that the Daily Telegraph is a reputable source because of it’s long running and highly
       awarded (Newspaper of the Year 2009) background. Despite being not as well known in the
       United States, this British newspaper is popular in UK and internationally despite being known
       as center-right, mainly because they cite their sources and are factual in reporting. In this article,
       it also includes minimal buzzwords and factually presents both candidates.