Saturday, November 21, 2020

Preparation of a shadow constitution

 

Based on the decisions President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has taken so far it is felt that he places his belief on constitutional power. Therefore, it is necessary to have an alternative to the constitution making process since it is more likely that the process would be based on his wishes rather than the interests of the country


The Government has appointed a nine-member Expert Committee to prepare the preliminary draft for a new constitution. 

The last regime has done a lot in preparation of a new constitution. Their approach was a democratic one and therefore it took a long time to complete. The two leaders of the previous regime did not have a political will to bring it to an end. 

Initially there was a report of the Public Representations Committee headed by Lal Wijenayake. Thereafter, the Constitutional Assembly appointed members representing all parties in the Parliament to six sub committees covering the areas of Fundamental Rights, Judiciary, Law and Order, Public Finance, Public Service and Centre-Periphery Relations to assist the Steering Committee.

All the reports of the sub committees were published. Based on the Steering Committee deliberations and reports of the sub committees, an expert panel prepared a report to the Steering Committee in the form of a draft constitution and the Steering Committee decided to present the same to the Constitutional Assembly without preparing its own draft. In the appendix of the proposed draft there were alternative proposals by the political parties as well as the certain members of the expert panel.

Neither the Government nor the Expert Committee said that this literature would be perused. Therefore, this process would be an extension of the backward Sri Lankan political culture that there is a new start up once a new government is appointed.

Moreover, in the Government benches in the Parliament there are number of members who actively participated in those six committees. Some of them headed some of those committees. There were Chief Ministers of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party who demanded more powers to the Chief Ministers to have a meaningful devolution of power to the Provincial Councils. Some of them are now in the Government benches. Also, there are members in the Government benches who voted in favour of 17A and 19A which restricted centralised power. All of them en masse voted in favour of 20A which broadened centralised power. The reason was that it was the wish of the President.

Also, the 1972 Constitution which was passed by the then Government with its two-third majority in the Parliament failed to give Tamil the status of an official language although with the prominent contribution of Dr. Colvin R. De Silva. 

The Constitution in 1978  which was passed with its five-sixths majority in Parliament by the then Government granted enormous power to the president compared to other two branches of the democracy although with the contribution of Mark Fernando who became a renowned justice  later. All these happened with the wish of the then leader of the Government.

The arbitrary wish of the leader of the Government was not reflected in 17A and 19A which were spearheaded by the parties without majority power of the Parliament. Quite in contrast the then President was eager to get his powers reduced under 19A

Therefore, the new constitution will be shaped based on the wishes of the President rather than the needs of the country. The basic problem in Sri Lanka is that the power is concentrated in the top in the expense of the bottom and in the centre in the expense of the periphery. If the power can be shifted from top to bottom the problem the south is having with the Constitution would be solved and if the power can be shifted from the centre to the periphery the problem the north and east is having with the Constitution would be solved. The obstacle for this was the demand of a strong leadership arose at the last two elections. It is an obstacle since the problem was grasped at the wrong end. 



A strong democracy

In order to have a strong democracy there should be a strong leader. A strong leader should have a strong vision and a strong convincing power to convince the people and his/her followers. If the leader wants concentrated constitutional power for that, he or she would not be a strong democratic leader. Dictators want such powers. They want only to order and there should be a bunch of people to implement those orders. The strength of a strong leader should come from within and not from outside.

A strong democracy would not need a leader with arbitrary constitutional power. The need is to have leader with strong and broad vision with the ability to convey it to the people.

Nelson Mandela was such a person. Once he became the President, he continued to engage the white people not only in building the economy but also in his personal security with the opposition of African National Congress and the people at large. He was able to convince all of them that he was correct. That was strong leadership. 

President Donald Trump is refusing to concede the election defeat. USA is supposed to be a matured democracy unlike Sri Lanka. None of the Sri Lankan leaders behaved in that manner. With the reports published at that time the only exception was President Rajapaksa in January 2015. Even in that instance matters were sorted out by the dawn of the following day. President Trump’s behaviour is sheer weakness.

President J.R. Jayewardene was unable to contain the July 1983 riots with all the presidential powers, undisputed leadership of the governing party, five-sixths legislative power to that party and with undated resignation letters of those MPs. Hence, he was a weak leader. This is contrary to the popular belief of his leadership. He wanted power to safeguard himself and not the people.

Prime Minister Sirima Bandaranaike was stronger compared to President Jayewardene. Although she did not have such constitutional powers as him, she took appropriate decisions at appropriate times. All of these leaders have their own pluses and minuses.



