Unnecessary hullabaloo over the 13th Amendment

President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s policy statement to Parliament last week was overshadowed by the controversy surrounding his previously expressed intention of implementing the 13th Amendment as the first step in the process of resolving what has come to be described as the ethnic conflict.

Why the President was being taken to task for attempting to implement a Constitutional provision defies all reasoning. Usually, governments are faulted for not implementing Constitutional provisions rather than for actually attempting to do so. A case in point is the case of the current administration coming in for considerable flak for attempting to avoid holding the local government elections.

But when one looks at the sources from which such protests emanated one should not be surprised. Those who protested on the streets against the 13th Amendment were the same ones who have opposed attempts to resolve the ethnic problem in the past.

These same forces maintained a loud silence during the several months when the people had to undergo unimaginable difficulties resulting from gas shortages, fuel queues, shortage of medicines and skyrocketing prices of essential goods to name a few.

Many of those who cry foul when the 13th Amendment is mentioned have only one bogey to raise, namely, that the implementation of the 13th Amendment can lead to separation.

The fact that the protestors often rely on slogans and not rational arguments to plant seeds of insecurity in the minds of the majority community indicates that they have only a superficial acquaintance with the provisions of the 13th Amendment. When objections are only couched in slogans it is difficult to have a civilised conversation about any genuine fears that people may have vis-a-vis the 13th Amendment.

In contrast Neville Laduwahetty a strong critic of the 13th Amendment and a regular contributor to the media on the subject raises his concerns in a manner so as to be able to engage in an exercise to address such concerns.

The sentiments of those who protested in the streets found an echo in the Parliamentary chamber during the debate on President Wickremesinghe’s statement of Government policy. Parliamentarians Wimal Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila led the attack on the President’s move towards the 13th Amendment.

Wimal Weerawansa used the opportunity to launch an attack on his bête noir the Janatha

Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) on their stand on the President’s proposal. However, the former JVP-er who was a leading light in the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration never gave expression to his fears on the 13th Amendment when the former President spoke of 13A, plus as a way forward to resolving the ethnic conflict.

Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU) Parliamentarian Udaya Gammanpila, participating in the debate, cited the East Timor experience in support of his argument that the 13th Amendment could lead to separation but failed to explain the similarities between the Indonesian context and the Sri Lankan one.

He cited the Sri Lankan Constitutional provision permitting two or more Provinces to merge if they so wish as an indication of the likelihood of merger and thereafter separation. However, it is to be noted that such a decision has to be approved by Parliament.

Those who have reservations about the full implementation of the 13th Amendment could have articulated their fears in writing when the President gave them a deadline to do so in by February 4. However, they have not done so up to now.

Any fears regarding the 13th Amendment can only be addressed through discussions around a table and not by sloganeering or threats on the streets.

In fact, the fear of separation as a result of devolution was addressed during the discussions of the Constitutional Assembly during the Yahapalana Government.

The Government and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) led by R. Sampanthan came to an agreement that any Constitutional arrangement would be on the basis of an undivided and indivisible country and that the office of the President would be vested with the power to intervene if there were any secessionist tendencies showed by any Province.

There is no doubt that any Constitutional changes must receive the consent of all sections of the community if it is to be successful and sustainable. In fact, the TNA Leader himself has repeatedly stressed that any power sharing arrangement must receive the approval of not only the Tamil and Muslim community but also the Sinhala community.

It is doubtful whether the 13th Amendment will sufficiently address the needs of the Tamil community. However, if the Tamil political leadership is content to have power devolved in accordance with the provisions of the 13th Amendment, there is no sense in standing in its way.