The 19th Amendment: get over it already!

 

There are all kinds of yahapalanists. There are those who cannot be in denial simply because they were right in the middle of the yahapalana project or rather a project by that name (for good governance was certainly not their cup of tea as history showed and practice demonstrated). Then there are those who opted for a change of clothes. Name change, symbol change, address change etc., didn’t make them unrecognizable. SJB and UNP, telephone and elephant, it’s the same. All yahapalanists. The praise and blame accrue to one and all. Well, add to this the Yahapalana Fan Club made of sideline politicians who are double-headed and double-addressed, i.e. rights advocates and professionals.

Now these worthies are big fans of the 19th Amendment. It was great, they say. And they add, ‘the 20th is draconian and dictatorial; it rolled back the gains of the 19th and is even worse than what JR initially instituted in 1978.’  

Where’s the substantiation, though? Let’s take a look.

Let’s start with the brag. The brag of course had to do with the 18th. It also had to do with a peculiar political context where the champion and the intended beneficiary (Ranil Wickremesinghe) led a party that had minority representation in Parliament whereas the man whose powers were to be clipped, Maithripala Sirisena had just assumed office with a majority of the national vote.

The 18th would be effectively repealed, they bragged. It was. The 19th would embody the Yahapalana promise(s). We would have accountability and transparency. Democracy would be enhanced. Good governance assured. Cabinet would be limited to 30 ministers. That was part of the brag. Seniority and meritocracy will mark appointments and promotions, they told us. We know how that fell by the wayside! The independence of the judiciary would be restored, they promised. Well, they made a mockery of the last by turning the Supreme Court into a political circus almost immediately after Sirisena was sworn in as President.

Let’s get to the process which includes the passage of the amendment. It was drafted. Nothing wrong with that. The Supreme Court was petitioned. Nothing wrong with that. The Supreme Court offered a determination. Essentially, important elements of the draft were shot down. Now what did the Yahapalanists do?  Did they follow yahapalana practice to the letter?

Well, the objections were of an order that amending the document in ways that took these into consideration would have violated established parliamentary procedure. Typically, at the committee stage, only minor corrections are made. In other words, yahapalana theory would have required the yahapalanists to withdraw the amendment, get back to the drawing board and come up with a fresh draft.

They didn’t do that. They produced an amendment that was very different to what was tabled. That’s giving a finger to established procedure. Not very yahapalana-like, was it? It only demonstrated (and rather early in the tenure of that regime) that ‘yahapalanaya’ was a lie. A hoax.  It was voted on in the dead of the night by clearly irresponsible and perhaps tired and sleepy MPs. Sarath Weerasekera voted against it. Only he. Kudos to him.

The substance. As mentioned it was about giving power to a man who, at that point, did not have the trust and confidence of the people. One must mention that Wickremesinghe’s swearing-in was also a travesty of established procedure. The incumbent was sacked by way of the newly sworn in President signing a letter. Immediately, i.e. before the letter was delivered, President Sirisena appointed Ranil Wickremesinghe

So it was done. It was done in such a way that no one knew who really called the shots. Ball-passing between the Prime Minister and the President became a common occurrence. Finger-pointing was frequent. It was the easy out for a bunch of people lacking imagination, suffering innovation-lack and who were absolutely incompetent. Things were so confusing that it took the  Supreme Court to say what was what and that too only with respect to dissolution-power. This was when Sirisena joined forces with Mahinda Rajapaksa in late 2018.

Cabinet-size. This was a joke. On paper, we got the number 30. It was cheered. It was bragged about. On paper also was this neat device called ‘National Government’ which the amendment-drafters left undefined. ‘In a “National Government, cabinet size would be determined by Parliament. The matter finally hit the ‘constitutional experts’ in the yahapalana camp only when it could no longer be hidden. When Sirisena took the SLFP out of the coalition, Jayampathy Wickramaratne, the big boss behind the drafting, unashamedly said that since the SLMC (Sri Lanka Muslim Congress) was with the UNP, it remains a ‘national government.’ In other words, in his mind, a bloated cabinet was still constitutional! The yahapalana braggarts maintained a dead silence on the matter.

Much was made of the Constitutional Council (CC) which, the braggarts claimed, corrected the clauses of the 18th that crippled independent institutions. However, in reality, it was Ranil Wickremesinghe’s whims and fancies that held the day. The composition of the CC, naturally and understandably tilted in favor of the regime. It was politician-heavy, which of course wasn’t quite yahapanish. However even the non-politicians (non-political only because they weren’t in Parliament, let’s keep that in mind!) were partisan. Check the names of those ‘civil society’ people in the CC, the names of those appointed to various commissions and the appointments and promotions recommended by the commissions themselves. Friends and loyalists. That’s it. Why else would some of these ‘independents’ resign the moment Gotabaya Rajapaksa was elected President?

So now we have the 20th. Much of the confusion has been sorted out. Some of the better elements of the 19th have been retained. Are we ok now? Of course not. Cabinet size is still not cleared, although President Rajapaksa has kept it within the ceiling mentioned in the 19th. The CC just rubber-stamped Wickremesinghe’s wishes. President Rajapaksa has far more sway and that’s not necessarily a good thing.  Nevertheless, unlike the yahapalana braggarts, he has recommended that the six senior most judges be promoted to the Supreme Court. The yahapalana regime didn’t do that, not even with the so-called democracy-safeguards instituted to ensure independence of the judiciary. If it was Sirisena, Wickremesinghe or even Mahinda Rajapaksa, this might not have been the case. That itself shows the flaw. It should not be dependent on whether or not the incumbent values meritocracy.

