Tuesday, 21 April 2015 00:29
-
- {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
The wreckage of the crashlanded Interim Budget is still smouldering. Let’s give the Government a little sympathy for the short notice; and the exuberance of the unexpected victory (?) which may have led to the fiasco.
No such excuses for the Constitution, the principle elements of which were rejected by the Supreme Court, proving only that the Court has been reinstated, and the abject ignorance of its creators.
This from the two major political parties who would have us believe that a de-radicalised Constitution was on their agenda for the last 10 years! Tell that to the marines. They had only 10 (?) years to draft it and have only proven that the do not even understand the conditions stipulated by the current Constitution. And possibly all lawyers! And they expect us to trust their judgment in running the country.
All roads lead to a referendum
Is it really so difficult to realise, understand and accept that all roads lead to a referendum? Even the Kopi Kade Mudalali knows this. Why hide behind the 100 days and have a readymade excuse for a half-baked Constitution?
Transparency International Sri Lanka just reported the results of a survey which states that 71% of the population were of the opinion that little or no consultation and or dissemination of information was forthcoming prior to submission of the 19th Amendment to Parliament. Would this be a new “after the fact” democracy? The Justice Minister just announced that none of the governing systems anywhere in the world are suitable for Sri Lanka! So either they want to enter the Guinness Book of Records (again) or we are a freak nation.
A “Constitutional Assembly”! Whatever on earth is that? The question is, how many bodies in an assembly? Please somebody, explain to us, the prospective subjects, what this monster is! Hopefully not a red herring! Or a thinly-veiled excuse to continue with 70 ministerial types or senators with the same perks.
While the recommendations of the Elections Commissioner to increase the number of parliamentary seats to balance the ratio of seats between parties and ethnic groups seems commendable at first glance, this would still amount to 27 members per province; in a country that is smaller than a single Indian state with much greater ethnic variety. The suggested ratio can be maintained with a much smaller number. This would have the added bonus of promoting multi ethnic parties to achieve a Parliamentary majority. This can only help to end divisive politics. Not to mention reducing costs!
Dissatisfied with action on corruption
Beyond the initial TISL statistic on public consultation quoted above, 62% of the population were allegedly dissatisfied with the action on corruption.
The public do not seem to understand that past corruption is a matter of investigation, collection of evidence and prosecution in a court of law. This is a judicial procedure, not a Parliamentary procedure. It is contingent upon the efficiency of the investigative mechanism and the independence of the Judiciary. The Government cannot interfere in due legal process as was the case previously.
The safeguards against future corruption are (hopefully) to be enshrined in the new Constitution. The Public Services Commission, supremacy and independence of the Judiciary, the Police Commission, transparency in procurement of goods and services, etc., with requisite mandatory pecuniary and penal provisions for transgressions, if properly enacted should greatly alleviate this problem.
In short, past corruption and future corruption are two distinct entities.
Legislators should get priorities right
The legislators should now get their priorities right. It is patently obvious that the parties hither to involved in drafting the necessary amendments have proven their incompetence beyond reasonable doubt. It is imperative that amendments to the constitution be drafted by competent, independent experts solely in the interest of the citizens of this country. It is not acceptable that any undemocratic element be included in a constitution irrespective of whether it can be legalised by a referendum or not which is now inescapable.
It would appear that just such an element has found its way into the amendments. The power to appoint and remove cabinet ministers and the allocation of portfolios being vested in one person at his or her sole discretion, was in fact the hammer over the head of all the Cabinet members which kept them all tongue tied and subservient. This cannot prevail. All such appointments and removals should be subject to vetting by a parliamentary select committee with powers to veto. Even the head of government must have justifiable reasons for his actions. In a stalemate it may be referred to a Presidential Select Committee (Privy Council) to uphold or reject the dispute.
Likewise, prudency dictates that the Supreme Court, being the court of last resort, should not have its members appointed by the Bar Association under any circumstances. A procedure similar to the Public Services Commission selection process should be employed to eliminate obligation to the Bar.
The cardinal rule should be insulating the presidency and the Supreme Court from interference and guaranteeing their independence and primacy of office; albeit accountable to Parliament and actionable only under the 2/3 Parliamentary majority rule when in breach of their respective duties by commission or omission.
This writer would be curious to establish whether the 1978 Constitution would stand the Supreme Court test on legality as per international norms vis-à-vis democracy.
If not, it begs the question why any amendment based on a flawed, demonised Constitution coerced by a 5/6th majority is legal if not tainted!
A new Constitution
The people were promised a new Constitution. Why carry excess baggage? Why be besotted by a 19th Amendment and a self-proclaimed 100 day precipice? Are we to seek amendments ad nauseum to another ill-conceived Constitutional amendment? Or for that matter bother with a 13th Amendment!?
What is to prevent the President from leaving the interim coalition in place tentatively within the unexpired term as per the current Constitution? He is then at liberty to commission the drafting of a completely new Constitution by credible, nonpartisan, constitutional experts. He then needs only to go to a referendum to establish a new Constitution.
A positive outcome would be a forgone conclusion providing all the pre-election promises are clearly enshrined in the new Constitution, beyond which, non-implementation is not a choice. It is this writer’s guess that a proclamation to this effect by no less than the President would be accepted by the general public without question.
