20 A; MANIFESTATION OF A CRISIS IN POLITICAL CULTURE

The proposed 20th Amendment to the Constitution which the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) government is going to pass in Parliament next month is nothing but another round of manifestation of uncultured politics in Sri Lanka. It is going to be a further step of incivility of politics not only because of the contents of this piece of legislation, but mainly because it manifests the rashness and slavish mindset of many politicians, even in respect of the basic law of the country which would govern the lives of their own future generations.

The Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) under the leadership of President Chandrika Kumaratunga took steps in 2001 to bring in the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in order to curtail the unbridled powers of the executive presidency that had been introduced by the 2nd Republican Constitution that came into force in 1978. They boasted then that their leader, President Kumaranatunge was such a democratic leader that she herself pruned her executive powers.

The same party in 2010 under President Mahinda Rajapaksa cast the democratic elements of the 17 Amendment into the trash and brought in the 18th Amendment to the Constitution in order to vest back in him all the executive powers that he had been deprived of by the 17th Amendment. Many Parliamentarians who had voted in favour of the 17th Amendment voted for this new Amendment as well and the supporters of the SLFP who hailed Kumaranatunge for her magnanimity justified Mahinda Rajapaksa and his 18th Amendment as well.

Ludicrously, pathetically and ironically the SLFPERS again supported the 19th Amendment when it was introduced in 2015 by the so-called yahapalana government, restoring all the democratic elements of the 17th Amendment. It was the SLFP faction led by Mahinda Rajapaksa that had contributed the largest number of votes to adopt that Constitutional Amendment.

It is against this backdrop that the 20th Amendment has been approved by the Cabinet of the new SLPP government. SLPP is not practically a new party. It is the Mahinda Rajapaksa faction which constituted over 90 percent members and supporters of the SLFP back in 2015. Currently, the percentage might have been more. Thus, it is the same group that is now attempting to remove the democratic features of the 19th Amendment by replacing it with the 20th Amendment.

In short, this political group brought in checks and balances for the executive presidency in 2015, removed them in 2010, brought them in again in 2015 and now going to remove them again. They have not been feeling ashamed in unflinchingly justifying each of these amendments when they were introduced.

Media on Wednesday reported names of 23 MPS who had voted in favour of the previous three amendments and now set to vote for the fourth one. However, the number of MPS who had voted for two diametrically opposite Constitutional amendments might exceed hundred and fifty, as the 18th and 19th amendments were adopted by the same Parliament.

SLFP was the main force among various sections of the society that fought tooth and nail against the executive presidency when it was introduced by the late President J.R. Jayawardene in 1978. For thirty two years, till 2010 the party had been campaigning against it while calling it a repressive mode of governance. It was the abolition of that system that had been the prime promise of the leaders of the party during every election throughout the period.

Specifically, Chandrika Kumaratunga in 1994 and 1999 and Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2005 and 2010 won the Presidential elections, mainly on this promise. Nevertheless, MPS and supporters of the SLFP and the parties allied to it shamelessly started all of a sudden to sing praises of the system when President Mahinda Rajapaksa presented the 18th Amendment.

When the 19th Amendment was passed in Parliament on April 28, 2015, at least one member - Sarath Weerasekara - had the courage to vote against it, despite it having democratic elements in it, whereas not a single member had the audacity to oppose the 18th Amendment, despite it being against what they had been standing for, over a period of thirty two years.

They who had agitated against the executive presidency and promised to abrogate it so many times even during the height of the war against the LTTE, started to claim in 2010 - after the defeat of the separatist outfit and the decimation of its entire leadership - that the executive presidential mode of governance must be preserved to tackle terrorism.

Leaders of the SLPP defend the 20th Amendment arguing that the independent commissions appointed under the 19th Amendment had not been independent. The implication seems to be that they accept the need of those commissions, but they should be absolutely independent. Education Minister Professor G.l.peiris had stated that the commissions would exist even after the passage of 20th Amendment, contrary to the claims by the Opposition that independent commissions were to be scrapped by that amendment. Again the implication justifies the existence of the commissions which were meant for the curtailment of the unbridled powers of the executive president. But, the 20th Amendment has turned the commissions into institutions that function under the President, instead strengthening the independence of them.

Leaders of the United National Party (UNP) and the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) seem to be of the view that the 19th Amendment was perfect. One cannot be blind to the fact that the amendment had created two equal power centres, in the form of the President and the Prime Minister and that would result in a chaotic situation in any government, especially when the President and the Prime Minister have been elected from two rival parties. The UNP led so-called yahapalana government itself was the best case in point. Therefore, the situation demands a drastic change in that piece of legislation.

However, one cannot ignore the fact that the 17th and 19th Amendments were meant to be remedies for the maladies in the executive presidency. Hence, it is simple logic that one cannot embrace the maladies again just because the remedies had gone wrong.

In Sri Lanka, most Constitutional amendments have been brought in just to satisfy the needs of the ruling parties or their leaders and not the long term interests of the country at large. Therefore, the efforts by those party leaders who are going to be the beneficiaries of those amendments could be comprehensible. What is disheartening is the people blindly supporting and desperately justifying those amendments which are sometimes diametrically opposite to each other.

Media on Wednesday reported names of 23 MPS who had voted in favour of the previous three amendments and now set to vote for the fourth one. However, the number of MPS who had voted for two diametrically opposite Constitutional amendments might exceed hundred and fifty, as the 18th and 19th amendments were adopted by the same Parliament

The Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) under the leadership of President Chandrika Kumaratunga took steps in 2001 to bring in the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in order to curtail the unbridled powers of the executive presidency that had been introduced by the 2nd Republican Constitution that came into force in 1978