President Gotabaya Rajapaksa

There is an opinion that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa is a strong leader. The President has more time to prove that. If he is a strong leader all of us should be happy since he is our President. In his own words he is the President not only of the people who voted for him but also of the people who did not vote him including the people of other ethnic and religious groups although he came to power mainly with Sinhala Buddhist votes. 

Based on the decisions he has taken so far it is felt that he places his belief on constitutional power. Therefore, it is necessary to have an alternative to the constitution making process since it is more likely that the process would be based on his wishes rather than the interests of the country.

In parallel to the official process there could be a shadow process of making a constitution independent of the leaders of the country and the bunch of yes men at the Parliament. I believe that this draft should include the provisions of recalling the elected representatives in certain instances as in Switzerland and the state of California in USA. In addition to that, the points the politicians are reluctant to include in the constitution which are related to their existence can also be included. Thereafter, the draft constitution can be presented to the political leaders.  This will last for few years.

There are discussions in society to this effect. One of those was organised by Rights Now – Collective for Democracy using technology. Resource persons were Jayampathy Wickramaratne, Lal Wijenayake and K.W. Janaranjana and the discussion was conducted by Jagath Liyanarachchi. The discussion was started with the issue of how human rights and devolution of power be included in the constitution and by the end of the discussion it was decided to send the proposals to the Expert Committee, publish the same and engage in preparation of a shadow constitution.

If it is materialised it would be the first active public intervention in preparation of a constitution to which all of us can agree.

Published in DailyFT on November 21, 2020

http://www.ft.lk/columns/Preparation-of-a-shadow-constitution/4-709189

Friday, November 20, 2020

ජනතාව විසින් මහජන ව්‍යවස්ථාවක් සම්පාදනය කළ යුතුය

 හර්ෂ ගුණසේන –

හර්ෂ ගුණසේන

පසුගිය අවුරුදු 72 මුළුල්ලේ අපට ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථා තුනක් සහ අවසාන ව්‍යවස්ථාවට සංශෝධන විස්සක් තිබුණි. ස්වාධීන රටක් පළමුකොටම කල යුත්තේ රටේ ජිවත්වන සියළු පුරවැසියන්ටම එකඟ විය හැකි ව්‍යවස්ථාවක් සම්පාදනය කර ගැනීමයි. නිදහස් ශ්‍රී ලංකාව විසින් සම්පාදනය කරන ලද ව්‍යවස්ථා දෙක සහ බොහෝ සංශෝධන සමස්ත ජනතාවගේ අභිලාෂයන් නොව එවකට සිටි රාජ්‍ය නායකයන්ගේ අභිලාෂයන් නිරූපනය කරයි.

ආණ්ඩුව විසින් නව ව්‍යවස්ථාවක් සම්පාදනය කිරීම සඳහා විද්වත් කමිටුවක් පත් කර තිබේ.පසුගිය ආණ්ඩුව විසින් නව ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවක් සකස්  කිරීම සඳහා ඉමහත් වෙහෙසක් දරන ලද අතර ඔවුන්ගේ ප්‍රවේශය ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී විය. එබැවින් ඒ සඳහා සෑහෙන කාලයක්ද ගතවිය. එහි නායකයන්ට මෙය තාර්කික අවසානයක් කරා ගෙන යාමට අවශ්‍ය දේශපාලන අධිෂ්ඨානයක් නොමැති වීම වෙනම කාරණයකි. එකල සකස් කළ වැදගත් ලේඛණ අතර වන ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථා ප්‍රතිසංස්කරණය පිළිබඳ මහජන අදහස් විමසීම සඳහා ලාල් විජේනායක මහතාගේ ප්‍රධානත්වයෙන් යුත් කමිටු වාර්තාව ද ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථා මණ්ඩලයේ මෙහෙයුම් කමිටුවට අනුබද්ධ සියළුම දේශපාලන පක්ෂ වල සාමාජිකයන් ගෙන් සැදුම් ලත් අනු කමිටු හයක් විසින් ඉදිරිපත් කරන ලද විස්තරාත්මක වාර්තාද ඒවා පදනම් කරගෙන ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථා මණ්ඩලයේ මෙහෙයුම් කමිටුවේ ඉල්ලීමක් පරිදි විද්වත් කමිටුවක් මගින් සකස් කරන ලද ආණ්ඩු ක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථා කෙටුම්පත ද සලකා බලන බව නව ව්‍යවස්ථාවක් සම්පාදනය කිරීම සඳහා වන විද්වත් කමිටුව ප්‍රකාශ කර නොමැත. ආණ්ඩුවේ බලධාරීන්ද ඒ පිලිබඳ කිසිම සඳහනක් කර නොමැත. එබැවින් මෙම ක්‍රියාවද ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ බෙහෝ විට සිදුවන අළුත් ආණ්ඩුවක් විසින් සියල්ල නැවත මුල සිට පටන් ගැනීමේ පසුගාමී ප්‍රවේශයේ දිගුවකි.

