NEW CONSTITUTION: TRANSPARENCY IS VITAL

There was no any sign of enthusiasm on the part of the people in the country over President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s assurance on Sunday that steps would be taken to amend the Constitution and introduce a new electoral system within next year.

He gave this assurance at a ceremony held at the Gajaba Regiment Headquarters, Saliyapura in Anuradhapura to mark the 72nd Anniversary of the Sri Lanka Army. However, even some progovernment newspapers seemed to have thought it fit to carry the picture of the President playing cricket at the same event, rather than carrying his speech. Some state-owned print media that carried his speech did not take interest to highlight the point he made on the new Constitution.

This was not because media did not take his words seriously or doubted about his assurance, but the market-oriented industry knew what is in high demand and what is not, at a particular time. At a time when people are faced with a huge economic recession with spiraling price increases of essential goods and just coming out of a threat to their lives posed by the COVID 19, a Constitution is not a sellable commodity.

Nevertheless, issues related to governance which is the main component of a Constitution could be attributed to many of our woes. The need for a new Constitution which the President had underscored in his speech attests to it. The response by the former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to the President’s reported claim that Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa must play a greater role in governance as he lacked experience is also indicates the relevance of changes to the current Constitution.

Although many might view the President’s reported call for the Premier to share his experience with him as a personal approach towards his brother and former President, Wickremesinghe had seen a Constitutional issue in it. The former Prime Minister had stated that the President’s statement was a proof of the failure of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution which ensures a one-man rule. He argued that President’s statement demanded a collective system of governance which he said the 19th Amendment had provided for.

Despite his attempt to justify the 19th Amendment, there is no doubt that he was talking sense, putting forward a strong argument about the 20th Amendment. On the other hand, in spite of the essence of the 19th Amendment being more democratic than the 20th, it had introduced two equal power centres, creating a chaotic situation towards the tail end of the previous government. The drafters of a new Constitution would have to take these issues into account.

While the government was taking steps to pass the 20th Amendment in the Parliament in October 2020, the President appointed an experts’ committee comprising nine members headed by Romesh de Silva PC in the same month to draft a new Constitution and the Justice Minister Ali Sabri told Parliament on October 22 last year that the new Constitution would be presented to Parliament within a year. However, according to the President’s speech in Anuradhapura this week it is to take a few months more.

When the 20th Amendment was about to be presented in Parliament, nationalist members of the government wanted to retain the ban on dual citizens contesting in local elections, brought in by the 19th Amendment. The President had stated then that new Constitution would prevent them from contesting, but not the 20th Amendment. Later Basil Rajapaksa, a dual citizen entered parliament and is now holding an important position in the government. That would be a tricky issue for the drafters of the new Constitution as they would have to either choose between personal interest of the government leaders and the President’s promise or to strike a balance between them.

The previous government too took steps to draft a new Constitution. Accordingly, a committee led by Lal Wijenayake had been appointed to seek public opinion on the new Constitution and another six sub-committees had been appointed to recommend legal provisions to a higher committee, the steering committee after reviewing and sifting public opinions so gathered. Therefore it was a transparent process, despite the outcome that came as an interim report by the steering committee having been rejected by the nationalists of both the north as well as the south.

The progress of the deliberations of the current experts’ committee has not been revealed yet by the relevant authorities. And people do not know what direction the deliberations are moving. Hence, there must be sufficient time for the general public to discuss and express their views on what the experts are going to compile, before it becomes the country’s basic law under which they and their generations to come have to live.