As the past week unfolded, all that became clear was that nothing was clear with regard to anything. Everybody is trying to play their hands close to their chests. The government is not revealing what election it intends holding first, and the UNP and the JVP are not revealing who they will be fielding against President Rajapaksa at a presidential election.

Last week, when Mangala Samaraweera was interviewed by this newspaper, what he said was that the UNF had not decided as yet who their presidential candidate was going to be. Vajira Abeywardene when interviewed by The Island said the same thing. What was most significant was that at last week’s UNP working committee meeting, when parliamentarian Johnston Fernando asked party leader Ranil Wickremesinghe whether he had given his consent to make Sarath Fonseka the common candidate of the opposition, Wickremesinghe had replied in the negative. To cap it all, General Fonseka himself has not said up to now that he is going to enter politics.

The mixed signals going out are such that some people have begun saying that both the UNP and the JVP are trying to hoodwink the government into thinking that splits have emerged within their ranks over the fielding of General Fonseka as the common opposition candidate, and having lulled the government into a false feeling of security, and tricked them into declaring a presidential election first, they would suddenly close ranks and field General Sarath Fonseka as the common candidate of the united opposition.

Various such schemes may be afoot, but there are other matters that the opposition needs to look into. In politics, it never pays to be too smart. The first issue that the opposition should be concerned about is the timeline for elections. On this front, the government has the upper hand. There is no real need to be even talking about presidential elections because presidential elections are due only in 2011. It’s the government that keeps harping on presidential elections, by their own choice, because they hope to hold the presidential election first and follow it up with the parliamentary election so that they would be able to use the trend created by the presidential election to win more seats in parliament – the ultimate objective being to cobble together a two thirds majority in parliament.

So what should really be the focal point here is the parliamentary election. According to article 62(2) of the constitution, every parliament will continue for six years after the date of its first meeting and upon reaching six years, parliament will stand automatically dissolved. As such, the present 13th parliament which met on April 22, 2004, after the election which was held on April 2, will stand automatically dissolved on April 22, 2010. Hence a new parliament will have to meet before that date.

According to article 70(1) of the constitution the power to dissolve and summon parliament is vested in the president. Article 70(5a) says that when the president issues a proclamation dissolving parliament, he has to fix a date for the new parliament to meet. Articles 70(5a,b, & c) stipulate that from the time of dissolving parliament, the calling for nominations, holding of the election, the declaration of the result and the first sitting of the new parliament all have to take place within a maximum time frame of three months.

Article 10 of the Parliamentary Elections Act No: 1 of 1981 lays down in greater detail the time frames for the procedures relating to the election of a new parliament. According to these provisions, calling for nominations can commence only ten days after the proclamation calling for a parliamentary election is issued and nominations have to close 17 days after such date of proclamation. After nominations close, election day will have to be not less than five weeks and not more than seven weeks from the day nominations close.

If we take the absolute minimum time frame available here - 17 days for nominations plus five weeks to polling day, what that means is that the absolute minimum time frame for declaring and holding a parliamentary election is approximately two months. Hence if we stick to the minimum time frame for the holding of a parliamentary election, the president will have to make the proclamation dissolving parliament on February 22 at the very latest. Since it’s practically impossible to stick to the minimum time frames for every stage of the electoral process, one may say that the president will have to declare a parliamentary election well before Feb. 22.

Similarly, if we look at the time frame for the presidential elections, according to article 2(1) of the Presidential Elections Act No: 15 of 1981, an absolute minimum period of 16 days has to lapse after the declaration calling for a presidential election for nominations to be accepted. After the closing of nominations, a minimum period of one month has to lapse before polling day. Thus, a presidential election from the day the election is called to the day the election is actually held, will take more than 46 days at the very least.

The complicating factor is that in the case of parliamentary elections, it is the president who has the power to fix the dates for the poll. The Parliamentary Elections Act No: 1 of 1981 has fixed dates for nominations to open and close – nominations have to open on the 10th day after the declaration of the parliamentary election and will close on the 17th day. Thereafter the president has the discretion to fix the polling day for any day within the next seven weeks after the closing of nominations. Since the president has discretion in this matter, he can for reasons of political expediency fix polling day at the earliest which is just five weeks after the closing of nominations.

However, in the case of the presidential election it is not the president who fixes the dates but the elections commissioner. The president makes the declaration calling for a presidential election and from that point onwards, the elections commissioner takes over. Unlike in the case of parliamentary elections, where the nomination period is fixed by statute, in the case of presidential elections, the Presidential Elections Act No: 15 of 1981 empowers the commissioner to call for nominations on any day 16 days after the declaration of the presidential election, and up to one month after such declaration is made – a leeway of two weeks.

When it comes to actually holding the poll, article 2(1) of the Presidential Elections Act stipulates that the elections commissioner can announce a polling day not less than one month and not more than two months after nominations close. Thus a presidential election can be brought forwards or pushed backwards by as much as one and a half months at the sole discretion of the elections commissioner. Since the elections commissioner is not going to be swayed by political considerations, to be on the safe side we have to assume that he will take his own time with the presidential election. According to the presidential elections law, the elections commissioner can take anything up to three months to complete a presidential election from the point it is declared.

