Is there a yardstick to measure crossovers?
The political crossovers have been prohibited, I read in media. Well, the politicians should be prohibited from many things such as crossing over from the right to the wrong. This, the politicians of this blessed land have never put in force. Myriads of wrong decisions have been dancing around the ruling parties since 1948, as a result of unholy crossovers.
It should be a cumbersome – and time-consuming as well – exercise to elucidate the consequences of such crossovers in detail.
One thing is certain. This country is in a deadlocked situation. The naming and shaming are now the order of the day. In such a backdrop, are we well positioned to define – or perhaps redefine – this much hackneyed term, crossover? Can the politicians define it themselves, in the first place?
As an ordinary citizen, I observe this as just another ploy, following the previous regimes, in order to strengthen the party leadership, keep being elected and cringing on bended knees.
The possibilities of a crossover could be numerous. A physical cross over, for one, happens with the persons who hold different or opposite views. Sitting on the opposite side but agreeing or voting in favour of the ruling party is another occurrence. It is a selective crossover with no physical movement involved. We can observe a number of consensual crossovers as well. For instance, a section of the SLFP has joined ranks with the UNP.
Legally and physically, this could be also termed as a crossover. It takes place between one defined party and another. Only God in heaven knows how these parties, which beak up and sell their rights, have gained entry to the August Assembly.
The President is left without much option on these matters. As a neutral personality, he could have executed the wisest move by summoning the UNP – the party that commands the majority of the incumbent parliament - to form the Government.
Walter Fernando
Ratmalana
Add new comment