Underscoring the importance of Parliament

The ethnic problem has been the bugbear of Sri Lankan politics since the issue of ‘50-50’, the proposal for equal power-sharing between the Sinhalese and Tamil communities, came up in the 1940s.

The Soulbury constitution, which was intended to address minority grievances, was one essentially foisted on the Sri Lankan polity by the British Colonial Raj.

It was in order to rectify problems which occurred in the 1947 constitution that the Draft 1972 Constitution was considered at length by Parliament sitting as a Constituent Assembly. It was a well thought-out fusion of viewpoints from the Left to the Centre.

The author of that First Republican Constitution was the renowned legal expert and veteran Leftist politician Colvin R de Silva. His primary target was the removal of vestigial colonialism and the incorporation of socialist values.

Kandyan Convention

He did not devote much time to ethnic issues, except that a provision to give Buddhism its ‘rightful place’ was included as a corrective for the British colonialists’ betrayal of the Kandyan Convention of 1815.

However, he did include recognition of the fundamental human rights and freedoms of all citizens - ignored in the Soulbury constitution. These included the right to equality, freedom from arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty and security of person, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom to enjoy and promote one’s culture, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, speech and expression, freedom of movement and of residence, and freedom from discrimination.

The mechanism for protecting these rights included a constitutional court and an Ombudsman. His thinking was that inclusion of socialist values and a bill of rights would address any divisions on ethnic lines.

This constitution has been criticised as depriving the minorities of their rights, almost solely based on the fact that it did away finally with the supremacy of the British Privy Council in the legal affairs of Sri Lanka - an impossible position for a sovereign country.

By way of contrast, the 1978 constitution was a document hastily drawn up on the basis of the French Gaullist constitution by a constitutional expert close to President J R Jayewardene.

It was the adoption of this basic law which led to the joke about Sri Lanka’s constitution being a periodical.

So fraught by defects was the 1978 constitution that Jayewardene himself felt the need to bring in 13 ad-hoc amendments within nine years of its adoption.

The late Neelan Thiruchelvam was the brains behind the proposal brought by President Chandrika Kumaratunga to establish what was, in essence, a federal republic. This was an attempt to force on the country a solution which had not been the subject of previous consultation and it trod heavily on the toes of the majority community.

This is not to gainsay the undoubted sincerity with which Neelan dealt with the problem, for which he paid with his life, a victim of V Prabhakaran’s paranoia. Nevertheless, one must take issue with the approach of pressing it, almost un-discussed, on a not too receptive citizenry.

Although the 1978 constitution did away with the supremacy of Parliament, this body remains the highest repository of the common will in its multiplicity.

Ethnic groups

It is by virtue of the very diversity of viewpoints and backgrounds of the tribunes gathered therein that the House has legitimacy as a de-facto constituent assembly.

Consider the means by which America’s founding fathers went about writing the first modern constitution. In order to resolve differences between the states, representatives from each gathered in a Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia.

After extensive discussion and debate, and a process which lasted four months (more than one and a half years if one takes in to account the earlier Annapolis Convention), the US constitution was ready for signing.

The Bill of Rights, considered then as now an essential part of the US constitution, took another three years to complete.

Obviously, despite the fact that the American Revolution was running out of money, the US Founding Fathers took their time about formulating a document which they could all sign with an easy conscience.

In the same manner, it behoves Sri Lankans to be patient while a solution which is acceptable to all ethnic groups in the country is hammered out through democratic discussion and debate.

Surely this is better than forcing a half-baked, un-discussed and unwanted ‘solution’, which may create even more problems in the future, down the throats of all communities. In this case, the old saw ‘less haste, more speed’ is truly applicable.