Sri Lanka has a long way to go to resolve a simple issue: what’s best for us, a parliament-led system or an executive presidential system of governance? The proposed new constitution might sort this vexed issue out and hopefully in a way that effectively blocks the possibility of abuse.

That said, the 19th is nothing like its champions make it out to be. A piece of trash that did away with another piece of trash (the 18th). Stank. Get over it already.

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

The forgotten 13th bears upon the 19th and 20th

Draconian. A plan for self-aggrandizement. The death of democracy. In violation of established parliamentary procedure. These are some of the terms and lines being used by those opposed to the 20th Amendment.

What’s funny is that most of the objectors played deaf-dumb when the 19th Amendment was brought in and were cosy with the executive presidency for decades or else supported the party that had absolutely no objection to it. For decades.

Ideally there should be balance between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the state. The 1978 Constitution wrecked that balance. Ideally, then, any regime that has secured a two-thirds majority or is confident of getting the arithmetic right at voting time should go for a new constitution rather than fixing anomalies through amendments. This government is confident of the numbers obviously; otherwise it wouldn’t go for an amendment. Why then an amendment and not a new constitution is a question that the government needs to answer.

That said, if the discussion is about the merits and demerits of the 20th Amendment in terms of the fears/whines expressed by the politically compromised and/or regime-loyalists who throw in issues such as executive powers when in fact their objection is limited to the dual-citizenship issue, then we need to consider the 13th, 19th and 20th amendments together.

Why the 13th, one might ask. Well, of the 13th Amendment the following must be mentioned: illegally instituted, an example of abject cowardice on the part of the then regime and a necessary building block for the Eelam case. The one thing that stood in the way of the separatists was, ironically, the executive presidency. A weak obstacle, but nevertheless a spanner in the works.

The 19th, whether or not the architects and approvers appreciated the above, was in effect a blow that targeted this obstacle. We are referring to the pruning of executive powers here. Sure, it was an exercise to transfer power to the office of the prime minister. Personal/party agenda obviously blinded people to the dangers. That is, if indeed such issues were important to them. My hunch is they were clueless and didn’t care either.

However, the 19th, by diminishing the executive presidency, effectively laid the foundation for another push for separatism, perhaps in ‘happier’ overall conditions. Now a strong government where there’s no confusion regarding who is in charge, where there’s ‘the executive’ is not split between two political groups, there’s nothing to worry about, one can argue. One can also interject ‘what if we have a president who is in line with the separatist agenda and chooses not to exercise executive options?’ Yes, that’s a problem, but then again, it stands to reason that such an individual can only become president if the voters themselves are generally agreeable to a division of the country, a weakening of the state etc., etc., in their wisdom or ignorance, as the case may be.

As things stand, however, the focus should be on the role of the executive, the power vested in the office etc., in relation to the real dangers embedded in the 13th Amendment. This, in addition to correcting the hideous and obvious confusion caused by the 19th regarding the various residences of executive power, which, among other things, facilitated the Easter Sunday tragedy.

Of course, if one is for separatism this is not a problem, and indeed many of the objectives are fixated on devolution-beyond-the-13th (at least the NGO personalities making noises these days). It's not a position that the allegedly horror-stricken objectors in the Opposition articulate, however.

Is the President going to be vested with dictatorial power upon the possible passing of the 20th Amendment? That’s a question that must be addressed. The Supreme Court determination on the matter is clear. The Supreme Court has recommended an amendment to Clause 5 (which is about immunity for the president) 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. The Government is now forced to incorporate this suggestion or else go for a referendum on the matter.

[That is if this government doesn’t do a yahapalana number with the Supreme Court determination; the yahapalanists, contravening all established procedure, made sweeping changes to the draft 19th Amendment. It was virtually a different document. Here’s an aside within the aside: those who talk of procedural impropriety today were dead silent back then.]

So, in other words, if the correction is made, in conjunction with the retaining of term limits, the executive presidency would revert to the pre-2010 status or less. Note, that back then, i.e. before the 18th Amendment was mulled, few if any had drastic issues with the executive presidency. There was some noise, but certainly no shouting.  Sarath Fonseka, for example, didn't talk of abolishing or pruning the executive presidency and neither did his backers at the time.

Back to the 13th. The 13th Amendment is about provincial councils, at least in the operationalization of it. Provincial council elections haven’t been held in years. No one seems to mind, not even the diehard devolutionists, not even the democracy-or-death types who wake up whenever their political darlings are in trouble. So, one can ask, ‘what’s the issue then; if we don’t have the PCs, then this business of weak powers or no powers for the president is a non-issue, surely?’

Well, the problem is in the fact that illegally enacted though it is, the 13th is a part of the constitution. If it goes, we could even do away with the executive presidency and perhaps return to a pre-1978 Westminster system of government. It hasn’t gone away. It is there. Sleeping, for now, but can be roused; if roused in a context where there is an impotent or crippled executive presidency, it would be a beast.  

the drafting of a new constitution could sort out the matter, of course, but those in the opposition who are opposed to the 20th Amendment haven’t uttered a word about such an exercise. Ideally, as mentioned, the government would just move to shelve the 20th and go for a new constitution. There’s talk of a new constitution six month from now, but that’s just whisper as opposed to the shout that is the 20th Amendment. In the here and now, it’s about the 20th and if ‘executive’ is the bone of contention, then those who want a chew of it should take a few licks at the 13th. Unless of course they are doing nothing more than petty politicking (at which they have considerable experience, let us note). 