The maximum time frames stipulated in the constitution for holding parliamentary and presidential polls is three months each. If a presidential and parliamentary election were to be held without any overlap, the safe option would have been to start with six months to spare, so that the presidential election can be held within the first three months and the parliamentary elections can be held within the following three month period. But we now have exactly five months to the point where parliament will automatically stand dissolved, and to this extent, the maximum time frames for the presidential and parliamentary polls are already overlapping. With each passing day this overlap gets tighter and tighter.

If what the opposition expects is a clean and complete presidential election followed conveniently by a parliamentary election, that may not be the case. All the present strategies of the UNP and the JVP seem to be predicated on the belief that the two elections will be held one after another with no overlap and that they will be able to fight in a united front at the presidential elections and then after a massive collective effort to bring down the Rajapaksa juggernaut, they would be able to go their separate ways to divide the spoils at a parliamentary election.

But it’s unlikely that the government will let the opposition have such an easy time. When elections are declared, the likelihood is that they will be declared in such manner as to cause the maximum confusion within the ranks of the opposition. Even though the UNP and the JVP have been talking about the possibility of fielding a common presidential candidate, these two parties will most certainly not contest the parliamentary elections together. Therefore a parliamentary election will automatically separate the JVP from the UNP.

In the event of a parliamentary election, there will inevitably be problems among the parties that have joined the UNP led coalition as well over the division of national list seats and slots to contest at the district level. Even at the last Western Provincial Council elections there were ugly scenes between Mano Ganesan and the UNP. This much vaunted opposition ‘unity’ will only be for the presidential elections and that too only because none of the opposition parties have a presidential candidate they can pit against president Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The opposition parties may be toying with the idea of fielding a single powerful contender against Rajapaksa and fighting a united presidential election campaign; but these plans will come a cropper if a presidential election is announced first with a parliamentary election on top of it. There is nothing in the constitution to say that a parliamentary election cannot be held while a presidential election is in progress. In fact the constitution has made provision for just such an eventuality. For example, article 70(6) says that if the date for a presidential poll falls between the day parliament is dissolved and the date for the first meeting of the new parliament, the day for the first meeting of parliament can be postponed to four months after the dissolution of parliament. (A breathing space of one extra month over the usual maximum period of three months between the dissolution of parliament and the meeting of the new parliament)

One government spokesman was even hinting that both elections may be held on the same day. This may not be possible for logistical reasons. But it could well be that the parliamentary poll could be held just days after a presidential poll. In such a scenario, the joint opposition may find themselves campaigning together for the common presidential candidate while at the same time campaigning against one another for the parliamentary election. There’ll be fisticuffs on the joint opposition platforms and riots at joint opposition meetings!

Given this situation, it will be extremely unwise for the UNP and the JVP to field one candidate at the presidential elections. What happens if the president declares a parliamentary election after nominations for the presidential elections close? (And one can be certain that parliament will be dissolved only after presidential nominations close, in order to trap the UNP!) Remember that article 70(6) of the constitution which we mentioned earlier provides for just such a situation - where a presidential election is declared first, followed by the dissolution of parliament a short while later. If the common candidate fielded by the UNP and the JVP happens to be General Sarath Fonseka who will not belong either to the UNP or the JVP, the moment a parliamentary election is called, the UNP will drop the common candidate’s election campaign and start scrambling for seats in parliament. General Fonseka may well end up being only the JVP’s presidential candidate in an election campaign doomed to failure from the start.

But the damage done to the common candidate will be nothing compared to the damage done to the UNP which as the main opposition party would not have fielded a presidential candidate of their own; and would have abdicated their role as the main opposition party on the eve of a parliamentary election. A parliamentary election coming soon after a defeat at a presidential poll will be bad enough. But a parliamentary election coming after a presidential election where the UNP did not even run could be infinitely worse. Besides, if it is the JVP that is the most visible factor in a presidential election campaign that just precedes the parliamentary election, it may well be that the JVP will reap the protest vote against the Rajapaksa government at a parliamentary election. The reason why some in the UNP may be having second thoughts about a common candidate could well be the implications of abdicating their role as the main opposition party for a dubious project which may well end up exploding in their faces.

Of course in this matter the UNP is literally between the devil and the deep blue sea. Having contributed to the hype about fielding General Sarath Fonseka to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa, if the UNP now fields their own candidate with Fonseka as a third candidate backed only by the JVP, that could prove fatal to the UNP as well. A couple of weeks back, at the Galle UNP district committee meeting, Krishantha Pushpakumara, (Rattarang) the candidate who came first on the UNP list at the recently concluded SPC elections, had said that the UNP may well end up coming third in a three cornered presidential contest. The UNP came third in the Maharagama electorate at the 2004 parliamentary elections and there definitely is the distinct danger that the UNP may well fall to third place in many more electorates this time in a three cornered presidential contest. If such an election is followed within a matter of days by a parliamentary poll, the result for the UNP will be catastrophic.

The moral of all this is that in politics one should never do things for the purpose of deriving ‘kaalakanni joy’. The UNP may have derived some such short lived joy by positing General Sarath Fonseka as the common candidate of the joint opposition. But then this idea of a common opposition candidate which has captured the imagination of all forces opposed to the Rajapaksas may now have the UNP in a bind - unable to either endorse a common candidate or field a candidate of their own for fear of how the electorate will react to such an act of betrayal. If I were UNP, I would at this stage be literally chewing my own rear end in anguish.

In the meantime, several sideshows were playing themselves out within the UNP. All this talk of a common candidate and fielding General Fonseka against Mahinda Rajapaksa was meant to sow consternation within the government ranks; but it appears that what it has succeeded in doing has been to sow consternation within UNP ranks. Some UNPers are openly apprehensive about abdicating the UNP’s role at a presidential election, because that would have serious consequences for the party at the parliamentary election that follows. There is also the fear expressed by some that in the event that both the UNP and the JVP fields the same candidate, it will be the JVP that will play a leading role in the election campaign thereby ‘diminishing’ the role of the UNP. Those who have such fears don’t believe the JVP will be able to attract any voters away from the UNP. Rather, what they fear is that the UNP’s image will be weakened to the advantage of the government.

Some UNP front liners reckon that up to 85% of the UNP working committee would be in favour of Sarath Fonseka’ candidacy if he was to contest as the UNP’s candidate running under the green banner and the elephant symbol. In such circumstances, they wouldnmind the JVP coming in to paste their green posters for them and to hoist their green flags and to generally draw water and hew wood for the UNP-led alliance. But whether such an ideal situation will ever come about is doubtful because the JVP keeps emphasizing the ‘commonness’ of the potential common candidate.

S.B.Dissanayake appears to be one who is openly against fielding Fonseka as the UNP’s common candidate. One reason for SB’s opposition to Fonseka is that he was eying the position of UNP presidential candidate himself. Another reason is that he can’t allow himself to be out-maneuvered twice. This happened the first time in the formation of the UNP-led 11 party alliance. He was denied any role in that alliance even though he would have made the ideal general secretary for the new UNP-led alliance. SB is the only person in the UNP who can appeal to the minority voters to the same extent as Ranil Wickremesinghe. In fact, it could be argued that he may be able to attract even more votes from the minorities than Wickremesinghe because RW is now discredited and even minority voters want to back a candidate who can win. SB is a candidate who can appeal to the minority voters without alienating the Sinhala vote and this is something the more discerning minority voter will want.

A candidate who is minority-friendly, but alienates the Sinhala voter with every speech he makes is of no practical use to the minority voter. V.Digambaram, the UNP’s rising star among the up-country Tamils, held his annual party congress recently, and his choice of chief guest was S.B.Dissanayake. In this respect, SB could have played a major role in the UNF but he has been kept out completely; so much so that he was not even invited to the UNF vehicle parade to Kandy and SB, the opposition leader of the Central Provincial Council, was nowhere to be seen. There were consequences emanating fromthis exclusion of SBD. The Asgiriya Mahanayake absented himself when the UNF delegation came to see him and they were met by one of the Anunayake’s of the chapter. The Malwatte Mahanayake did meet them, but a good deal of what the prelate said were barely disguised hints to the effect that the UNP-led alliance was on the wrong track.

SB is reportedly being wooed by the government because he’s Kandyan and will make a good partner for the president who is a southerner. Besides, he has obtained more than 180,000 votes in the Kandy district and demonstrated his popularity among the Kandyan voters. With his natural affinity for the minority voter as well as his influence among the Kandyan Buddhist clergy and his popularity among Kandyan voters, SB will no doubt make the prefect Central Province leader for the UPFA if he decides to join.

The reason why SBD stayed back in the UNP when the group led by Karu Jayasuriya defected was because he was an aspirant to the leadership of the UNP. If however General Fonseka becomes the UNP’s common candidate and Wickremesinghe is able to avoid another defeat and remain the party leader until 2017, SB may well decide to defect. The rumour is that Vimukthi Kumaratunga may contest Attanagalle from the UNF at the forthcoming parliamentary election. In this event CBK will also be involved in the UNF campaign. If Chandrika joins the UNF bandwagon, SBD’s defection will become a certainty.

One thing that could be discerned over the recent past was the shift of decision making power from the UNP proper to its allies. This was started by Wickremesinghe who was more comfortable with outsiders than with those within the party mainly because those who were inside wanted him out. But those outside generally wanted him to remain where he was. The outsiders seemed to accept his leadership while the insiders did so only under protest. Today however this has gone so far that the UNP decision making bodies have become mere spectators in a drama that inevitably involves them as well. Johnston Fernando’s question last week as to whether Wickremesinghe has agreed to field a common candidate is symptomatic of this trend. The decision makers now have to inquire whether a decision has been made.