Ex Chief Justice Sarath N de Silva is most certainly learned and some kind of intellectual but without an ideology or ethics. During Mahinda regime he was loyal to Mahinda and as himself explained, he twisted the law according to the needs of the fascistic leader. Then he supported the struggle of the democracy while pleading mercy from the people.
Now he supports the Joint Opposition in their political activities. On some issues he is fighting on legal basis. He expects Mahinda group to give political leadership to these activities. Still, he won’t contest elections or hold any office. He has come in the interest of the public. People can change and consistency may be a hindrance to creative human intervention.
Let us look into his thinking. In a republic people are most important and their franchise leads the state. However franchise has to express through organised elections. There is no other accepted way. However in that application franchise can get spoiled as in the case of elections Lanka, in the recent past.
Though proportional representation is just, the selection of candidates by preference vote spoiled the resultant political representation. In fact political views became secondary and commercial and communal interest became dominant. Hence Yahapalanaya had to struggle to replace the method of election. Yes, it became time consuming. However democracy depends on the method of election and that means postponing elections while the debate is going on method of elections.
Local Government elections
It is true that Lanka has four dimensional democracy and in the new constitution proposed it may reduce it to three dimensions if presidency is removed from being elected. There was a delay in holding Local Government elections due to complex issues involved in changing election system. But it is wrong to say ‘one level of Government, provided for in the Constitution, has ceased to function. People have lost their democratic rights.’ there cannot be elections until people agree on the election system.
It is true that the next level of Government is provincial councils. The Article 155 (e) of the Constitution states that every Provincial Council elected holds office for a period of five years from the first meeting. Three provincial councils are out of office. These elections must be conducted.
The Provincial Councils Election Act states that the Election Commission, within one week, shall publish a notice informing that the elections will be held. These are very clear-cut laws. It has worked for 30 years. All that is correct but people wanted to change the election system. Hence the Government used some practical action within the parliament to overcome this problem. He has challenged that in the Supreme Court. It is interesting to watch the outcome!
The government while proposing the report of the steering committee on constitutional reform expected debate to open in parliament at the end of October. However the debate already started in streets and news papers. As a member of the Steering Committee spearheading the constitutional reform project, Jayampathi expects that the Constitutional assembly would take up proposals over a three-day period beginning October 30. However he admitted the finalization of the process would depend on the outcome of three day talks.
In the meantime PM Wickremesinghe wants people to believe that measures proposed to further strengthen the unitary character of the country will work. He emphasized that the proposals were also meant to ensure maximum possible devolution without undermining the unitary status of the constitution. Since its appointment by the Constitutional assembly in April 2016 the steering committee has met on 73 occasions. That shows the eagerness of all parties to understand the Constitutional process. The public debate is arrested by the seriousness of the debate within the Constitutional assembly. It is true that the large number of meetings that have taken place is a positive expression of the commitment of the political parties to the Constitutional reform process.
Mahinda group
All parties in parliament with the exception of the ultra Sinhala nationalist National Freedom Front have chosen to remain within the process. Latter expected Mahinda group to follow them, thus Weerawansa becoming the militant leader of the fascistic group. That failed and the participants have included members of the Joint Opposition who have been the racist opposition to the government but continue to attend the steering committee meetings.
This has created hopes among minority nationalities as expressed by political leaders such as TNA and Opposition Leader R Sambanthan. He has said with much hopes, that in the past “No Constitution has thus far been framed for Sri Lanka on the basis of a substantial bipartisan consensus amongst its different people in particular the Tamil people, or on the basis of such bi-partisan consensus between the two main parties and other political parties. The present exercise in Constitution making presents the first such opportunity”. The Constitutional reform process remains grounded in the consciousness of the people as necessary for the country though racists on all sides are creating confusions. There is also a lack of awareness about the dangers created by some of the key and emotive issues in the Constitutional reform process. These include the unnecessary confusion created about the meaning of the unitary state and the foremost place given to Buddhism under the present Constitution.
The steering committee has tried to explain that “the classical definition of the English term “unitary state” has undergone change.” In the United Kingdom it is now possible for Northern Ireland and Scotland to move away from the union.
Therefore, the English term “Unitary State” will not be appropriate for Sri Lanka. This argument is confusing as the term United Kingdom is not very different from United States. However, it is proposed that the Sinhala term “aekiya raajyaya” best describes an undivided and indivisible country. The Tamil language equivalent of this is “orumiththa nadu”.
India is considered a unitary state though the powers of states are much more than in Lanka. So it is possible to follow Indian example to satisfy everybody. Instead of following practical example of Indian Constitutional pandiths are struggling with western models.
The issue of whether Lanka should remain unitary in its Constitutional structure has traditionally been the line of division between the Sinhala and Tamil polities. Hence the key question has been whether Sri Lanka should be a country where a single government dominates, or move towards a federal system in which central and devolved governments can coexist at different levels. However nobody wants to follow the thinking of Ambedkar and Periyar. Trouble is that law makers are looking towards western example without giving attention to Asiatic wisdom.
Add new comment