[This article was first published on October 22, 2020]

 malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

The 19th, 20th and sanctimonious humbuggery

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

Read more

20th Amendment without repeal of 13A: A recipe for disaster

‘Stand Alone’ is a term that was used a lot during the discussion on the power of the president to dissolve parliament. The issue was whether the clause preventing dissolution until Parliament completes four and a half years supersedes the surreptitiously inserted clause permitting dissolution. That insertion was pernicious as was the entire 19th Amendment, clearly introduced for partisan purposes by the chief architects, meaning representatives of the United National Party and the Tamil National Alliance (Jayampathy Wickramaratne and M.A. Sumanthiran respectively). That the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) voted for it should be noted and seen as an example of political puerility.  

Well, that’s been resolved by the Supreme Court. At the end of the day, much heartache  was caused to diehard UNPers thinly disguised as born-again democrats. They are cured now and the chances are that they will retire their democratic urges until the party’s political future is next threatened. 

There were positives. The notion of a ‘national government,’ in effect rather than in constitutional edict, was sorted out. The UNP plus the Sri Lanka Musilm Congress will not add up to ‘national government.’  So, although the ‘national government’ clause was inserted (against surreptitiously and against the grain of ‘good governance as well as rhetoric regarding cabinet size), the cabinet will be limited to 30. Secondly, the post of Leader of the Opposition went to the true Opposition instead of a staunch pro-government adjunct, the TNA, that is currently a tail wagging the dog as the adage goes.

There’s a third positive. It’s a positive that might jog the memories of retired leftists who’ve found lucrative positions in the NGO industry, have long since forgotten class struggle, have no qualms about being quiet on capitalism and would love people to believe that the UNP is the vanguard of the democratic revolution. Simply, Maithripala Sirisena is the first President of the country to actually speak up against neoliberalism.  

His word? Well! But that’s a different matter. It’s a small positive, that’s it.

The talk now is about the Executive Presidency. That’s where the ‘stand alone’ matter comes into play. People talk about the Executive Presidency as the Mother of All Anti-Democratic Evils. 

Make no mistake, there’s nothing angelic about the executive presidency. On the other hand, we need to remember that it is not the only evil around. And, as evil goes, it has its redeeming features, especially with respect to what I consider the most pernicious piece of legislation to follow J.R. Jayewardene’s constitutional tinkering exercise, i.e. the 13th Amendment.

The people of this country were conspicuously absent(ed) in that process. It was thrust down our throats to resolve a mis-defined ‘conflict’ and (partially, according to some, including the aggrieved) exaggerated grievances.  And today, ladies and gentlemen (especially those chest-beating ‘democrats’ who came out of the woodworks recently), no one seems to really care about Provincial Councils. Six PCs are effectively non-functional. The terms of three more will expire in a few months. Not even the TNA, a party that wants more than what the 13th gave by way of devolution, doesn’t appear to mind the current state of affairs. As for the people, they have not uttered one word of concern.  

That said, the 13th is still a part of the Constitution. This is where the 20th Amendment (which proposes to abolish the Executive Presidency) comes into play. The executive president is a key part of the 13th Amendment because it carries the safeguards against moves by provinces to break away.

Any move to abolish the executive presidency that does not at the same time address the impact of such an amendment to the operationalizing of the 13th is erroneous and irresponsible. Patali Champika Ranawaka’s party, the Jathika Hela Urumaya has consistently reminded lawmakers and others of this danger. What Ranawaka has to say now will indicate to what extent the party (and of course he himself) has dissolved its ideology for political profit.  

A related issue is the fact that it would be a travesty of justice if these 225 Members of Parliament touch this constitution. Sure, that’s part of the Job Description as per the constitution, but they’ve demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that they are absolutely incompetent. 

Only one member, Sarath Weerasekera, objected to the 19th Amendment, let us not forget, and that is as mentioned above a piece of garbage.

Moreover they had the opportunity to do away with the executive presidency (Note: Sirisena’s manifesto mentioned ‘change’ and not ‘abolish’). They didn’t. Events proved that the 19th, as far as pruning presidential powers, was eyewash. The checks introduced, namely the independent institutions, constituted a monumental joke considering the composition of the Constitutional Council (politician-heavy, federalist-heavy) and in terms of the appointments they oversaw (bypassing seniority in appointing judges for example).  

Today, after being stumped by the hero-turned-zero Sirisena, those who used him and turned a blind eye to his many faults, want to bulldoze his office. That’s what it boils down to. And that’s exactly the wrong reason to engage in constitutional reform. You don’t do things just because you like the immediate beneficiary or because it helps you checkmate with a political opponent. 

That’s the logic that has prevailed in the 40 years that passed after the Second Republican Constitution was instituted. Apart from the 17th, it was all about political expedience (leaving out the 13th because it was extracted from a weak UNP President who, like his successors didn’t have faith in the citizens of this country) and not about the larger interests of the nation. 

This parliament has outlived it’s usefulness on account of incompetence, subterfuge and downright disrespect for the people. They’ve prostituted the word ‘democracy’ enough. They are not to be trusted. Today, the movers and shakers in Parliament are essentially the Jathana Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the TNA, the former a shameless lackey of the UNP and the latter operating as though the UNP is its lackey.  Both parties have terrorist pasts: the JVP in 1971 and in 1988//89 and the TNA as the mouthpiece of the LTTE. They are batting here with the UNP, which while in power unleashed terror and ‘disappeared’ some 60,000 Thajudeens, Ekneligodas and Lasanthas.  The SLFP has it’s own violent history (1971). All these parties have shamed themselves to the point that they really don’t deserve the right to use the word ‘democracy’.  

