There
were voices. Loud voices. The end of democracy is at hand, we heard
them say. Sovereignty is at stake, they said. All about the 20th
Amendment. So they petitioned the Supreme Court in their hordes. And the
Supreme Court heard what they had to say, listened to the observations
of the intervening petitioners as well as the Attorney-General,
including amendments to the Bill that are expected to be made at the
Committee Stage. The Supreme Court determined.
The Supreme Court
essentially said that the proposed amendment by and large complies with
the provisions of Article 82(2) of the Constitution and can be passed
by a special majority, except for Clauses 3, 5, 14 and 22 which would
require in addition a referendum unless proposed committee stage
amendments are incorporated.
The clauses refer to the duties of
the president (Clause 3), immunity of the president (Clause 5),
dissolution of parliament (Clause 14) and guidelines of the Elections
Commission (Clause 22). The last requires approval by the people through
a referendum, it was determined. Court agreed that dissolution of
parliament by the president two and a half years after a General
Election, as mentioned in amendments to be interjected at the committee
stage would address concerns regarding sovereignty. Court agreed that
inconsistency regarding the duties of the president would cease with the
proposed committee stage amendment. Court recommended an amendment to
Clause 5 that would allow for the people to invoke jurisdiction of the
SC under Article 126, where there’s alleged violation or alleged
imminent violation of a Fundamental Right due to an act of the
President.
So what do we have here? A government mulls amendment
and drafts a bill. Objections are raised. Perhaps taking into
consideration the objections and/or anticipating court ruling on the
same, the government comes up with amendments to be introduced at the
committee stage. Court, except in the case of one clause (22) gives a
green light, subject to the incorporation of amendments pledged through
submissions.
So what’s all the noise about? Some people were
horrified about the powers of the president. Mark that ‘A.’ There were
livid about dual citizenship. Mark that ‘B.’ They were livid about a
parliamentary council replacing the Constitutional Council (of the 19th
Amendment). Mark that ‘C.’
Let’s talk A, B, C now.
Here’s
the story of ‘A’. The 19th, from A-Z, was about Ranil Wickremesinghe.
It all began with the unprecedented and unceremonious dumping of a
sitting Prime Minister. D.M. Jayaratne was not informed of his imminent
sacking. Maithripala Sirisena, immediately after being sworn in as
President, signed a ready-to-sign document sacking him. He then went on
to swear in Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister.
That was not
enough. The man, whose party was a minority in Parliament, needed
power. That was what the 19th was supposed to do. It all resulted in a
mess about who has what powers and directly and indirectly contributed
to the Easter Sunday tragedy, among other things. So, the 19th was about
splitting power between president and premier. Political expediency.
The
dual citizenship issue was pushed through by the same need. Obviously,
the yahapalanists were looking ahead to a possible presidential battle
between Wickremesinghe and one of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s brothers (Gotabaya
or Basil) since the former president was ruled out (they though) from
contesting. The Rajapaksa-bheethiya prompted the clause regarding dual
citizenship. Nothing else. The yahapalana hordes worked overtime and
probably lost a lot of sleep regarding the matter. They did their
damnedest to shoot down Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s candidacy and were trumped
at every turn.
Now it is never a good thing to make laws for
political convenience. The UNP has a long history in all this, from J.R.
Jayewardene’s time. It was almost like a cardinal party principle, in
fact. Amendments 1-16 were basically about obtaining an edge for the
party, save the 6th (prompted by the rise of the LTTE) and the 13th
(thrust down Sri Lanka’s throat by India at gunpoint). In fact several
were passed by the Premadasa government in the face of imminent loss of
the ‘special parliamentary majority.’
Now, if the clause that
seeks to remove the block on dual citizens was about facilitating the
political ambitions of an individual, it is bad. The word in certain
circles is that it is an interjection to help Basil Rajapaksa. Basil has
stated he’s not interested, for the record. Sentiment notwithstanding,
the shoving of a dual citizen to a lesser status seems fundamentally
wrong (and the Supreme Court determination affirms this view). If
allegiance is the issue, then we must point out that we’ve had proud Sri
Lankan citizens who have acted as minions of foreign powers (the
yahapalana government was chock full of such people). In short
citizenship is no safeguard against treachery.
That’s ‘B.’ Now
to ‘C,’ and the most beloved Constitutional Council (along with the
vilification of the proposed Parliamentary Council). It boils down to
two thing: composition and accountability. The regime retained sway in
the CC and will have it in a PC too. The idea that civil society reps
somehow make it ‘independent’ is balderdash. The reps appointed were
without exception yahapalana loyalists. Furthermore, they are not
accountable to anyone. ‘Civil society’ is a label they wear for
convenience. They typically represent a particular class of people with
more or less similar political loyalties. In a PC, every member would
have to face the voting public, sooner or later. They can shrug off
accountability at their own risk.
That’s the A, B and C. There’s a D in this story or rather a ‘P’: process.
The
draft 19th Amendment was essentially ripped to pieces by the Supreme
Court following several petitions. The draft 20th was supported by
further amendments pledged by the Attorney General. The SC has given the
go ahead except for specific objections. The government has pledged to
abide strictly by the directions given by the SC.
How did the
yahapalanists respond to the SC determination? Well, at the Committee
Stage they brought in massive amendments, absolutely in contravention of
established parliamentary traditions, leaving absolutely no opportunity
for the citizens to read, digest and if necessary object. And those who
maintained a deafening silence during that period now whine about the
clause on urgent bills!
Those who brought in the 19th were
unceremoniously rejected by the people on three different occasions
(February 2018 at the local government elections, November 2019 at the
presidential election and August 2020 at the parliamentary elections).
That’s civil society (real — as opposed to civil society [fake]) having a
say.
The 20th is not a done deal. Politicians, regardless of
party name and color are by and large cut off the same cloth. The
initial assurances offered by government spokespersons are encouraging,
but it would be folly to blindly trust politicians based on what’s said.
Let’s await the ‘doing.’
However, as things stand, the 19th was
a piece of garbage and it was brought in, pushed and defended by
political stooges. The entire process stank. The 20th is not exactly an
amazing piece of work, but as a garbage-disposal corrective, it has its
merits. There’s going-overboard which the SC has noted and commented on.
Established procedure has been followed so far. And that has
essentially undressed the whiners, almost exclusively Kolombots such as
Born Again Democrats, Candlelight Ladies, Funded-Voices and
Rent-a-Signature Petitioners.
[This article was first published in the DAILY MIRROR, October 15, 2020]
malindasenevi@gmail.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment