2/3 majority for whose benefit?

The SLPP is asking for a 2/3rds majority at the coming Parliamentary elections on the basis that it would help usher in a powerful Government which could bring a host of benefits to the people. How valid is this contention?

The people should first and foremost understand what a Constitution is. A country’s Constitution is the basic document enshrining the rights of the citizen and limiting the power of the Government. It prevents the tyranny of concentrated power by separating the powers of the Government between the Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary. It also contains the Fundamental Rights of the citizen which can be enforced by law.

Ordinary legislation can be enacted with a simple majority in Parliament. Even the annual Budget which is the most important law dealing with the economy can be passed with a simple majority. So can other laws relating to the economy, law and order, education, health and all other welfare measures.

A 2/3rds majority is essential for the amendment of the Constitution.A major Constitutional amendment would also need the approval of the people at a referendum. Apart from that it is also required for the impeachment of the President and the approval of International Investment Agreements.

It is for the sole purpose of amending the Constitution, particularly the 19th Amendment that the SLPP is seeking the 2/3rds majority at the elections.

It should be emphasised that the amendment of the country’s Constitution is a very serious matter and should not be manipulated to fit the whims of a political party or individual. It should be accepted by all political parties represented in Parliament and the whole country.

The most important amendments to the 2nd Republican Constitution of Sri Lanka are the 13th,17th and the 19th Amendments.The 13th Amendment established an additional layer of the Government, i.e. the Provincial Councils.The 17th Amendment established the Independent Commissions and the 19th Amendment was enacted mainly to repeal the 18th Amendment.

The 18th Amendment was enacted to increase the stranglehold of the Executive President on power.It reduced the powers of Parliament gave the sole power of appointing the independent commissions to the President and abolished the Presidential term limits. The 19th Amendment effectively nullified these provisions and in addition reduced the duration of the Presidential term to five years.

With a 2/3rds majority a Government in power could take away the Fundamental Rights of the citizen including the right to equality, the right to freedom from arbitrary arrest the right to a fair trial and defence, freedom of speech, trade union rights, freedom of movement, cultural rights etc.

The main rights retained by the President under the 19th Amendment are as follows:

*He remains the head of the Cabinet

*He has the right to appoint the Secretaries to Ministries

*He appoints Ambassadors and the Governors to the Provinces

*He appoints the Prime Minister subject to the majority approval of the Parliament

The rights lost by the President under the 19th Amendment are as follows:

*The right to dissolve Parliament (until the lapse of 4 1/2 years following the election)

*The right to dismiss the Prime Minister and Ministers

*The sole right to appoint members to the independent commissions and to important government positions

*The 19th Amendment to the Constitution in fact strengthened Parliament. If not for the 19th Amendment the Members of Parliament would be under a constant risk of Parliament being dissolved at the whim and fancy of the President. So too the President would be able to disregard all opposition to his appointments to vital Government positions with the so-called Parliamentary Council being a mere rubber stamp.

Thus people should be aware of the dangers of giving unlimited powers to one party.The 13th Amendment was passed when the Government had a 2/3rds majority. But the 17th and the 19th Amendments were passed on the basis of consensus among all parties represented in Parliament. An irresponsible verdict at the elections would be a costly mistake.

Priyanee Wijesekera

(Retired Secretary General of Parliament and Former Ambassador to the Republic of Austria)