Ideally, the people should have the opportunity to state their opinion of this lot in a General Election. This side of such an eventuality, it is appropriate to point out the danger of constitutional tinkering by this Parliament. The 20th, as proposed, is a mischievous and dangerous document which can only make sense if the 13th Amendment is repealed simultaneously.  

The UNP, fighting shy of holding even PC elections, ought to salivate at the prospect of not having to face the people before a General or Presidential Election, but this is not about the political tastes of a particular party. It is about sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is also about the blood and lost body parts of all those who fought against separatist terrorists. That memory must also be factored in.  

If true representational democracy, territorial integrity and sovereignty are babies, then you can make a case for calling the executive presidency ‘bathwater’ but let’s not forget that the baby will be at risk of all kinds of infections if you throw THAT bathwater out whilst keeping the toilet wash that is the 13th Amendment.

malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com 

Read more

Constitutional Reform Poisons: Personalities, Parties and Outcome-Preferences

The Yahapalanists have forgotten this version of the 20th Amendment 

In April 2015 just three months after he assumed leadership of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), President Maithripala Sirisena addressing a party rally at Viharamahadevi Park vowed that the he would get the 20th Amendment passed. 

He was referring to promised legislation that would completely overhaul the proportional representation system which, according to many, was responsible for election violence, high campaign costs made it next to impossible for those without bucks or patronage to contest and in the end made representation a farce.  

Never happened.  Amendments to the Local Government Act was also a farce with the promised ‘mixed system’ being effectively subverted by an equation which ensured that there would be 100% proportional representation.  Similar changes with respect to provincial council elections has been in the Parliament’s back burner since March, even though three provincial councils ended their terms last September and three more are to wind up this September.  

The results of the local government elections in February 2018 have complicated matters, politically.  Having been roundly defeated, the losers have expressed misgivings about the ‘new system’. Some have said that it’s best to go back to the old system.  That’s essentially saying that since the solution wasn’t robust enough let’s drop it altogether without looking to fix it.  

The 20th Amendment is back in the news. No, that the one that Sirisena engaged in chest-beating, but a move by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) to abolish the Executive Presidency.  

That was an election promise, some may remember. Back then Maithripala Sirisena said he would be a one-term president. He reiterated a commitment to abolishing the Executive Presidency at the funeral of Ven Madoluwawe Sobitha Thera, one of the leading figures in bringing Sirisena to power and an ardent advocate of the same.  

Later, Sirisena sought the opinion of the Supreme Court regarding his term, i.e. whether it would be for five or six years. Court said ‘five’ as per the 19th Amendment. Still later, the man who said he would retire after finishing his term said he won’t retire ‘because the work is not yet done.’  That’s presidential talk, folks.  

The United National Party (UNP) has not really talked of the 20th Amendment, not electoral reform nor the abolishing of the Executive Presidency.  Instead, party stalwarts have said that their leader, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe would be the UNP candidate at the next presidential election.  

The Joint Opposition has not called for the abolition of the Executive Presidency, but some have said that such a move would be supported if provision is made to amend the 19th Amendment to have Parliament dissolved immediately.

Let’s see what kind of scenario would unfold in the event the Executive Presidency is abolished without coincident electoral reform.  

Considering that an unchanged electoral system is unlikely to give any single political party an absolute parliamentary majority and therefore a coalition government is inevitable, considering that as per the 19th Amendment any coalition government would most likely call itself a ‘national government’ to satisfy the ministerial greed of coalition partners and that this would inevitably produce a jumbo cabinet, we would have political instability and an inflated executive branch (the cabinet).  

Remember that the 13th Amendment still stands, never mind it was thrust down a quiescent president by an arrogant and expansionist Indian Prime Minister who bragged ‘this is the beginning of the Bhutalization of Sri Lanka’.  In such a context, a Sri Lanka with an unstable government and lacking an Executive President will not make a pretty picture (not that the present state of affairs is all rosy of course!).  

One can make the argument that promises made should be kept. If they can’t do it all, we can argue, they should deliver on a few at least.  If not in 100 days, then we can say ‘better late than never’.  However it was a comprehensive package of reform that was promised and not a piecemeal effort that is informed less by correcting systemic flaws than by political expedience.

For example, consider the argument that Thisaranee Gunasekera has made for the abolition of the Executive Presidency in last the ‘Lankadeepa’.  It’s not about election promises. It’s not about re-democratizing Sri Lanka by making inroads into J.R. Jayewardene’s centralizing and draconian constitution of 1978. It is purely about preferred political outcomes or rather antipathy to possible political outcomes.

Thisaranee has concluded that the Yahapalana government is in dire straits. She’s hinted at the distinct possibility that there’s no way that any candidate from either the SLFP or the UNP (meaning Maithripala Sirisena, Ranil Wickremesinghe or any of the top names in either party) can hope to defeat Gotabhaya Rajapaksa at a presidential election. For this reason, i.e. given her fear of Gotabhaya and her antipathy to the current government, Thisaranee advocates the abolishing of the Executive Presidency.

Now Rajapaksa has not declared candidacy yet. However, going by the virulent attacks on the man by the Yahapalanists they are anticipating that he will contest. In fact they are unwittingly raising his profile. It’s as though the Yahapalanists have been contracted to do Gotabhaya’s image-building campaign.  

The obvious fear of facing even a provincial council election shows that the Yahapalanists are on the political backfoot, so to speak.  Having been brought to power to combat nepotism, corruption, outright theft, cronyism and abuse of state resources, the Yahapalanists have been doing what the previous regime did and about which they ranted, raved and frequently howled. There’s one difference though. They have proved that they are a can’t-do and won’t-do bunch. Incompetent, in a word.  No wonder that they fear elections. 

