Feather in the Cap of President Mahinda Rajapaksa:

People’s power supreme

Vernon Boteju

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. First part of this article was published yesterday

President Mahinda Rajapaksa

Looking back in retrospect one can reminisce that the 1978 Constitution the ‘Magna Carta’ of the late leader of the UNP and President of Sri Lanka J R Jayewardene, that was imposed on the people by a 5/6 majority that the late leader commanded in Parliament under an electoral system and procedure that the drastically changed thereafter, perhaps with the hope of the UNP ruling the country for ever.

One can also remember that the late leader was the first to endeavour to extend the period of office of the executive President created under the said Constitution and inter alia appointed a committee for such purpose.

It is now history that certain members of that committee were assassinated by a known suspected group of terrorists at that point of time and thus the late UNP leader’s dream was frustrated.

Viewed in this backdrop it is not difficult for one to draw the inference aforementioned regarding the present attitude of the UNP in regard to the proposed reforms to the Constitution.

It is noteworthy that the JVP, the other registered Opposition minor political parties in Parliament of the Left Wing, the newly registered DNA and parties manifestly registered under communal names like the TNA having raised a howl of protest through both print and electronic media against the proposed amendments to the existing 1978 Constitution of Sri Lanka were finally left stranded on the decisive day as a weak opposition in Parliament on September 8, 2010 and naturally was overwhelmed by the weight of the majority in favour of the ‘Eighteenth Amendment’.

In any event, on reasonable consideration of the arguments adduced by the UNP outside Parliament and the weak Opposition in Parliament, it is crystal clear, that the objections adduced, do not stand the test of scrutiny, when examined dispassionately.

Executive President

The stuff and substance and thrust of the main contention is an omnibus assertion that the proposed reforms ring the death knell of democracy that the UNP manifestly eschewed on September 8, 2010.

The TNA had nothing more to add except to lament the lack of sufficient notice and criticize the hurried manner of presentation of the Bill to the Supreme Court and Parliament. An additional argument adduced by a leader of the TNA was that in all civilized countries the period of tenure of office of an executive president was limited to two terms by reference to modern states of not more than two hundred years of existence that have elected executive presidents in any event this TNA assertion implies that the election of an Executive President is not objectionable.

What the TNA forgets or ignores is that the civilization of Sri Lanka, dates back to more than 2600 years. The different perhaps being that Sri Lanka or Ceylon or Serendib as the island kingdom was then known to the rest of the world was a monarchist kingdom ruled by kings and queens and then even had diplomatic relations with Rome and France; but was not a federal State ruled by a President, till the invasion and colonization in or about the 15th century by foreign imperialists that devastated that civilization and imposed an imperialist rule and reigned for over 400 years. In fact it is said that the architect of the 1978 Constitution of Sri Lanka had at the back of his mind the concept of a monarchist kingdom, when he drafted the Constitution, a dream that he failed to realize.

JVP insurrection

Adverting to the proceedings of the debate in Parliament it is necessary to consider the contributions made by other speakers of the day to examine what they had to add or say in Opposition, to answer the question in issue, whether their arguments were sound. A prominent member of the JVP in his objections re-iterated that the Adoption of the ‘18th Amendment’ is to screw the last nail into the coffin to burry democracy. These graphic words certainly ring a bell in one’s ear and reminds one of the dark days of the height of JVP terrorist insurrection, that this MP himself will not deny or forget, when an obituary was published in a newspaper of the day that intimated to the people of the land that ‘D.E.M. O’Cracy was dead’. It was no secret as to who was responsible for this obituary notice.

The JVP then laid down their laws and rules to be administered by ‘Kangaroo Courts’ and to be observed by the people that decreed inter alia - to effect a black out in their homes. (like the days of the Second World War); to listen to the Radio and watch TV at directed times of the day, to carry a coffin only knee high and not above: just to mention only a few such decrees: And woe be unto those who disobeyed or protested as they were at the mercy of a terrorist’s razor’s edge that slit their mouths if not their throats.

What this MP in his enthusiasm forgets is their assertion that democracy was dead and buried at that point of time of the JVP insurrection: that certainty was the act and deed of the JVP. If so. Then D.E.M. O’Cracy and the coffin does not exist any more to screw the last nail. Unless it is conceded by the JVP that democracy is alive and kicking today and every citizen including this MP himself has the democratic right and freedom of expression without fear, guaranteed under the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka that needs amendment.

Asian region

The arguments of the leader of the DNA in Parliament and the other prominent members of the JVP who contested under its banner, merely repeated and re-iterated the hackneyed phrase of danger to democracy and the burial of democracy by the adoption of the proposed amendments contained in the ‘18th Amendment’.

The leader of the DNA in addition reiterating the hackneyed phrase ‘absolute power corrupts’ in order to highlight the danger to democracy made an ominous reference to and drew a parallel of an event that occurred in recent times, in a State in the Asian region where a Coup d’etat had occurred.

One cannot guess or speculate nor is if fair and just to comment on what this speaker, being an ex-officer of the Army, may have had at the back of his mind when he made this reference to a Coup d’etat but certainly he forgets or designedly ignores the fact, that whatever power that is vested in President Mahinda Rajapaksa, is not power grabbed illegally but granted under and by virtue of the ‘18th Amendment’ under an Act of Law enacted in the democratically elected Parliament of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and endorsed and adopted by the required majority under the law or more of Members of Parliament who are manifestly the representatives of the people of the land, in the true spirit of democracy, demonstrating to the world that Sri Lanka is truly an Independent Sovereign Democratic Nation by her deeds and acts as her name signifies.

Members of Parliament

It is manifestly evident and clear that in a democratic State the voice and the power of the people is heard and vested in the Parliament elected by the people and expressed through the Members of Parliament elected by the people to represent them in Parliament and net in the streets and highways: laws are enacted in Parliament for the good of the people under rules of procedure laid down in Parliament.

Decisions are made after discussion and debate on the basis of voting for or against or declining to rate in a democratic manner.

In the instant issue of the 18th Amendment the Bill has been endorsed and adopted in the Parliament by the required majority under the law.

Manifestly there is no merit in the objections raised by the Opposition based on mere speculation and hypothesis buttressed by hackneyed phrases.

Concluded

The writer is Attorney-at-Law