Karu’s Fight to Defend Parliamentary Democracy During the Dark Days of 2018

How Parliamentary Democracy Was Preserved Amid Chili Powder Attacks and Violent Chaos

The Speaker Who Remained Unshaken as Parliament Turned Into a Battlefield

Rising as the Last Defender of Democracy

(By Sujith Mangala de Silva)

The parliamentary clashes that erupted in November 2018 occupy a special place among the darkest moments in the history of the Sri Lankan Parliament. The confrontation was not merely an ordinary political dispute; it was a constitutional crisis during which parliamentary traditions and democratic institutions were put to the test. At the center of this crisis stood the then Speaker, Deshabandu Karu Jayasuriya.

Background

The constitutional crisis began on October 26, 2018, when President Maithripala Sirisena dismissed Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and appointed Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister. The opposition and a majority of Members of Parliament argued that the appointment was unconstitutional. As a result, the responsibility of determining which side commanded the majority in Parliament fell upon the Speaker.

The Violent Situation Inside Parliament

On November 14, 15, and 16, 2018, Parliament witnessed some of the most unruly and violent scenes in its history. Attempts were made to seize the Speaker’s chair. The Speaker and parliamentary officials who protected him were attacked with chairs, books, bottles, and various other objects.

One of the most notable incidents was the attack involving water mixed with chili powder directed at police officers and Members of Parliament. During the chaos, some MPs also engaged in physical altercations. Amid this violent environment, there were occasions when Speaker Karu Jayasuriya was unable even to reach his official seat.

At the time, Jayasuriya was nearly 78 years old. He entered the parliamentary chamber surrounded by a protective ring of police officers. Since he was prevented from reaching the official Speaker’s chair, he was compelled to preside over proceedings from a temporary location under police protection.

Karu Jayasuriya’s Role

When analyzing the violent events that unfolded in Parliament during that period, the parliamentary and institutional role played by then Speaker Karu Jayasuriya can be examined through several key dimensions.

1. Prioritizing Institutional Duty Over Personal Safety

In such a hostile environment, suspending proceedings and retreating to a safer location would have been the easier option. However, Jayasuriya sought to ensure that Parliament continued to function. Despite attacks involving chili powder, chairs, tables, books, and water bottles, he did not abandon his responsibility to preside over the House.

2. Protecting the Independence of the Speaker’s Office

The office of the Speaker in Sri Lanka is intended to be a non-partisan institutional position. The Speaker’s responsibility is to safeguard parliamentary rules and procedures. Political analysts have pointed out that during this period, Jayasuriya’s decisions were guided not by the interests of any political party, but by the principle that Parliament should function in accordance with the will of its majority.

3. Ensuring the Continuity of the Democratic Process

The central issue of the crisis was determining which side commanded a parliamentary majority. Jayasuriya’s position was that this question had to be decided within Parliament itself. Consequently, he made continuous efforts to convene Parliament, facilitate debates on no-confidence motions, and conduct votes.

4. Refusing to Respond to Violence With Violence

An examination of his statements and conduct during the crisis indicates that he consistently attempted to maintain order. At no point did he encourage retaliation against the opposing side. Instead, he focused on restoring parliamentary rules, procedures, and institutional order.

How History May Judge Him

Opinions regarding Karu Jayasuriya’s conduct vary depending on political affiliations. His critics argue that some of his decisions reflected political bias. However, his supporters and many political analysts maintain that his primary objective was to protect the independence of Parliament and uphold constitutional processes. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the dissolution of Parliament was unconstitutional, leading to the restoration of normal parliamentary procedures.

Overall Assessment

Viewed through a historical lens, Karu Jayasuriya’s significance during the 2018 parliamentary crisis lies in his refusal to abandon the parliamentary process despite intense pressure and physical threats. Even amid chili powder attacks, physical confrontations, and unprecedented disorder, he sought to preserve the authority of the Speaker’s office and the traditions of Parliament. For this reason, many observers regard Karu Jayasuriya not merely as an individual political figure during the crisis, but as a symbol of the parliamentary institution itself. It is also possible that the discipline and training he acquired during his earlier career as a senior military officer contributed to the courage and composure he displayed throughout those turbulent days.