If Gotabhaya seems to be the probably adversary in a presidential election it makes sense that they fear him, not for his alleged tyrannical ways (not that this lot are lambs of course, considering political histories and associations, indulgence and complicity in all kinds of tyrannies), but for the threat he poses to their political futures.  What’s probably closer to the truth is that any candidate put forward by the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) has as decent a chance as Gotabhaya to best either Sirisena or Wickremesinghe.  If Provincial Council elections are held, the results will no doubt see the SLPP gain more ground while the UNP will decline and the SLFP slide even more.  In other words it will make a Sirisena candidacy a joke, result in the entire SLFP being absorbed by the SLPP and demoralize the UNP supporter to the point that he/she will be a highly reluctant activist come election time.  

All this is politics. Constitutional reform, however, should not be about the urgent anxieties or gung-ho of politicians. When we consider constitutional reform, we should not assess the worth in terms of our preferences or antipathy to immediate beneficiaries. Indeed, the better rule of thumb would be to imagine a situation where someone or some party that we have no truck with benefitting.  

For example, when Mahinda Rajapaksa sought to do away with term limits for the president through the 18th Amendment, the Rajapaksa loyalist should not have thought ‘well, it’s Mahinda who will benefit, so I am fine with it.’  Rather, he/she should have asked him/herself ‘what if it was Ranil or someone like Prabhakaran who was to be the immediate beneficiary?’  

It’s the same with the 20th Amendment that the JVP has tabled.  Thisaranee’s logic is for the politically sophomoric, those who are invested in party and personality, those who are thinking about their political fortunes. Constitutional reform is a far more serious business. 

Whether the Executive Presidency is to be kept or done away with has to be considered within the larger framework of the functions of a constitution; i.e. whether or not such a move makes sense when taking into account other elements of the constitution, the synergies that are either strengthened or wrecked, the fallout, the marginal benefits and the marginal costs and so on.  

Constitutional reform, the abolishing or pruning or keeping of the Executive Presidency included, should not be about the effect such changes as may be brought about on Ranil Wickremesinghe, Maithripala Sirisena, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa or anyone else or any political party or coalition. It has to make sense in terms of enhancing democracy, meaningful representation, governability, political stability, an institutional arrangement that guarantees transparency and accountability and an improvement of the wellbeing of the citizenry.  

The abolishing of the Executive Presidency has been talked of since 1978.  We have seen a lot of lip-servicing.  A lot of chest-beating.  There’s been very little by way of sober consideration of what could be called the basic functions of a constitution, which we’ve alluded to above.  

Fear-mongering only indicates that those who are calling for the abolishing of the Executive Presidency are irresponsible and utterly anti-intellectual.   

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com. Twitter: malindasene.  

  

Read more

No government in the country or no country in the government?

The Mahanayaka Theras of three Nikayas and other Sangha Sabhas, expressing their opinion on constitutional reform, have made it clear that they are opposed to moves "that could generate crises".  

While calling for immediate electoral reform, this Sangha Council headed by the Mahanayaka Theras that met in Kandy recently has urged that the ratification of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances (“Convention on Enforced Disappearances” henceforth) through a bill in Parliament be postponed in order to give parliamentarians more time to study the same.  They have also asked that a special committee be appointed to look into the grievances of Buddhists with regard to religion and culture in the context of ‘prevailing racial and religious unrest’, pointing out also that religious places of archaeological importance should be protected.  Finally, they’ve called for  speedy resolution to the ‘SAITM crisis’.  

Let’s focus on constitutional reform.  Constitutional reform is a serious matter and demands sober reflection on proposals followed by intelligent debate among law-makers, ideally complemented by public discussion on the relevant subject.  That has not been the tradition in Sri Lanka, unfortunately.  

The 13th Amendment, following the Indo-Lanka Accord was introduced in part while the people were kept in the dark about the contents.  Just before the United National Party lost the two-thirds parliamentary edged secured through the shameful Referendum of 1982, the government led by that party muscled in several partisan amendments.  Mahinda Rajapaksa bulldozed through Parliament with the 18th Amendment.  

Even the relatively progressive 17th and 19th Amendments were hardly debated, the former perhaps due to the parivasa circumstances that birthed it and the latter probably because the President wanted certain powers retained and the parliamentarians wanted sway in appointments to the independent commissions.  

This partisan history naturally raises doubts over clarity and intention.  The case for reform has certainly not been helped by vicious and vindictive way in which this administration has gone after military personnel accused of numerous violation even as it has mollycoddled known terrorists and has bent over backwards to please the political and administrative ‘near and dear’ of the LTTE.  

The Mahanayaka Theras, then, are expressing a set of concerns that many nationalists groups have raised.  The concerns are legitimate for other reasons too.  

Those who have backed bills such as this have at times also called for federalism, have demanded that the LTTE be given parity of status, bemoaned the military offensive against the LTTE (even though the LTTE was holding hundreds of thousands of Tamils hostage) and have been marked by a manifest and rabid anti-Buddhist rhetoric. 

However, what mostly strengthens the argument for caution in constitutional reform is the sloth, arrogance and mal-intent demonstrated by this government on this subject.  We already mentioned the 19th Amendment.  It was designed to keep the cabinet inflated through the dubious clause called ‘national government’.  It made the ‘independence’ of independent commissions a joke.  And quite in contrast to solemn campaign pledges, it left the executive presidency pretty much intact.  Even today with a single and modest tweak, the President can turn the political equation upside down.  That ‘privilege’ tells us how much ‘reform’ was deemed ‘enough’ by the reformers.  To the detriment of the citizen of course.