එමතුද නොවේ. ඉහත සඳහන්  කළ වාර්තා ඉදිරිපත් කිරීමට සහාය වූ මන්ත්‍රී වරුන් ගෙන් සමහරකුද විශේෂයෙන්ම මධ්‍යම- පර්යන්ත සබඳතා  කමිටුව  ඉදිරියේ සාක්ෂි දෙමින් බලතල තව දුරටත් විමධ්‍ය ගත කරන ලෙස ඉල්ලූ එවකට මහ ඇමතිවරුන් ගෙන් සමහරකුද එමෙන්ම මධ්‍යගත බලයට සීමා පැනවූ 17 සහ 19 ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධන වලට පක්ෂවූ මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් ගෙන් සමහරකු ද වර්තමාන පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ ආණ්ඩු පක්ෂයේ මන්ත්‍රීවරු ලෙස සිටිති. ඔවුන් සියළු දෙනාම බලතල මධ්‍යගත කරන 20 වන සංශෝධනයට පක්ෂව ඡන්දය ප්‍රකාශ කළහ. මක්නිසාද යත් එය ජනාධිපති වරයාගේ අභිමතය වූ බැවිනි.

එමෙන්ම පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ 2/3 ක බලය සහිතව සම්මතවූ 1972 ව්‍යවස්ථාව මගින් පරිණත දේශපාලනඥයකු වූ කොල්වින් ආර් ද සිල්වා මහතා ගේ ප්‍රමුඛ දායකත්වය තිබියදී පවා දෙමළ භාෂාවට රාජ්‍ය භාෂා තත්ත්වය ප්‍රදානය කිරීමට නොහැකි විය. පසු කලෙක කීර්තිමත් විනිසුරු වරයකු වූ මාක් ප්‍රනාන්දු මහතා ගේ යම් දායකත්වයක්  තිබියදී පවා පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ 5/6 ක බලය සහිතව සම්මතවූ 1978 ව්‍යවස්ථාව මගින් ජනාධිපති වරයාට අත්තනෝමතික බලතල පවරා තිබුණි. මේ සියල්ල සිදුවූයේ එවකට සිටි රාජ්‍ය නායිකාව ගේ හෝ රාජ්‍ය නායකයා ගේ හෝ අභිමතය පරිදිය. 

පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ බහුතර බලය නොමැති පක්ෂ මගින් ඉදිරිපත් කළ 17 සහ 19 සංශෝධන මගින් රාජ්‍ය නායිකාව ගේ හෝ රාජ්‍ය නායකයා ගේ හෝ අත්තනෝමතික අභිමතය ප්‍රකාශ නොවුනි. එයට පටහැනිව 19 වන සංශෝධනයේදී රාජ්‍ය නායකයා සිය බලතල අඩුකර ගැනීමට උත්සුක විය.

එබැවින් නව ව්‍යවස්ථාව රටට අවශ්‍ය එකක් නොව 20 වන සංශෝධනය මෙන් ජනාධිපති වරයාට අවශ්‍ය එකක් වනු ඇත. ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ මුඛ්‍ය ගැටළුව නම් පහළ සිට ඉහළට සහ පර්යන්තයේ සිට මධ්‍යයට බලය සංකේන්ද්‍රණය වීමයි.ඉහළ සිට පහළට බලය විතැන් වීම මගින් කාලයක් තිස්සේ දකුණේ තිබෙන ව්‍යවස්ථාව පිලිබඳ ගැටළුවට විසඳුමක් ලැබෙන අතර මධ්‍යයේ සිට පර්යන්තයට බලය විතැන් වීම මගින් කාලයක් තිස්සේ උතුරේ සහ නැගෙනහිර තිබෙන ව්‍යවස්ථාව පිලිබඳ ගැටළුවට විසඳුමක් ලැබේ.

මෙයට බාධාව පසුගිය මැතිවරණ වලදී මතු වුන ශක්තිමත් නායකත්වයක අවශ්‍යතාවයි. එය බාධාවක් වන්නේ ගැටළුව වැරදි පැත්තෙන් අල්ලා ගත් බැවිනි.

ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී රාජ්‍යයක් බලවත් වීමට ශක්තිමත් නායකයෙක් අවශ්‍යයි. ශක්තිමත් නායකයා ශක්තිමත් දැක්මකින්ද සිය අනුගාමිකයන් සහ ජනතාව වෙත එම දැක්ම ඒත්තු ගැන්වීමේ ලා ශක්තිමත් ප්‍රකාශන බලයකින්ද යුක්ත විය යුතු වෙයි. ඔහුට හෝ ඇයට හෝ සංකේන්ද්‍රණය වූ ව්‍යවස්ථාපිත බලයක් අවශ්‍ය වන්නේ නම් ඔහු හෝ ඇය හෝ ශක්තිමත් නායකයෙක් හෝ නායිකාවක් හෝ නොවේ. සංකේන්ද්‍රණය වූ ව්‍යවස්ථාපිත බලයක්  සහිත නායකයන් අවශ්‍ය වන්නේ ඒකාධිපතිත්වයන්ටය. ඒකාධිපතියකුට අවශ්‍ය වන්නේ අණදීමයි. ඒ අණ පිළිපැදීමට සැදී පැහැදී සිටින අන්තේවාසිකයන් රැළක් ඔහුට අවශ්‍යය. ශක්තිමත් නායකයකු ගේ ශක්තිමත් බව ඇතුළතින් මිස පිටතින් පැමිණිය යුතු නොවේ.

ශක්තිමත් ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී රාජ්‍යයකට අවශ්‍ය  වන්නේ අත්තනෝමතික ව්‍යවස්ථාපිත බලතල සහිත නායකයෙක් නොවේ. අවශ්‍යතාව වන්නේ ශක්තිමත් සහ පුළුල් දැක්මක් ඇති එය සන්නිවේදනය කිරීමේ ශක්‍යතාව ඇති නායකයෙකි.

නෙල්සන් මැන්ඩෙලා එවැන්නෙකි. ඔහු ජනාධිපති වූ පසුව එතෙක් කල් බලය හෙබවූ සුදු අප්‍රිකානා වරුන් රාජ්‍ය පාලනයට මතු නොව සිය පුද්ගලික ආරක්ෂාව සඳහා ජාතික කොන්ග්‍රසයේ සහ පොදු ජනතාවගේ විරුද්ධතාව නොතකා යොදා ගැනීමටද ඔවුන් සියළු දෙනාටම එය අවශ්‍ය දෙයක් බව ඒත්තු ගැන්වීමටද ඔහුට හැකිවිය. ශක්තිමත් නායකත්වය යනු එයයි.

ඇමරිකන් ජනාධිපති ඩොනල්ඩ් ට්‍රම්ප් ජනාධිපතිවරණයෙන් තමා ලැබූ පරාජය පිළිගැනීම ප්‍රතික්ෂේප කරයි. එක්සත් ජනපදය ලංකාව මෙන් නොව වඩාත් පරිණත ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී රාජ්‍යයක් ලෙස පිළිගනු ලැබේ. මෙරට නායකයන් කිසි කෙනකු මෙසේ හැසිරී නැත. මෙයට එකම ව්‍යතිරේකය වන්නේ එවකට ප්‍රසිද්ධ වූ වාර්තා අනුව 2015 ජනාධිපතිවරණයෙන් පසුව ජනාධිපති මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ ගේ ක්‍රියා කලාපයයි. ඒ අවස්ථාවේදී වුවද පසුදින අළුයම වනවිට සියල්ල සමථයකට පත්වී තිබුණි. ජනාධිපති ට්‍රම්ප්ගේ ක්‍රියාකලාපය තනිකරම දුර්වලත්වයයි.

ජනාධිපති ජේ. ආර්. ජයවර්ධන සියළු ව්‍යවස්ථාපිත බලතල සහිතව එනම් අධිකාරිවාදී ජනාධිපති බලතලද පක්ෂ නායක කමද එම පක්ෂයට තිබූ 5/6 ක ව්‍යවස්ථාදායක බලතලද එම මන්ත්‍රීවරුන්ගේ දින රහිත ඉල්ලා අස්වීම් ලිපිද සහිතව 1983 කළු ජූලිය පාලනය කිරීමට හෝ ඒ සඳහා යම් සාධනීය පියවරක් ගැනීමට හෝ අසමත් විය. ඒ නයින් ඔහු දුර්වල නායකයෙකි. මෙය ඔහු පිළිබඳව කෙරෙන සම්මත කියැවීමට පටහැනිය. ඔහුට බලය අවශ්‍ය වූයේ ජනතාව ආරක්ෂා කිරීමට නොවේ. තමා ආරක්ෂා වීම සඳහාය.

