Feather in the Cap of President Mahinda Rajapaksa:

True spirit of democracy

The ‘Eighteenth Amendment’ to the Constitution was endorsed and adopted in Parliament on September 8, 2010 by a massive majority of 144 with 161 for and 17 against

Vernon Boteju

It is noteworthy that this majority was comprised not only of Government Members but also the Opposition who crossed over and voted in its favour.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa

This united act of the Members of the recently elected Parliament blew a breath of fresh air and generated the spirit of bonhomie and camaraderie that pervaded the House of Parliament that day and certainly bears eloquent testimony to the spirit of democracy prevailing not only in Parliament but also in the country at large and augurs well not only for future development and progress but also for preservation of democracy and peace and harmony in Sri Lanka the need of the hour.

Opposition parties

It is also noteworthy, that the Members of Parliament, of a multi-racial Nation who are elected by the votes of the people, are the representatives of the people of the land, although they belong to various registered political parties of different creeds and colour or ‘isms and thus primarily owe allegiance to their respective parties and constituents.

But when they decide to act in unity in the larger interests of the Nation, casting aside their narrow parochial interests reaching consensus, to vote in favour of Acts and Laws deemed beneficial to the people and the country at large, it is manifestly a decision worthy of admiration and appreciation and not condemnation.

In the premises the act of those who supported the ‘Eighteenth Amendment’ in the true spirit of democracy is praiseworthy.

The victory in Parliament of President Mahinda Rajapaksa on this issue, deemed to be highly controversial, certainly is the greater, for the reason, that certain Opposition political parties, individuals, groups and organizations under different names with vivid political objectives and other political opponents in Sri Lanka and overseas commenced and mounted a massive public campaign both in the print and electronic media, against the proposed reforms to the Constitution on various grounds in the name of democracy, even before the ‘Bill’ was placed before Parliament for debate and vote. The publicity given in the electronic and print media to such objections by the DNP members clad in black, vowing that they will boycott Parliament and mockingly burning a document purporting to be the proposed ‘Bill’ of the amendments and announcing that a UNP Member of Parliament was intending to fast unto death - all puerile acts, unbecoming of a mature senior political party and the JVP too taking a slogan shouting street demonstrations even before the resolution was placed before Parliament for discussion and debate certainly demonstrated, that it was not merely to enlighten and educate the people of the issues before the country and lead them as the democratic path but to create and foster a spirit of acrimony and hostility to push them and recite and rouse the rabble to rebel against the recent democratically elected government of the day and cause a breach of the peace and harmony that is undoubtedly prevalent in the entire country today since the eradication of the LTTE scourge of terrorism.

Street demonstrations

In this connection it is relevant to note the undemocratic role played by the UNP the main Opposition party in Parliament: Whilst blazing into print and the leaders participating in street demonstrations before TV cameras and denouncing in the name of democracy, the proposed reforms by the government, that was not even known to the man in the street or the people of the land, at that point of time, publicly announced its decision to boycott Parliament. The unjustifiable decision to boycott Parliament, for reasons best known only to the UNP, evidently was taken, to incite and rouse the rabble for short sighted political gain and thus the UNP as the main Opposition party certainly lost the golden opportunity to enlighten the country and her people and justify its objections to the proposed amendments through the Legal Constitutional Forum of Parliamentary Democracy.

Thus an inference to be drawn by any reasonable and prudent man or even the man in the street is that the UNP had nothing to offer or say in Parliament against the proposed reforms and as some political analysts note by declining to vote the UNP had something up its sleeve that would be beneficial to its leaders in the future and becoming wiser indirectly supported the 18th Amendment in Parliament. The UNP Members of Parliament who voted in favour of the ‘Bill’ publicly alleged that by boycotting Parliament the UNP supported the endorsement of the ‘Bill’.

To be continued