Then there is the zero-action on electoral reform.  This, by the way, is what gives legitimacy to the declaration by the Mahanayakas.  In April 2015, the President vowed to supporters of his party gathered at Vihara Maha Devi Park that he will see election reform through.  It’s more than two years now.  There isn’t even a murmur on this subject.  

Local government elections keep getting postponed for reasons that cannot be denied — this regime is scared to open itself to assessment by the people and each passing day the fear increases.  

The only security (in a relative sense) that parliamentarians have in terms of their political future, under these circumstances, is the very proportional representation system that electoral reform was supposed to do away with or at least amend.  

The Government should, logically and morally, first deliver on promises made to the people of this country before ratifying through legislation international protocols or conventions it has seen fit to endorse.   President Maithripala Sirisena has said ‘anyone watching TV [would] feel that there’s no government in the country.’  He is dismayed that ‘development activities, people's welfare, the peaceful situation in the country’ are not being covered.  

Well, all these claims can be contested and they have for good reasons too.  However the ‘no government in the country’ principally flows from the fact that this government seems answerable to unknown non-nationals and is deaf to the pleas of the citizens.  In other words, there’s no country in this government.  The Mahanayaka Theras’ plea, one could read, is one which argues for the re-inclusion of nation in this government. A tall order at this point, one might say, but then again this is what might give longevity and relevance to this regime.  

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com.  Twitter: malindasene

Read more

The 20th Amendment: An opportunity for President Sirisena

Maithripala Sirisena needs to press the F5 key on Electoral Reform!

The majority of those who cast valid votes on January 8, 2015 wanted ‘change’.  The ‘change’ candidate and his supporters outlined in manifesto what that ‘change’ was going to be.  There was change.  An incumbent was removed.  We got new face in the President’s office and a new Government.  But ‘change’ was not to be just that.

The pledge was to right a lot of wrongs within 100 days.  That was quite a bold promise.  Realists would say ‘over ambitious’.  But then again, people in this country have a decent enough idea about promises that are not kept, delays in implementation and of course the fact that rhetoric is several times larger than what actually gets done.  Big on talk, small on delivery; that’s a given, almost.

The 100 days came and went.  It was beautiful the way it went.  It was almost as though the completion of the number of days was more important than accomplishing the said tasks.  There was no insistence by the general public that the Government finish what it started, never mind the delay.

The work was derailed first by the announcement of a General Election, then by the campaign, then by the long drawn out process of appointing a Cabinet and then by the second of the twice-a-year UNHRC Circus in Geneva.  There’s nothing ‘major’ left to distract the Government from revisiting its to-do list.   A word of caution, though: distractions can be manufactured, for example a huge ha-ho can be conjured over the UNHRC Resolution, hybrid courts and relevant prosecution.  Let’s hope that such noises are left for the Opposition to indulge in.  Deep down they would know that there’s no regime-change on the horizon.  The Government can get (back) to work.

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya has promised to get the Code of Conduct for MPs done.  The Government has promised to bring the Right to Information Act.  So far there’s been absolute silence on one of the most significant pieces of reform pledged by Maithripala Sirisena: the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, namely Electoral Reform.

President Sirisena is secure in this regard because a) he has vowed that he’s already contested his last election, and b) the 20th Amendment won’t have any bearing on his office or the powers vested in it.  He can and must take the lead in this all-important democratizing process.  

The United National Party, led by Ranil Wickremesinghe, dragged its collective feet from January onward to the point that they could cite ‘not enough time’ with respect to the 20th Amendment.  There’s delimitation that’s necessary.  The 19th Amendment refers to a Delimitation Commission and the appointment of the same was not possible without the Constitutional Council (CC) being appointed.  Problematic though the composition of the CC, it’s now in place.  We are told that the Commissions will be constituted soon.  

Such things, however, come into play later.  First the draft 20th Amendment has to be tabled, debated, amended if necessary and passed.  First there has to be a public debate on a draft 20th Amendment.  If delay was orchestrated so that incumbents had a better chance of re-election, now that problem does not exist.  MPs can feel safe for the next five years.  Those among them who see further than the others may not want this kind of ‘change’ of course, but if President Maithripala Sirisena puts his foot down everyone, including those in the UNP, will have to play ball given political realities and how fragile coalitions are.  

He has a strong ally in the UNP leader.  His nominee to the CC, Patali Champika Ranawaka, is also the General Secretary of the UNP-led coalition that won the August Parliamentary Election.  He is a strong advocate of electoral reform.  It’s easy to get the ‘Change-Chorus’ to sing again, if some public ‘demand’ needs to be shown.  

This is President Sirisena’s moment to set the ball rolling to the point that lasting and progressive changes are realized.  The rationale is crystal clear: better representation.  Poor representation has been a major drawback in the democratizing process.  President Sirisena knows it and he should be honest and humble enough to acknowledge that he hasn’t exactly helped.  But he’s seasons enough to know that he can still redeem himself and very easily too.  All he has to do is to make a short statement.

Something like this:  “We are going to being a new chapter in the democratic political life of our country — we are going to get the 20th Amendment passed.  If this is the only thing that I accomplish during my presidency, it will still be enough I feel.  Support me.”  

Read more

The UNP’s desperate dissolution-need

The story that’s being shared most in social media with respect to political developments in Sri Lanka is Health Minister and Cabinet Spokesperson Rajitha Senaratne’s claim that former President, Mahinda Rajapaksa, will not be nominated from the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP).   Senaratne, however, is not the most reliable source of information.  His interests in terms of the fortunes of the SLFP, regardless of the position he holds, are dubious.  Just the other day he said ‘If Mahinda is given nominations, I will contest from the UNP (United National Party)’.  Here he is acting as though he is Chairperson of the UNP’s ‘Nomination Committee’!  Declarations from such people should be treated with caution, therefore.