අගමැතිනි  සිරිමා බණ්ඩාරනායක ඔහුට සාපේක්ෂව වඩාත් ශක්තිමත් නායිකාවකි. ජනාධිපති ජයවර්ධනට තරම් ව්‍යවස්ථාපිත බලතල නොමැතිව වුවත් අවශ්‍ය අවස්ථා වලදී අවශ්‍ය තීරණ ඇය ගත්තාය. මේ සියළු දෙනාටම ඔවුන්ට ආවේනික දුබලතා මෙන්ම ප්‍රබලතා ද ඇත.

ජනාධිපති ගෝඨාභය රාජපක්ෂ ශක්තිමත් නායකයකු යයි මතයක් තිබේ. එය ඔප්පු කිරීමට ඔහුට තවමත් කාලය තිබේ. යම් හෙයකින් ඔහු ශක්තිමත් නායකයකු නම් අප සියළු දෙනාම ඒ පිළිබඳව සන්තෝෂ විය යුතුය. මක්නිසාද යත් ඔහු අපේ ජනාධිපති වන බැවිනි. ඔහුගේම වචන වලින් කිවහොත් ඔහු තමන්ට ඡන්දය නොදුන් ජනතාවද සිංහල බෞද්ධ ඡන්ද වලින් පත් වුවත් සිංහල හෝ බෞද්ධ හෝ නොවන ජනතාවද ඇතුළු සමස්ත ශ්‍රී ලාංකිකයන්ගේ ජනාධිපති වන බැවිනි.

මෙතෙක් ඔහුගේ ක්‍රියා කලාපය සලකා බලන කල හැඟී යන්නේ ඔහු ව්‍යවස්ථාපිත බලය මත විශ්වාසය තබන නායකයකු  බවයි.

එබැවින් පවතින ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධන ක්‍රියාවලියට විකල්පයක් අවශ්‍ය වී තිබේ. 

ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධන ක්‍රියාවලිය රටේ නායකයන්ගේද ඔවුන්ගේ අන්තේවාසිකයන් ලෙස ක්‍රියා කරන ඊනියා පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරුන්ගේද ග්‍රහණයෙන් මුදවා ගෙන ජනතාව අතට ගත යුතුය. මෙම කෙටුම්පතට ස්විට්සර්ලන්තයේ හෝ ඇමෙරිකාවේ කැලිෆෝනියා ප්‍රාන්තයේ හෝ මෙන් තෝරා පත් කර ගන්නා ලද ජනතා නියෝජිතයන් යම් අවස්ථා වලදී ආපසු කැඳවීමේ බලය ජනතාවට ලබා දීමේ ප්‍රතිපාදන ඇතුළත් කල යුතු යයි මම සිතමි. එමෙන්ම දේශපාලනඥයන් විසින් ව්‍යවස්ථාවට ඇතුලත් කිරීම අතපසු කරන ඔවුන්ගේ පැවැත්මට අදාල වන බොහෝ කරුණු ද ව්‍යවස්ථාවට ඇතුළත් කල හැකිවේ. ඉන් පසුව ජනතා සහභාගිත්වයෙන් සකස් කරන ලද කෙටුම්පත දේශපාලන නායකයන්ට ඉදිරිපත් කල හැකිය. මෙය ඉදිරි වසර කිහිපය තුළ අවසන් නොවන කල් පවතින ක්‍රියාවලියක් වනු ඇත.

මේ සම්බන්ධ විවිධ කතිකාවත් සමාජයේ ඇතිවී තිබේ. එයින් එකක් වන්නේ පසුගියදා රයිට්ස් නව් ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය සඳහා සාමූහිකය මගින් සූම් තාක්ෂණය ඔස්සේ කරන ලද සාකච්ඡාවයි. එයට සම්පත් දායකයන් වශයෙන් ජයම්පති වික්‍රමරත්න, ලාල් විජේනායක සහ කේ. ඩබ්. ජනරංජන යන මහත්වරු සහභාගී වූ අතර සාකච්ඡාව මෙහෙයවනු ලැබුවේ ජගත් ලියනාරච්චි මහතා විසිනි. සාකච්ඡාව ආරම්භ වූයේ මානව හිමිකම් සහ බලය බෙදීම යන කරුණු ව්‍යවස්ථාවට ඇතුලත් විය යුතු අන්දම වුවත් සාකච්ඡාව අවසාන වන විට අදාල යෝජනා විද්වත් කමිටුවට ඉදිරිපත් කර ඒවා ප්‍රසිද්ධ කිරීමටත් මහජන අදහස් මත පදනම්ව ඡායා ව්‍යවස්ථාවක් නිර්මාණය කිරීමටත් එය මහජනයා අතර සංවාදයට ලක් කිරීමටත් තීරණය විය. 

