A political drama without actors: How will it end?

No one is certain of the script of the play that is running. No one can predict with any certainty as to how the play will end, if it ends. What is guiding it appears to be a badly drafted 19th Amendment – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

By Raj Gonsalkorale

A country is being enthralled with a political drama that has never been witnessed in its long history. The theme of the drama is about institutional degradation and how one could undo years of effort in building institutions in a mere swoop of a week. 

The producers have done an excellent job, and they have shown how one could remove even the semblance of credibility that the people’s representatives had, in that mere sweep. The producers have also shown a country with a proud history of some 2,600 years, if not more, a rich cultural heritage and a reasonably unblemished record of democratic traditions could be usurped by a few for the detriment of many. 

The other excellent twist in the play, very ably manipulated by the producers is how this culturally enriched country has become the laughing stock of even some unstable African countries where it is not unfamiliar for its citizens to frequently wake up to a new government. 

Let’s identify the main actors in this political drama as A, B, C and D. The President of the country is A and the Prime Minister is B. The leader of an Opposition Alliance is C and the Speaker of the Parliament is D. 

The party of A and the party of B enters into an MOU and they form a national government as prescribed in the Constitution. The Constitution allows them to exceed the number of cabinet ministers beyond what is permitted for a government that is not defined by the Constitution as a national government.

A and B are not getting along and there are policy and personal differences. This has gone on for a long time and anyone who is someone knows about it. C is a very popular figure and A and C were together at one point in time, although they had parted ways a few years ago. In recent times, it has been reported that A and C had met and discussed a reunion. 

A and B have come to a dead end and A withdraws his party from the MOU signed with B’s party. Constitutionally, the national government has come to an end. The Constitution also says that B will have his job as long as the cabinet exists. When a government ceases to exist, the cabinet ceases to exist as a matter of logic as the latter cannot exist if there is no government, and B automatically loses his job

Meanwhile A, without simply saying B has lost his job as per the constitutional provision, announces he has removed B from his job. Silly, as one cannot remove someone from a job if that person does not hold that job. A then appoints C as the new PM. A has the right to do so as per the Constitution. The Constitution does not specify that the appointee has to seek a vote of confidence in the Parliament. 

B, his party, and others supporting him and sections of the media cries foul and pronounces C is an illegitimate PM and his government and his cabinet is illegitimate as well. B doesn’t think he should get a ruling from the Supreme Court as he and his supporters have decided on the legitimacy of C and his cabinet/government. The Constitution does not give the right to B or anyone else to determine the legitimacy of C. Only the Supreme Court could do so if there are doubts and they are asked for such a ruling.

Now comes D, the Speaker of the Parliament. He is from B’s party.

B’s party and supporters have drafted a No Confidence Motion (NCM) on C and his government and hands over to D. Within minutes, D has asked for a voice vote and says the “ayes” have it and the NCM is carried. Clearly, D has not followed parliamentary procedures in the way he handled the NCM. It is strange that B and his supporters moved a NCM on C and a government which they claimed is illegal. Isn’t such an NCM superfluous?

A and C refuse to accept D’s contention and a second NCM is moved. That too does not follow procedures and D rules that too had been carried.

In the melee that follows, some parliamentarians show their true character and a wrestling match ensues.

If memory serves right, somewhere during the first and second NCMs, A dissolves Parliament and announces a fresh general election in January 2019.

On this occasion, B’s party and supporters decide to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court, and they get an injunction to temporarily stop the dissolution until a ruling is given by the Supreme Court on 7 December.

The play is still going on to packed houses…

The much heralded 19th Amendment to the Constitution, drafted by a retinue of experts (some say self-appointed), which purportedly took away much of the powers of the Executive President, appears to have created a hornet’s nest, where vagueness rather than explicitness and ill- defined de linking of Executive Presidential powers from clauses in the 1978 Constitution seems to be a common thread that runs across the 19th Amendment.   

No one is certain of the script of the play that is running. No one can predict with any certainty as to how the play will end, if it ends. What is guiding it appears to be a badly drafted 19th Amendment. 

The play can have an ending, probably a happy one for the country, if A, B, C and D can sit together and agree that its best to ask the people to decide who should form a government and who should be PM. After all democracy is about how people’s sovereignty and their wishes. In the current circumstances shouldn’t they be the ones who should decide the way out of this impasse?

If A, B, C and D are unable, unwilling to do this, then the country’s religious leaders, civil society leaders, academics, professionals businessmen and women, corporate entities and the general public, in whatever way they can, should force their hand to seek the wish of the people.