Delve a little deep and one finds that the ‘sharers’ of this story are mostly UNP loyalists.  It follows that whether or not President Maithripala Sirisena wants Rajapaksa sidelined, the UNP certainly fears the man.  Not without cause, one might add.  The last word on the Rajapaksa nomination and prime ministerial aspirations is yet a mystery, with the committee appointed to deliver it hotly disputing Senaratne’s claim. This of course suits the UNP and hence the cheers for Senaratne from that corner of the ring.  

Some might think Rajitha has an identity crisis; he’s criss-crossed so much that he deserves to have a new middle name.  ‘Ronnie,’ perhaps.  The UNP however, does not have an identity crisis.  The party knows what it is about: power, benefits for the wealthy, being cosy with separatists.  Naturally, ‘power’ is the foremost priority.  Nothing wrong in that.

The UNP’s Working Committee passed a resolution demanding that the party ask the President to dissolve Parliament.  Again, in social media, this news has spurred loyalists to think ‘dissolution’ and ‘elections’ as imminent.  The perception is that the President needs only to be asked and he will deliver.  The perception has its roots in the belief that it was Ranil (somehow) and not Sirisena who was elected by the people.  Sirisena deferring to Ranil on almost all counts has of course fed this mis-perception.  

But is it only power?  Is it only a belief that right now with the SLFP in the throes of multiple crises that makes the UNP beat the dissolution drums?  Or is it fear that the Central Bank bond fiasco will explode in the party’s face once the COPE Report comes out?  

The UNP’s media machinery is currently in overdrive, planting stories in all media designed to push for dissolution.  Part of that exercise is to rubbish the 20th Amendment.  Part of it is to harp on the completion of the 100 days and reference to an election promise to dissolve at that point.  ‘It’s late’ is the cry.  It makes sense from the party’s point of view but it is unadulterated rubbish when one considers the whole gamut of election pledges and the core promise of electoral reform.

Ranil Wickremesinghe and the UNP have shamelessly tried to scuttle the 20th from Day One.  It was something that could have been done along with the (much delayed) 19th Amendment.  Then the UNP sat on the draft for weeks.  Finally, when a draft came from other quarters, the UNP had to act. Now, using the willing and able partner in the crime of scuttling reform, the JVP, as well as smaller parties who have been terrorized by the ‘threat’ of obsolescence, the UNP continues its foot-dragging exercise on this all-important piece of the overall package pledged by Maithripala Sirisena.

It’s not only a matter of ‘striking when the iron is hot’ to obtain greater numbers at a Parliamentary election.  The UNP leadership has other things to worry about, especially the COPE report.  If, as initial reports indicate, the high and mighty are implicated, then some gooey stuff will most definitely hit the fan.  It would be tough to clean up.  Wickremesinghe might live to regret the constitution of the dubious and clearly revenge-seeking FCID (Financial Crimes Investigating Division), not to put too fine a point on it.  

So there we have it.  The UNP is not interested in good governance.  Ravi Karunanayake is mimicking the Rajapaksa cut-out politics.  Statesmanship and all the promises about righting the institutional arrangement have been flushed down the toilet bowl called political expediency.  

And for all the obvious fears that the UNP has about Mahinda Rajapaksa, he might turn out to be the party’s saviour simply because the antics of his key backers might rattle the President to the point that he dissolves Parliament.  No Parliament, no COPE; no COPE, no embarrassing findings; no findings, no jail-time.  

Ranil Wickremesinge and the UNP needs dissolution like they need to breathe.  Rajitha’s anxieties are comparatively mild.  So too his rantings.  Will the President bite, though?

Read more

What if Maithri called the UNP’s bluff?

'No can do' is a trump-response that Maithri can draw anytime.

The United National Party (UNP) wants Parliament dissolved.  This is not new.  Party stalwarts Lakshman Kiriella and Kabir Hashim even bragged that they would dissolve parliament if the 19th Amendment was not passed.  That’s the UNP-friendly version of the 19th, folks, a text which would have replaced the all-powerful executive presidency with an all-powerful executive prime ministership.  What’s funny is that dissolution is not the UNP’s prerogative.  Kiriella, Hashim and others might not have known this or else they thought that Maithripala Sirisena would do the UNP’s bidding. 

The 19th was passed in the end.  It was not the helping-UNP version which was essentially a shortsighted document crafted in anticipation of a quick parliamentary election.  More time passed.  The 20th Amendment was taken up.  Today the Kiriellas and Hashims don’t say ‘we will dissolve parliament’.  Today they know they can’t and know that the President is no fool.  So they are virtually begging him to dissolve.

Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ajith P Perera has said that a written request to this effect would be sent to the President ‘in accordance with the resolution passed by the UNP’s Working Committee,’ the resolution of course being a call for dissolution.  

He adds that the UNP would remind the President that he would have to honor the pledge made during the Presidential Election to dissolve Parliament after hundred days.

All this is understandable.  The UNP has every right to believe that it can improve its numbers in Parliament if an election is held right now considering the crisis in the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP).  The UNP, especially after the President showed signs of taking firmer control of the SLFP, must know that the party stands to lose much of the ground gained courtesy of the January 8 result if the President wrests total control of his party.  

