 |
| Intra-party poster wars are but one set of many problematic issues of the PR system which the 20th Amendment seeks to rectify |
The passage of the 19th Amendment was not
easy. It was not expected to be easy
either; politicians after all think about the next election and not the next
generation. They are all made of
promises; delivery is not their strong point.
There was a process.
First the party leaders agreed. Then
the document which was agreed upon was altered to suit the UNP. There was objection. The Supreme Court was petitioned. The Supreme Court determined that certain
parts of the amendment would require approval through a referendum. There were further adjustments. Further objections. Finally, a document was passed. The President’s powers were clipped in that
whoever holds that office would not have the luxury of immunity. Other checks and balances were scripted
in.
The document got a BIG ‘F’ in the matter of the
Constitutional Council. The issue of
composition was fought over. The
legislators did not cover themselves in glory.
Even a cursory perusal of the constitutions of other countries with such
bodies would show this. A glorified
Parliamentary Select Committee does not excite anyone and stops way short of
the ‘independence’ and ‘stature’ one expects from such a body. It is an improvement on the provisions in the
18th Amendment, but still weak.
Flawed though it is, the 19th was passed. Now it’s time for the 20th
Amendment, i.e. the one pertaining to electoral reform pledged in Maithripala
Sirisena’s manifesto and the ‘100 Days Programme’ that was tagged to it.
When the issue of electoral reform was raised in the early
weeks of the Maithripala Sirisena presidency, some said that it was impossible
to get it done within the ‘100 Days’.
Delimitation that would be necessary would take at least a month and a
half. ‘The 19th first,’ some
argued. But now that the 19th
is done and the ‘100 Days’ are over, focus is on seeing the 20th
Amendment through.
There are advantages.
Since the ‘100 Days’ are done, apart from the inevitable snickering from
the Opposition, there’s very little ‘time pressure’. The electorate, by and large, know what is
possible and what is not, clearly. The
people, it seems, are not impatient. After
all they’ve waited for 37 years already so what’s a few months more,
right?
The issue right now is not about the 20th but about
whether to have the next election on the basis of the ‘new rules’ or to use the
‘manaapa kramaya’ (PR System) one more time.
First of all, if the current system is flawed, and if flaw is
recognized and addressed, what logic dictates the use of the flawed system to
elect representatives when such representation would necessarily draw from
those very same flaws?
Is the might hurry to dissolve parliament a deliberate plan
to scuttle the 20th or to ensure that new rules will not come into
force in the next election (since delimitation, for example, cannot be concluded
in time)? The advantage is obvious. Our worthies in parliament have a better
chance of getting re-elected if they contest under the PR System. It is obviously against their self-interest
to change the system. If they have no
option but to vote for the Amendment due to ‘pressure from above’ (as they
probably did for the 19th) then the consolation prize they would
like to take home is ‘postponement’, i.e. have the amendment come into for the
election after the next one.
President Sirisena promised to do a lot in 100 days. Few are blaming him for the delay. The ‘better late than never’ principle still
has some currency with respect to the reforms he pledged to institute. He promised to bring about electoral reform
and promised to hold the next General Election according to the new rules.
He better deliver on this.
0 comments:
Post a Comment