By
C.A.Chandraprema
President Maithripala Sirisena addressed the nation at 9.00 pm last Thursday to mark the conclusion of the new government’s 100 day programme. At the end of it, many people were left wondering why he addressed the nation all. In contrast to Sirisena’s confused meanderings, the interview that prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe had on ITN with Upul Shantha Sannasgala on the same day certainly sounded more like an address to the nation than Sirisena’s speech even though Sannasgala’s full tosses to RW were almost embarrassing at times. But then again, given the fact that this interview was obviously in lieu of an address to the nation, perhaps the questions had to be full tosses.
Coming back to president Sirisena’s speech, nothing substantial was said. Some of the things he said are debatable. He praised himself for wanting to give up the power he had. If that was true, we would by now have reverted to a prime ministerial form of government instead of being saddled with a watered down 19th Amendment which leaves the executive presidency virtually untouched. If what Sirisena said was correct, Dr Jayampathy Wickremeratne, the very person who drafted the 19th Amendment, wouldn’t be out there complaining that the abolition of the executive presidency has been torpedoed. The 19th Amendment that will be debated in parliament tomorrow is a watered down version of the Bill that had already been watered down by Sirisena’s proxies – so much so that the question arises whether there is any point in getting it passed because the passage of a such a Bill gives them the ability to go before the public and claim that election promises had been fulfilled in a situation where nothing of the sort has actually happened.
The Supreme Court determination on the 19th amendment was a death blow to the project of limiting the powers of the executive. The clauses in the 19th Amendment where the prime minister was to be the head of the cabinet, and was empowered to determine the number of members of the cabinet and to assign functions to the ministers requires a Referendum, the Supreme Court has ruled. The 19th Amendment is now so watered down that it is the UNP and the JVP that should actually play a leading role in defeating it. Even in the run up to tomorrow’s debate on this watered down piece of legislation, the pro-UNP website Lanka e News in an article titled “Hela Urumaye Vidhayaka Premaya” was complaining of a conspiracy within the government to continue the executive presidential system by other means.
Once you enable such conspirators to go before the public and claim that they have done what they promised to do, when they have done nothing of the kind, they will essentially be getting away with perfidy. Besides, the truncated 19th Amendment is a seriously flawed document which does not even incorporate the reforms that were deemed necessary in relation to the independent commissions that are to be restored through the 19th Amendment. Just to give one example, back in 2008, (when the 17th Amendment was still in force) all the political parties represented in the Public Petitions Committee of parliament came to the unanimous decision that the independent commissions for the police, the public service, judiciary and so on, should be made responsible to parliament and the Public Petitions Committee should be able to annul or reverse any decision made by these independent commissions. A petition requesting a constitutional amendment to this effect was signed by all political parties including the JVP and the TNA. Even this vital point has not been incorporated in the present 19th Amendment. Due to the running battle between the UNP and the Sirisena faction of the SLFP over the removal of the powers of the executive presidency, other equally important matters have not been given the attention they deserve.
The arguments and counter arguments about the powers of the presidency should not blind us to other aspects of the reforms. Instituting independent commissions that are a law unto themselves and not responsible either to the people or the parliament is a sure fire recipe for disaster.
The UNP’s plan A was to get the 19th Amendment passed (the real 19th Amendment, not the present truncated and watered down version) and to then go for a parliamentary election. If by some chance the 19th Amendment was not passed, the UNP’s plan B was to go immediately for a parliamentary election and see what can be done in the next parliament.
There is absolutely no doubt that the UNP will have a much larger representation in the next parliament than it has in the present one and they will be that much stronger in demanding the abolition of the executive presidency. Furthermore unlike now, they will not need a large number of SLFP/UPFA votes to get the Amendment passed – they will be able to make do with far fewer votes from the other side of the political divide. Given the present circumstances, the better option would be to go for plan B.
Courtesy:Sunday Island