The constitutional document is of course referred to but
mostly to acquire the ‘objective’ tag or as make-up to disguise political
preference. In the main it has been
about likes and dislikes. Virtues of
democracy and the need to have it affirmed in word and spirit are trotted
out. It’s part of the political game to
appear neutral but political preferences are hard to hide in this day and age.
A good rule of thumb when assessing the democratic worth of
constitutions and articles therein is to imagine a beneficiary whose ability and
integrity one questions, someone whose ideological bent and politics one
abhors. This is the device I suggested
that MPs voting on the 18th Amendment should use.
If we assume for argument’s sake that democracy is the best
system of governance, the 1978 Constitution is a body blow to the idea. If one wants Sri Lanka to be a better
democracy, then a complete overhauling of the constitution is called for. Easier said than done of course for it
requires a two-thirds majority which is what is enjoyed by the current set of
beneficiaries. It would be myopic to
expect them to vote against their interest. On the other hand those who aspire
to obtain the same sweeping executive powers would hardly be interested in
voting to prune these very same powers they hope to someday enjoy. This is perhaps why the focus is on person
and not post and why the rhetoric seems hollow.
In this context it is natural to think that knocking off the
slightest shard off the executive armor is a necessary step in a
‘democratizing’ process. The error is
that what incumbent loses does not materialize as a corresponding loss in
constitutional provision. J.R.
Jayewardene was declared a tyrant. Few were
sorry to see him go at the end of his two terms. When he was replaced, Premadasa inherited the
powers as did Wijetunga, Kumaratunga and Rajapaksa after him. The losses that accrued to the individual on
account of error, ignorance and arrogance, they took to grave and retirement.
Successors started afresh.
Attacking the President is easy. Taking issue with position is also easy. Arguing that the incumbent being ousted is
‘first step’ is hogwash. Belief that a
presidential back-off would amount to dent in constitutional provision is
patently naïve.
Today there’s a stand-off of sorts, some would like us to
think: Supreme Court vs. Parliament, Judiciary vs. Legislative. Two process: Impeachment against the Chief
Justice and Court Ruling against Parliamentary Select Committee. Some have called for a change of laws
pertaining to impeaching judges of the higher courts. Some have called for prorogation of
Parliament ‘to cool things a bit’. The
‘callers’ claim it is all about the independence of the judiciary. Some add
that it is a democratizing move. The
objection raised by some ministers to moves against the Chief Justice (at least
in terms of the impeachment process) have been cheered by the above ‘callers’,
notwithstanding the fact that some of these ministers are not exactly ‘people’s
representatives’ in that they are in Parliament courtesy the President’s
largesse. Bold of them, yes, but the
fact that they don’t have a constituency to speak of should not be
forgotten.
More telling is the identity of the callers. They are not political neutrals. They are regime-haters and as such their
democratizing credentials are suspect.
Whipping up notions of ‘confusion’ and ‘tension’ even as they call for
an executive/legislative ‘back-off’ alone shows much humbuggery.
It is not a matter of picking between Mahinda Rajapaksa and
Mr/Ms Perfect President. The choice is
not between Rajapaksa and A Better Order in the Foreseeable Future. The choice is not between Executive
Presidency and Westminster System (with or without some adjustment). For such
choices, there have to be objective conditions such as severe economic, social,
political discontent across the board. There
are people who are not exactly cheering this regime, but neither are they
inclined to cheer anarchy. The courts
are not people-friendly, in fact that are places where the masses feel utterly
displaced and disoriented. Lawyers are
seen as evil necessities by those who for whatever reason are forced to be in
court. Shirani Bandaranayake is not a
Sarath Fonseka in this sense. Those
who try to market her as the figurehead of moves at changing regime and
democratizing probably assume she’s naïve, which is of course a possibility
that cannot be ruled out. Worse, they
assume that their political records are unknown. It’s a straw-clutching exercise of the
politically dispossessed and displaced privileged class that we have seen
before, with Sarath Fonseka and before him Sarath N Silva. No surprises therefore.
Only those whose lives and lifestyles are insured can wave
hand at anarchy. Such situations are
made for blood-letting, but the blood that could flow will not be theirs, but
that of ordinary people. If it is a
matter of a Constitutional Dictatorship versus Anarchy where a result in the
favor of the latter (unlikely as things stand) spawns yet another
Constitutional Dictator, the intelligent and responsible choice would be the
former.
[Published in 'The Nation,' January 6, 2013]
0 comments:
Post a Comment