The 19th Amendment, which seeks to ‘reform’ the
executive presidency, has now been tabled in Parliament. It has the approval of the entire cabinet
sans the sole representative of the Jathika Hela Urumaya. One would assume that it has the blessings of
President Sirisena.
The text, as it stands, contains contradictions with regard
to who the real ‘Head of State’ would be (once enacted) but is full of
irregularities in terms of that which should and should not be included in a
document of this importance.
Constitutions, after all, are not about ‘tiding over current
difficulties’ but are (hopefully) lasting.
A robust constitution would not require frequent amendment, subject to
the caveat that since nothing is perfect there are mechanisms scripted in to
facilitate amendment if and when flaw is recognized. The 1978 Constitution was poor on both
counts. The draft 19th
Amendment follows a pattern of partisan moves which amount to tinkering of the
lowest order.
It is important to observe that of the 18 amendments to the
constitution, 17 of them (barring the 17th) were in essence
documents deliberately designed to serve the interests of the particular
government in power. The 19th
is not an exception. It is designed to
serve the interests of a man and a party, namely Ranil Wickremesinghe and the
United National Party. Both entities,
man and organization, were trumped repeatedly at elections. Today, the UNP rules courtesy the generosity
of the man they helped make President.
While President Sirisena may not have won without the UNP’s support, it
is also true that a UNP didn’t have the confidence to field its own
candidate.
Whether or not the architects and the would-be beneficiaries
will have the numbers to see the 19th through is yet to be
seen. At this point, all that matters
(in the name of democracy, good governance, ethics and all those lovely things
that decorated the Sirisena campaign) is to assess whether or not the 19th
is a true reflection of the President’s manifesto.
President Maithripala Sirisena’s election manifesto, among
other things, refers to changes he pledged to make to the constitution, in
particular the executive arm of the state.
‘The new Constitutional structure would be essentially an Executive
allied with the Parliament through the Cabinet instead of the present
autocratic Executive Presidential System,’ he promised.
The key word here is ‘allied’. Now had ‘allied with’ been replaced by
‘subservient to’ then in terms of being true to election promise this document
and its architects would acquire the credibility currently absent.
As it stands, a future president would be a figurehead or
worse a puppet of a Prime Minister who holds executive powers. The 19th is therefore a clear violation
of mandate or (if you want to be generous) a neat sleight of hand that’s a
hoo-hoo with tongue out at the voter.
In the rush to keep good the manifesto-pledge of not
touching ‘any Constitutional Article that could be changed only with the
approval at a Referendum’ the authors of the 19th have forgotten one
important fact of this business of turning an elected president into a puppet
whose moves are dictated by the fingertips of the Prime Minister. No one in his or her right mind would want to
spend money and expend energy to become a puppet.
No one would want to become a puppet. Furthermore it would amount to a monumental
insult to the voter to ask him or her to vote for a puppet. It is as simple as that.
0 comments:
Post a Comment