The UNP knows, also, that the hope bubble has deflated. Economic relief proved to be a gimmick.  The brag about clean-up has fallen flat due to the antics of the Minister of Finance and the Bond Fiasco.  The Foreign Minister arrogating upon himself the powers of the Defence Minister and his lame explanation of ‘bringing Eric Solheim into the Sri Lankan equation’ shows that the UNP just hasn’t learned anything from 2001-2004 disaster.  Things are not rosy and it is the UNP and not President Sirisena who is likely to be blamed.  

The letter to the President, the reference to election pledges notwithstanding, is therefore weak; it is not a polite letter of demand but is essentially a desperate plea.  With respect to the pledges, the President can easily say ‘I gave the UNP a free hand,’ which would be the truth.  He can add ‘the UNP did not deliver’.  He could add more: ‘if it is about pledges then the righteous thing to do would be to resign.’

Indeed.  Now that the UNP is ready to issue an ultimatum to the President, what would the UNP do if the President calls its bluff?  What if the President says ‘Well, you were late on the 19th, you are very late on the Right to Information Act and the Code of Conduct for MPs is not even talked of; so if it is about non-delivery and if ‘charity should begin at home’ is something you’ve heard of, shouldn’t you do the right thing, shouldn't you resign?’

Ajith Perera is correct.  This Government got a mandate to rule the country 100 days and not 200.  The Parliament can remain for another 10 months.  This Government, can resign or be sacked.  A different Government can be put in place immediately afterwards, a cabinet appointed that has the support of the majority of MPs.  

The UNP moved.  It made a risky move.  President Sirisena can call the UNP’s bluff.  Or say all this and add ‘get the 20th Amendment done’ and the UNP might find that it doesn’t have many options!

Read more

How serious are you about the 20th, Mr President?

Look us straight in the eye and answer: Are you laughing at us?

President Maithripala Sirisena is not an in-your-face leader.  That’s a relief.  But if his wallflower ways have raised doubts about his ability to deliver on promises made then his deft moves in the past few days should lay them all to rest.  

A week ago the 20th Amendment seemed doomed.  For all the talk about electoral reform when it came to doing the needful everyone seemed disinterested.  The UNP, primarily through Lakshman Kiriella and Kabir Hashim, couldn’t stop talking about dissolution.  They even sounded as though dissolving parliament was Ranil Wickremesinghe’s prerogative.  Wijedasa Rajapakse,the self-appointed Grandmaster of Democracy and All Things Constitution ought to have tutored them about what was possible and what was not.  

Then there’s the JVP.  They seemed to have trashed all the reform files from their drives, hard and soft, and focused their energies on playing their new found role as UNP’s Echo to perfection.   Sure, they do insult the Prime Minister off and on but it appears to be tokenism that fools no one and a habit-thing at worst.  

The Mahinda-faction played their part.  After much huffing and puffing they came up with a no-confidence motion against Ranil Wickremesinghe.  The key spokespersons of that group also demanded a snap poll.  The TNA and SLMC also made some election-noises.  They didn’t show any enthusiasm whatsoever for electoral reform. 

Indeed it seemed that the UNP, JVP and the Mahinda-Faction were working together; separated by objective but united by the convergence of immediate political necessity.  In fact the President’s lukewarm comments on the 20th Amendment gave the impression that all politicians had united to play a monumental joke on the electors.  The twitterati belonging to these groups was busy vilifying one another even as they sang the elections anthem in unison. Dissolution seemed inevitable and imminent.  

Then came a rally.  For the 20th.  For the 20th before elections.  An SLFP rally.  They were all there. Anura Priyadharshana Yapa and Susil Premajayantha, ‘widely’ expected to be axed from their Secretary posts in the SLFP and UPFA respectively, were there.  Also seen were those who by endorsing the no-confidence motion against Wickremesinghe were said to have in that very act expressed support for Mahinda Rajapaksa (against Wickremesinghe AND Sirisena?).  

Most importantly, Maithripala Sirisena was there.  He, unlike his party stalwarts, did not attack the UNP.  He talked of everyone getting together to see the amendment through.  But he was there.  He backed the 20th.  First the 20th, then elections.  That was the position he backed.  

Then came an unanimous Cabinet Decision to go ahead with the 20th Amendment. 

All of a sudden there’s no talk of elections.  All of a sudden there’s less talk of the no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister.  All of a sudden there’s a lot of talk about the 20th.  It’s appearing less and less like lip service.  Soon, perhaps, we’ll having the same people who seemed so ready to ditch the 20th and go for elections falling over each other to claim ownership to electoral reform.  It would be funny but that’s ok, considering these worthies have taken the people for a joke for quite a long time.  

How did this happen?  Sirisena Magic?  No.  It’s called The Power of the Executive Presidency.  All he had to do was make a small move and it precipitated giant strides in the matter of amending the constitution.  And this is exactly why a cautionary note of the ‘don’t celebrate yet’ kind just cannot be fathomed.  The President is reported to have told Cabinet that the next election would be held under the present system. 

What kind of logic is that?  You amend something because you think that the ‘something’ is flawed.  Once amended you don’t affirm and give credence to the flaw by employing it.  It is as simple as that.  

All credit to the President to get electoral reform back from the wilderness of political bickering.  Three hearty cheers and all that kind of thing.  What he has proven is that he can get things done against what clearly appeared to be monumental odds.  He stood alone, apparently, against the UNP, the SLFP, the JVP, the TNA and the SLMC.  He prevailed.  Having stood tall he cannot stoop low without hurting his back.  

Mr President, we applaud you for showing far more integrity with respect to pledges made than all your backers put together.  Mr Present, we are holding back the accolades on the 20th though.  We hope you understand.

Read more