එසේ වුවහොත් මෙය අප සියළු දෙනාටම එකඟ විය හැකි ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවක් සකසා ගැනීමේ ක්‍රියාවලියට සක්‍රියව කෙරෙන ප්‍රථම මහජන මැදහත් වීම වෙයි. 

Published in Colombo Telegraph on November 19,2020

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/harsha-gunasena-19-november-2020/


People Should Make A Shadow Constitution

 By Harsha Gunasena –

Harsha Gunasena

During the last 72 years we had three constitutions and 20 amendments to the last one. A sovereign nation should prepare a constitution acceptable to all citizens in the outset. The two constitutions made by independent Sri Lanka and most of the amendments were skewed towards the wishes of the persons who were in power.

The government has appointed a nine-member Expert Committee to prepare the preliminary draft for a new constitution. The last regime has done a lot in preparation of a new constitution. Their approach was a democratic one and therefore it took a long time to complete. The two leaders of the previous regime did not have a political will to bring it to an end. Initially there was a report of the Public Representations Committee headed by Mr. Lal Wijenayake. Thereafter, the Constitutional Assembly appointed members representing all parties in the Parliament to six sub committees covering the areas of Fundamental Rights, Judiciary, law and Order, Public Finance, Public Service and Centre-Periphery Relations to assist the Steering Committee.

All the reports of the sub committees were published. Based on the Steering Committee deliberations and reports of the sub committees, an expert panel prepared a report to the Steering Committee in the form of a draft constitution and the Steering Committee decided to present the same to the Constitutional Assembly without preparing its own draft. In the appendix of the proposed draft there were alternative proposals by the political parties as well as the certain members of the expert panel.

Neither the government nor the Expert Committee said that this literature would be perused. Therefore, this process would be an extension of the backward Sri Lankan political culture that there is a new start up once a new government is appointed.

Moreover, in the government benches in the Parliament there are number of members who actively participated in those six committees. Some of them headed some of those committees. There were Chief Ministers of Sri Lanka Freedom Party demanded more powers to the Chief Ministers to have a meaningful devolution of power to the Provincial Councils. Some of them are now in the government benches. Also, there are members in the government benches who voted in favour of 17A and 19A which restricted the centralized power. All of them en masse voted in favor of the 20A which broadened the centralized power. The reason was that it was the wish of the President.


Also, the 1972 constitution which was passed by the then government with its 2/3rd majority in the parliament failed to give Tamil the status of an official language although with the prominent contribution of Dr. Colvin R. De Silva. The constitution in 1978  which was passed with its 5/6th majority in the parliament by the then government granted enormous power to the president compared to other two branches of the Democracy although with the contribution of Mr. Mark Fernando who became a renowned justice later. All these happened with the wish of the then leader of the government.

The arbitrary wish of the leader of the government was not reflected in 17A and 19A which were spearheaded by the parties without majority power of the parliament. Quite in contrast the then President was eager to get his powers reduced under 19A

Therefore, the new constitution will be shaped based on the wishes of the President rather than the needs of the country. The basic problem in Sri Lanka is that the power is concentrated in the top in the expense of the bottom and in the centre in the expense of the periphery. If the power can be shifted from top to bottom the problem the South is having with the constitution would be solved and if the power can be shifted from the centre to the periphery the problem the North and East is having with the constitution would be solved. 

The obstacle for this was the demand of a strong leadership arose at the last two elections. It is an obstacle since the problem was grasped at the wrong end. 

In order to have a strong Democracy there should be a strong leader. A strong leader should have a strong vision and a strong convincing power to convince the people and  his/her followers. If the leader wants concentrated constitutional power for that, he or she would not be a strong democratic leader. Dictators want such powers. They want only to order and there should be a bunch of people to implement those orders. The strength of a strong leader should come from within and not from outside.

A strong Democracy would not need a leader with arbitrary constitutional power. The need is to have leader with strong and broad vision with the ability to convey it to the people.

Nelson Mandela was such a person. Once he became the President, he continued to engage the white people not only in building the economy but also in his personal security with the opposition of African National Congress and the people at large. He was able to convince all of them that he was correct. That was strong leadership. 

President Donald Trump is refusing to concede the election defeat. USA is supposed to be a matured Democracy unlike Sri Lanka. None of the Sri Lankan leaders behaved in that manner.   With the reports published at that time the only exception was President Rajapaksa in January 2015. Even in that instance matters were sorted out by the dawn of the following day. President Trump’s behaviour is sheer weakness.

President JR Jayewardene was unable to contain the July 1983 riots with all the presidential powers, undisputed leadership of the governing party, 5/6th legislative power to that party and with undated resignation letters of those MPs. Hence, he was a weak leader. This is contrary to the popular belief of his leadership. He wanted power to safeguard himself and not the people.

Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike was stronger compared to President Jayewardene. Although she did not have such constitutional powers as him, she took appropriate decisions at appropriate times. All of these leaders have their own pluses and minuses.

There is an opinion that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa is a strong leader. The President has more time to prove that. If he is a strong leader all of us should be happy since he is our President. In his own words he is the President not only of the people who voted for him but also of the people who did not vote him including the people of other ethnic and religious groups although he came to power mainly with Sinhala Buddhist votes. 

Based on the decisions he has taken so far it is felt that he places his belief on constitutional power.

Therefore, it is necessary to have an alternative to the constitution making process since it is more likely that the process would be based on his wishes rather than the interests of the country.

In parallel to the official process there could be a shadow process of making a constitution independent of the leaders of the country and the bunch of yes men at the Parliament. I believe that this draft should include the provisions of recalling the elected representatives in certain instances as in Switzerland and the state of California in USA. In addition to that, the points the politicians are reluctant to include in the constitution which are related to their existence can also be included. Thereafter, the draft constitution can be presented to the political leaders.  This will last for few years.  

There are discussions in the society to this effect. One of those was organized by Rights Now Collective for Democracy using technology. Resource persons were Messrs Jayampathy Wickramaratne, Lal Wijenayake and KW Janaranjana and the discussion was conducted by Mr. Jagath Liyanarachchi. The discussion was started with the issue of how human rights and devolution of power be included in the constitution and by the end of the discussion it was decided to send the proposals to the Expert Committee, publish the same and engage in preparation of a shadow constitution.

If it is materialized it would be the first active public intervention in preparation of a constitution to which all of us can agree.

Published in Colombo Telegraph on November 19, 2020

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/people-should-make-a-shadow-constitution/

Saturday, November 14, 2020

Alien vs. Predator or Ginger vs. Chillies?

 



US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the press conference with Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena called the Chinese Communist Party a predator. The Chinese Embassy in Sri Lanka tweeted that China was not interested in his Alien vs. Predator game invitation. 

Secretary Pompeo visited Sri Lanka after the recent visit of a high-powered Chinese delegation, led by senior Chinese leader and top foreign policy official Yang Jiechi, who is a member of the Communist Party of China’s Politburo and the Director of the Central Committee’s Foreign Affairs Commission.

As a precursor of the visit, Dean Thompson, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs of the State Department, said: “We urge Sri Lanka to make difficult but necessary decisions to secure its economic independence for long-term prosperity,” to which Chinese officials responded that it was cold war mentality and bullying of weak nations. 

During the early part of the Trump presidency the trade war with China was started, violating the norms of the World Trade Organization, and now it has gone to the level of a cold war. After resurrection in 2017 the alliance called the Quad, comprising India, Japan, Australia and the US, emphasised the liberal rule based international order which was undermined by China and now it is openly anti-China.

The foreign policy of US is an extension of its defence policy. The US at present seems to perceive that the existence of China is a threat to the US. Therefore, given the deepening relationship with China, Sri Lanka is likely to get trapped between the US and China unless Sri Lanka acts cautiously.

 

Ginger vs. Chillies

It is a well-known idiom in Sri Lanka that the act of King Rajasingha II requesting the help of the Dutch to expel the Portuguese from the coastal areas of Sri Lanka which happened in 1656 was like exchanging ginger for chillies. 

A century later in 1766 King Kirti Sri Rajasingha had to enter a treaty with the Dutch of which the conditions were not favourable to the Kandyan Kingdom since the King had to enter the treaty after the Dutch Governor Van Eck entered the Kandy city, ransacked it and occupied the palace. The King had taken refuge elsewhere. Van Eck left the city since he could not hold it and did not get the support of the civilians. The treaty was signed with the Governor Falck, successor of Eck. One of the main adverse conditions of the treaty was that the Dutch could claim the sovereignty of the coastal lands they occupied.

In 1781 the British occupied Trincomalee and the British sent an envoy to Kandy. Having heard that a British envoy was in Kandy, the Dutch also sent an envoy. Now the King was Rajadi Rajasingha. With the envoys of two European nations ardently wooing him, the King began bargaining. 

Having evaluated the two parties the King rejected the offer of the British which was more attractive and asked the Dutch if they wanted to remain in peace in Kandy they had to return the coastal lands. Governor Flack was constrained to oblige. The events that followed proved the foresight of the King for soon after the British lost Trincomalee to the French and later it was restored to the Dutch. (‘The Kandyan Kingdom of Sri Lanka 1707-1782’ by Lorna S. Dewaraja, pages 136-160.)

