There is a rule of thumb with regard to law-making that is probably written in more elaborate terms with appropriate caveats in political science text books: when assessing a draft law imagine the beneficiary parties or individuals being entities you abhor politically or ideologically.Typically, proposed legislation is coated in flowery terms with the inevitable riders, ‘for the greater public good’ and ‘in the country’s best interest.’ Indeed whenever such riders are articulated it is prudent to think, ‘self-interest.’
Generally, though, both lawmakers and their followers studiously consider the ‘boot on the other foot.’ Indeed, justification is even offered for self interest. After all, one is a lawmaker or supports lawmakers because one is convinced of integrity or, at least, that the alternative would be worse. All kinds of justifications are possible. On another note, lawmakers, especially if insured by the strength of numbers, oblivious to possible changes in the mood of the voter or dismiss such mood shifts because elections are far away, seldom have the compulsion or space to consider the aforementioned rule of thumb.
Boomerang. Come home to roost. Reap what you sow. What goes around comes around. Reap the whirlwind. Just deserts. Face the music. Blow up in your face. Come back to bite. Come back to haunt. Backfire. We’ve heard these. Lawmakers have too — either these or equivalents.
There are no one-on-one equivalents of the story Pied Piper (of Hamlin), but the principle is known. An instrument that delivers a desired outcome can also be used to obtain a result that is distasteful or worse.
In general, those who make rules willy nilly, focused more on the needs of the moment, the self-interest of the now, say, and suspend consideration of repercussions, are essentially venturing into dangerous ground.
The history of amendments to the Second Republican Constitution (of 1978) tell a story that’s worth taking note of. The 6th, one could argue, was in the larger national interest of territorial integrity, but the counter argument is that it was essentially anti-minority. The 13th was under duress, this we know. It was illegal to boot. The flurry of amendments just before the United National Party lost its two-thirds majority were clearly aimed to protect party interests. The assumption was that no one could get a two-thirds thereafter. Proved wrong of course, partly courtesy a decision by Sarath N Silva to permit crosses over if offered ministerial portfolios, which of course resulted in bloated cabinets. Regime-disgust delivered the two-thirds majority to ‘the alternative’ on several occasions, as did regime-approval on account of defeating terrorism (in 2010).
The 17th, though flawed, was not parochial. The 18th certainly was. The 19th was toilet wash in content and process. The 20th sought to reverse the 19th in part but there were self-interest elements in it. The 21st, passed in the aftermath of the ‘aragalaya’ was decent enough.. The 22nd was controversial and one cannot rule out party interest.
It’s the same with Acts of Parliament. Majorities are routinely used to buttress political expediency, ‘in the name of the people’ of course. That’s what gives us legislative lows.
The legislative branch of power has not been unblemished. Sure, perfection is but a target, but action has prompted the uttering of the term ‘draconian’ too often to be brushed aside. Lows. The lie is typically and as mentioned above glossed over by rhetoric. It’s always ‘the larger interest’ either of the nation or the people. The people are not consulted and consultation is not a requirement. Representation gives authority, that’s the argument. Legitimate of course. On the other hand, there’s a word called responsible and another called irresponsible. Great power or perceptions of invincibility tends to push lawmakers towards the latter. So we have the lie. And that’s the lay of the land. Ours included.
By way of reiteration and mild elaboration, let me offer the following extract from an essay written in 2022 titled ‘Constitutional Reform: the wages of haste, sloth and expediency.
‘There are certain rules of thumb with regard to constitutional reform. First, such exercises should never be predicated on political expediency. In other words, one’s allegiance or otherwise to the immediate beneficiary, beneficiaries or political party/coalition should not be a factor in offering support or objecting, respectively. Secondly, one’s allegiance or otherwise to any person, political party or community losing out from proposed amendments should not be a factor either. Thirdly, it has to be understood that constitutional reform in the form of amendment or total overhaul is a very serious matter that can cast dark and foreboding shadows well into the future; as such such exercises should never be done in a hurry and should always consider possible outcomes well into the future.’
Lies. Damned lies. Statistics.



















