The 18th Amendment

Now that the dust has settled on the whole issue of the 18th Amendment it would be prudent for all concerned to put behind all rancour and bitterness and ensure that the best use is made of the new legislation for the benefit of the people and the country.

Sri Lanka which is just emerging from a three-decade-old war cannot afford to waste time on polemics. The Amendment is passed. It is time that politicians of all hues take cognizance of the need to move over from here. The country is on the threshold of a new era that would necessarily involve changes. But these changes should always be with the future of the country at heart.

In the past Constitutional changes largely stemmed from power hunger, self-aggrandizement or with a vindictive motive. The best example is the Amendment that deprived a former Prime Minister of her civic rights. Amendments were also introduced under duress. We are referring here to the 13th Amendment. There was also another Amendment to extend the life of Parliament. All these amendments were done not for the right reasons but for the perpetuation of power. This tinkering of the Constitution for selfish reasons has made it a lopsided document.

Hence there had always been an urgent need for Constitutional reform to reflect the true aspirations of the people. It is hoped that President Rajapaksa would make proper use of the two thirds majority he has secured to enact the appropriate changes that would rid the present Constitution of its evil features and be essentially people centred.

Although the main Opposition UNP tried to make a song and dance about the lifting of Presidential time limits it is not sincere with itself. For it is common knowledge that JR Jayewardene who fathered the present Constitution was toying with the idea seeking a third term even though he was not an elected President when he served his first term. Only the fierce resistance of Prime Minister Premadasa and turmoil in the country made him opt out.

The Opposition also argues that the removal of term limits had paved the way for dictatorship which is another misnomer. How can this be the case when the President has to submit himself to the will of the voter at the end of his present term? This factor is ignored by the UNP/JVP Opposition having the people believe that this is an 'extension' of his present term. They deliberately omit to mention that the President has to face the hustings which is hardly compatible with a dictatorship.

The Opposition only harps on this theme failing to mention the beneficial effects if the 18th Amendment which includes strong features empowering Parliament in which the people's sovereignty rest. The Amendment also makes it mandatory for the President to attend Parliament once every three months. This is a welcome departure from the current practice where the President only comes to Parliament to declare open new sessions of the House or on special occasions and lord over the Assembly from the Speaker's Chair. Now the President will be a participant in the business of the House albeit only once in three months, where he could get a better knowledge and insight of the people's grievances as voiced by members, prompting him to take swift remedial action.

Under the Amendment a Parliamentary Council comprising the Prime Minister, Speaker and Leader of the Opposition will be vested with the duty of making appointments to the various Commissions in consultation with the President. Could one call this consultative process a dictatorial trend? This, while removing any stalemate which affected the 17th Amendment is also another instance where Parliament's supremacy would be underlined.

The country has moved into a new era after the ushering in of a new independence and would require reforms to its Constitution to unload the baggage of the past and make it an instrument to serve the people more productively. Besides in this post war era where the country has embarked on an unprecedented development drive there is essentially a need for continuity. The tail end of President Rajapaksa's first term has coincided with the end of the war and he has to have sufficient time to realize his new vision for the country. A mere six year period would not suffice to plan out such long term strategies for a newly liberated country.

Besides, from experience we know that during a second term which is the last lap of a Presidency the incumbent tends to become lax and loses the inclination and initiative to take bold decisions for the benefit of the country. They also tend to act irresponsibly knowing that they have nothing to lose and plunge the country into chaos and upheaval. The second term of President Jayawardene exemplifies this where ad-hoc decisions were taken with no accountability.

The removal of term limits would now keep an incumbent on his guard while doing what is best for the country and its people. If the people are not impressed then he would be rejected. But no one can say that this is for want of trying.