 

Formula of N.Q. Dias

China entered into Sri Lankan foreign policy back in the 1960s. Neville Jayaweera, top civil servant in his autobiographical reflection on the ethnic conflict, ‘Jaffna, Exorcising the past and holding the vision,’ comments as follows about the then powerful Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Defence and External Affairs N.Q. Dias:

“Dias also unfolded to me a brand-new foreign policy he was working on. He was of the view that basically Sri Lanka had no coherent foreign policy and was consequently too dependent on the West and trusted the bona fides of India, which he said was a huge mistake. He emphasised the need for Sri Lanka to veer away from India and forge new alliances. He said that to this end he was planning to open up closer relations with China as a countervailing force against India and to set his project in motion, was plaining to send Mrs. Bandaranaike on an official visit to Beijing.”

“As for my role as GA of Jaffna, Dias said that while facilitating the construction of the propose military camps girdling the Northern Province, I should be ‘unrelenting’ towards Tamil demands, and wherever possible ‘force confrontations’ with them and establish the Government’s ‘undisputed ascendancy’” (pages 74-75).

The plan of Dias was to encircle the Northern Province with a chain of military camps to contain a future Tamil revolt and the new GA Jaffna had to facilitate the construction.

Dias was trying to harass Tamils and made plans to contain a future revolt in the capacity of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence and at the same time was trying to move away from the West and from India and trying to build up close relationship with China in the capacity of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs. This was the root cause of our subsequent dilemma in foreign policy.

 

Role played by India

When President Jayewardene moved towards the West ignoring India in 1980s when India was aligned with the Soviet Union during the cold war, he was advised by the US to settle matters with India since US did not want to interfere with the affairs of a country which was in the backyard of India. Eventually India trained Tamil militants who revolted against the State, making the plans of Dias a flop. 

When the war dragged on, the West did not support Sri Lanka since there was a strong ethnic issue against Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka had to rely on Pakistan for the supply of arms. Eventually when the LTTE killed Rajiv Gandhi and became a power with naval and air force, the West supported to defeat the LTTE, but the arms came mainly from China. India also did not interfere as it did in the Rajiv-JR era.

After the end of the war the Sri Lankan Government did not fulfil the promises made to India during the war related to a political settlement to the ethnic issue, which were helpful to neutralise India during the war. When Indian pressure was building up, Sri Lanka turned to China. 

In the 1980s Ralph Buultjens said that the pivotal point of the Indo-Lanka relationship was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. This was changed with the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi but the Centre of India cannot ignore the sentiments of the Tamil Nadu towards the Tamils of Sri Lanka.

The situation Sri Lanka faces today is a complicated extension of the dual policy of N.Q. Dias. It is complicated because of the cold war of US and China. President Jayewardene also faced the same situation but during that time the Chinese factor, the other component of Dias’s formula, was not there.

 

US and Chinese interests


It was evident that the US supported authoritative regimes around the world when those regimes supported to counter the overall defence concerns of the US. In those instances, the US was not concerned whether those regimes supported the liberal and democratic values, which were propagated by the US around the world. 

For the US, defence comes first and then liberal and democratic values. Therefore, as a trade-off it may be possible that the US may forgo the pressure to Sri Lanka to its commitment to the reconciliation process in exchange for loyalty to the US against China. If so, Sri Lanka would not be able to come up as a nation for generations to come. However, this is unlikely due to the concerns of India towards Sri Lankan Tamils. Secretary Pompeo confirmed this in his speech by emphasising on reconciliation. Sri Lanka would be stronger if we have resolved the ethnic conflict, which means taking away the second component of Dias’s formula.

The other aspect is cash. Minister Cabraal said that at this juncture of the history China is the most cash rich country. During the war China supplied arms on loan. Thereafter, China funded several projects where there were no economic returns in the short run. China is accused of debt diplomacy around the world. Sri Lanka is a country which had inappropriate financial management for a long period. Sri Lanka turned to China at this point due to the same reasons a rural farmer turns to a local money lender instead of a bank. 

The choice of Sri Lanka is constrained by the Indian factor. It is much more complicated than the situation King Rajadi Rajasingha faced. With the national problem remaining unresolved if Sri Lanka moves towards China, the country may inherit the same fate of President Jayewardene. We should not forget that there is a strong Hindutva movement emerging with the backing of the ruling BJP. On the other hand emergence of China in a unipolar world is a positive one.  Therefore, the choice for Sri Lanka is difficult.

 http://www.ft.lk/columns/Alien-vs-Predator-or-Ginger-vs-Chillies/4-708399

Published in DailyFT on November 4, 2020

Republished

https://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/70850